Yes its quite standard to get a right of reply as LOTO - and its far lower scale and will have a fraction of the audience. Honestly absurd to fret about it.
Indeed. There is obviously a perfectly simple, straight-forward pandemic policy that would avoid the pitfalls and ambiguities the government has encountered due to their prejudice and incompetence. Tonight is the first opportunity for Sir Keir to explain what it is. An excellent use of taxpayers' money.
To say the "peak" was the 8th, on the basis of the daily data, but to completely ignore the 7-day average that puts the peak much later, is I think misleading.
Why are people so invested in the peak being the 8th rather than later?
Because a lot of people back on the 14th or so said Sweden was "past the peak" and they've invested a lot of their clout in being 'right'.
Could Starmer have done a statement after previous PM statements, such as at the start of lockdown?
Yes, if he has something to say.
So he should too. Imagine if we didn't permit the LOTO to get a right of reply and the government put the nation into lockdown for nefarious reasons and the LOTO wanted to say why we shouldn't be locked down but couldn't get a right of reply? Its absurd and preposterous on the face of it.
People are really committed to making the 8th the peak.
Literally any other bucketing of data makes it the 15th/16th.
It doesn't even change the message much. But all it takes is a single death being added to the 15th and they'll all need to start talking about the double peak.
That might actually mean Sweden is on a plateau rather than a decline due to the lagginess of its data. (I think it probably is).
Based on the historical amounts that have been added they are on a (very) gentle decline.
I saw a comment on the Lockdown Sceptics site, which said that the herd immunity threshold could be much lower than assumed, and it could make sense.
Some people are more socially connected than others due to their jobs and social status, so if they get infected they become super-spreaders. Suppose that they are immune when they recover and cannot transmit the infection. This would break up the human social network, as a recovered and immune person who is socially connected to another person cannot infect them. Complex network theory can then be used to prove that this could disrupt the epidemic due to the nodes (people) with the highest number of connections to other people being the first people to become immune to the virus. Depending on the properties of the network, this can retard the epidemic faster than the removal of many more people due to their recovery who have a smaller number of social connections. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few weeks as restrictions are reduced in countries across Europe.
I might be wrong, but i thought i heard we were getting something this week.
Imma guess ....... 14.32835%. Exactly.
Means we need Rt <1.16. Maybe higher if kids don't transmit?</p>
No, Rt needs to be below 1. If 1/7 of the population have had the virus an Rt of 1 would indicate a 'but for 1/7th of the population being immune' Rt of 1.16.
But Rt as measured at that point with that immunity needs to be below 1 still.
Much easier to be an Opposition rather than a Government right now, but Starmer has the right skills and temperament, so that at the least he has the potential to be what is needed to lead (politically lead, not just rally the converted). It'll be very interesting to see him develop.
They might do, though if Trump is re elected the odds would not favour Pence or Haley.
No party has won a third term in the White House since 1988.
Pence, Haley or maybe Romney might have a better chance of winning against President Biden or his VP if he wins in November
I suppose a lot depends on the scale of the defeat. IF the GOP contrive to lose the Senate as well as the White House, I think Pence's chances will be reduced.
If the GOP lose narrowly and hold the Senate, I think Pence could well be the challenger to Biden (or whoever) in 2024 but that's not saying he would be unchallenged. Haley might well enter the race but what about current FL Governor Ron DeSantis as the GOP challenger?
I suppose DeSantis could run as VP to Pence in 2024 but as you say historically winning that third term is a big ask.
Perhaps Pence's best chance at the top job is to emulate Nixon, lose and then sit out the next election so even in 2028 he could run against a Democrat - not likely to be Biden.
Starmer’s exactly the most dangerous opponent for Johnson because he accentuates all Johnson’s weaknesses. His hesitancy, his confusion, his lack of grasp of detail, his disorganisation, his bluster, his demagoguery. He’s also somebody who cannot be dismissed, as Corbyn could be, as a lightweight threat to national security. It’s disheartening to reflect that Corbyn would never have said ‘Labour will always put the national interest first’ (although that does in itself mean Starmer was wrong, of course).
Whether that means Starmer will come up with a coherent policy offering (the lack of which was ultimately what did for Corbyn) is another question. But if he had been Labour leader at the last election it’s much less likely I would have abstained.
Watching the parliamentary debate, Boris was fine and on reasonable form, except for a 3-minute spell when he had to answer Starmer's precise questions. Responding to Starmer he seemed to fall apart, was rather nervous, and bumbled a lot. It seems to me that, for whatever reason, he rather fears (and actually respects) Starmer, and is worried about his own ability to master the detail he will need as this continues over the coming months and years in their sparring sessions. Boris knows that he can't just swat Starmer aside with a joke, a bon mot or a bit of Latin, but needs to take him seriously. So, I expect Starmer will, over time, get the upper hand through his methodical approach, and Boris's reputation will take a hit.
If that does become the case I expect Boris/Dom will find an excuse to do away with PMQs. I think you can also be pretty certain that at the next GE he won't be doing any head-to-head debates with Starmer. (he'll be ducking it like Andrew Neill interview last time). Probably make little difference to those who view a GE in the same light as X-factor.
Having the read the government document on the next steps of the Covid-19 strategy the plans sound eminently sensible but Boris Johnson and the leaking/spin on it makes it sound like a clusterfuck.
They might do, though if Trump is re elected the odds would not favour Pence or Haley.
No party has won a third term in the White House since 1988.
Pence, Haley or maybe Romney might have a better chance of winning against President Biden or his VP if he wins in November
I suppose a lot depends on the scale of the defeat. IF the GOP contrive to lose the Senate as well as the White House, I think Pence's chances will be reduced.
If the GOP lose narrowly and hold the Senate, I think Pence could well be the challenger to Biden (or whoever) in 2024 but that's not saying he would be unchallenged. Haley might well enter the race but what about current FL Governor Ron DeSantis as the GOP challenger?
I suppose DeSantis could run as VP to Pence in 2024 but as you say historically winning that third term is a big ask.
Perhaps Pence's best chance at the top job is to emulate Nixon, lose and then sit out the next election so even in 2028 he could run against a Democrat - not likely to be Biden.
Can't see Pence or DeSantis having a good pandemic, so that would work against them.
Man is Boris a waffley speaker at the moment. The childcare question was a really good one, something the government hasn't thought about by the looks of it.
Having the read the government document on the next steps of the Covid-19 strategy the plans sound eminently sensible but Boris Johnson and the leaking/spin on it makes it sound like a clusterfuck.
I cant think of a logical reason why they didnt release it at the same time as the speech.
Hugely impressive by Starmer - Johnson's got a big challenge on his hands.
Yet again he ignores the open goal of migration control.
That might impress middle class stay-at-homers and the metropolitan posh but he'll struggle to win back northern working class voters until he starts showing some empathy.
Having the read the government document on the next steps of the Covid-19 strategy the plans sound eminently sensible but Boris Johnson and the leaking/spin on it makes it sound like a clusterfuck.
I cant think of a logical reason why they didnt release it at the same time as the speech.
Or just release it and then have the speech afterwards summing it up.
I saw a comment on the Lockdown Sceptics site, which said that the herd immunity threshold could be much lower than assumed, and it could make sense.
Some people are more socially connected than others due to their jobs and social status, so if they get infected they become super-spreaders. Suppose that they are immune when they recover and cannot transmit the infection. This would break up the human social network, as a recovered and immune person who is socially connected to another person cannot infect them. Complex network theory can then be used to prove that this could disrupt the epidemic due to the nodes (people) with the highest number of connections to other people being the first people to become immune to the virus. Depending on the properties of the network, this can retard the epidemic faster than the removal of many more people due to their recovery who have a smaller number of social connections. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few weeks as restrictions are reduced in countries across Europe.
There are an awful lot of dependings and supposes in there.
Unfortunately I think the harsh reality is that this is an illness with around a 1% mortality rate, largely killing the elderly and infirm, and that between 60 and 80% of us are all going to get it over the next year or so.
It is a reality that few are willing to face up to yet. Whether they are insisting we can all live under lockdown for the next two years (gambling that a vaccine can be developed in that time, and ignoring the economy), or arguing that it might not be as bad as all that because of super spreaders developing immunity or icebergs of undetected cases or whatever.
The harsh reality is that most of us will get it and some will die. And there is very little that government can do about it, save for a little fiddling round the edges.
People hate feeling powerless. They hate it even more when their gods are powerless. As an astute commentator in a previous thread noticed, we have ascribed many of the omnipotent and omnipresent qualities we used to ascribe to our gods to the machinations of government. It is wilful self-deception.
Having the read the government document on the next steps of the Covid-19 strategy the plans sound eminently sensible but Boris Johnson and the leaking/spin on it makes it sound like a clusterfuck.
I cant think of a logical reason why they didnt release it at the same time as the speech.
Someone said to me the government are treating Covid-19 as an election campaign, like Covid-19 gives a crap what the government says or leaks.
Having the read the government document on the next steps of the Covid-19 strategy the plans sound eminently sensible but Boris Johnson and the leaking/spin on it makes it sound like a clusterfuck.
Having the read the government document on the next steps of the Covid-19 strategy the plans sound eminently sensible but Boris Johnson and the leaking/spin on it makes it sound like a clusterfuck.
Politicians are often guilty of too much self-damaging chatter and thinking themselves cleverer than they are.
I think what they are trying to do is get people from the mindset of stay at home at all costs to a mindset of one that is getting back to work in the next couple of weeks...but doing a really bad job of communicating it.
Anyone who can't work from home but can go to work in a covid secure environment, has their own transport to get there and doesn't have childcare issues.
Slightly flippantly and not wishing to be a kill-joy but all this meeting in the park, exercising in the park etc does kind of assume we aren't going to get the usual British summer. Given that we have had 6 weeks of good weather what are the odds of it now pissing down for most of June and July? All the outdoors stuff would be wonderful if we were living in Spain or the South of France.
It definitely seems like the government are going with personal responsibility...it didn't go well when they tried it rather than a lockdown....not sure it is going to go well now.
Anyone who can't work from home but can go to work in a covid secure environment, has their own transport to get there and doesn't have childcare issues.
Is that difficult?
Its quite amazing but that seems to apply to everyone where I work.
And it must also apply to the millions of people who have never stopped working.
Perhaps you could engage the substance of the tweets?
Or is moaning the only thing you're good at?
I've been trying but if there was any real substance to them it would be meaningful to engage.
People acting as if everyone in the entire country uses public transport (85% of workers don't in normal circumstances) etc are just imbeciles.
Yes some people may not be able to go back to work, that's why they're saying those who can should. Its not complicated just because it doesn't apply to everyone. And if you ask a question and get a "No" as your answer don't whine the question wasn't answered.
Anyone who can't work from home but can go to work in a covid secure environment, has their own transport to get there and doesn't have childcare issues.
Is that difficult?
Its quite amazing but that seems to apply to everyone where I work.
And it must also apply to the millions of people who have never stopped working.
It also applies to those who are not suffering from Brexit Derangement Syndrome and to those who are capable of using a bit of common sense.
Too many people in this country aren't happy to take No as an answer.
The more explicit answer would have been as follows:
* Childcare and schools may or may not be opening for a long time, and even if they do the children will only return part-time until this is all over, because (a) social distancing and (b) a lot of the nurseries probably won't survive financially * Consequently, a parent will be stuck at home babysitting the kids for at least part of every week for the duration * Therefore, if parents can't fit their work around their childcare commitments then they will have to give up work. This will create a lot of households with only one breadwinner where there were previously two, and a lot more living off Universal Credit for the duration
He won't say that because it's too grim. But it's true. The furlough scheme won't be around to keep these working parents in a wage forever, and employers won't keep paying them to sit at home after that just because they plead kiddycare.
The parents will end up losing their jobs. Other people who don't have the same responsibilities will take them on instead.
Anyone who can't work from home but can go to work in a covid secure environment, has their own transport to get there and doesn't have childcare issues.
Is that difficult?
Its quite amazing but that seems to apply to everyone where I work.
And it must also apply to the millions of people who have never stopped working.
As I keep saying where do people think food in supermarkets comes from. Millions of people are still at work in a safe environment following government guidelines. People on furlough seem are quite happy for them to continue at work as long as they don’t have to
Having the read the government document on the next steps of the Covid-19 strategy the plans sound eminently sensible but Boris Johnson and the leaking/spin on it makes it sound like a clusterfuck.
I cant think of a logical reason why they didnt release it at the same time as the speech.
It hasn't been written? Certainly it probably hasn't been completed and signed off
It definitely seems like the government are going with personal responsibility...it didn't go well when they tried it rather than a lockdown....not sure it is going to go well now.
That would be fine if they just said that.
The problem is that people like @Philip_Thompson are defending what they want the Government to say, not what the Government has actually said.
Too many people in this country aren't happy to take No as an answer.
The more explicit answer would have been as follows:
* Childcare and schools may or may not be opening for a long time, and even if they do the children will only return part-time until this is all over, because (a) social distancing and (b) a lot of the nurseries probably won't survive financially * Consequently, a parent will be stuck at home babysitting the kids for at least part of every week for the duration * Therefore, if parents can't fit their work around their childcare commitments then they will have to give up work. This will create a lot of households with only one breadwinner where there were previously two, and a lot more living off Universal Credit for the duration
He won't say that because it's too grim. But it's true. The furlough scheme won't be around to keep these working parents in a wage forever, and employers won't keep paying them to sit at home after that just because they plead kiddycare.
The parents will end up losing their jobs. Other people who don't have the same responsibilities will take them on instead.
I don't think they also want to say that until a vaccine is found, this will be the new normal. Instead trying to focus on some potential goodies in a couple of months.
I think a lot of people probably still think another month or two and be back to how things were. But the reality is, this could be all our new normals for the next 2 years.
Too many people in this country aren't happy to take No as an answer.
The more explicit answer would have been as follows:
* Childcare and schools may or may not be opening for a long time, and even if they do the children will only return part-time until this is all over, because (a) social distancing and (b) a lot of the nurseries probably won't survive financially * Consequently, a parent will be stuck at home babysitting the kids for at least part of every week for the duration * Therefore, if parents can't fit their work around their childcare commitments then they will have to give up work. This will create a lot of households with only one breadwinner where there were previously two, and a lot more living off Universal Credit for the duration
He won't say that because it's too grim. But it's true. The furlough scheme won't be around to keep these working parents in a wage forever, and employers won't keep paying them to sit at home after that just because they plead kiddycare.
The parents will end up losing their jobs. Other people who don't have the same responsibilities will take them on instead.
Good post. I`m concerned that the public are getting the impression that if they don`t go to work they can continue to draw furlough payments when the truth is (I think) that only eligible firms - i.e. those that are barred from opening - can apply on behalf of their employees. I can`t believe that no one is asking for clarification on this, either this afternoon in the Commons or this evening.
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.
I actually think that Simon's question should prompt a rethink on schools for the children of people who can go back to work but wouldn't be able to without having childcare. It's definitely a huge oversight for many, many working age people. My brother in law comes to mind.
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.
So your assumption, contrary to others, is that if an employee decides not to go back to work, even though the employer is operational again, he/she will still be able to draw furlough?
Whichever political party you support, and even recognising how difficult this must be for the Government, you cannot deny that this has been a shit show of epic proportions.
Comments
Drive-Thru Strip Club Serves Up Sexy (And Safe) Solution For Coronavirus Blues
Lucky Devil Lounge in Oregon has come up with yet another innovative, fun and sexy idea to keep income — and customers — coming during the pandemic.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/drive-thru-strip-club-coronavirus_n_5eac4c0ec5b624b39692963d
I wonder if Stringfellows and the Peppermint Hippos will do something similar here?
https://twitter.com/Millar_Colin/status/1259905525250211842
https://twitter.com/stevedaviesseo/status/1259902808326897671
So it would have been Corbyn waffling on about how allotments should have been excluded.
So he should too. Imagine if we didn't permit the LOTO to get a right of reply and the government put the nation into lockdown for nefarious reasons and the LOTO wanted to say why we shouldn't be locked down but couldn't get a right of reply? Its absurd and preposterous on the face of it.
Not so easy when Lab have a credible leader is it?
Some people are more socially connected than others due to their jobs and social status, so if they get infected they become super-spreaders. Suppose that they are immune when they recover and cannot transmit the infection. This would break up the human social network, as a recovered and immune person who is socially connected to another person cannot infect them. Complex network theory can then be used to prove that this could disrupt the epidemic due to the nodes (people) with the highest number of connections to other people being the first people to become immune to the virus. Depending on the properties of the network, this can retard the epidemic faster than the removal of many more people due to their recovery who have a smaller number of social connections. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few weeks as restrictions are reduced in countries across Europe.
Part of me simultaneously still thinks March was only yesterday and a decade ago.
But Rt as measured at that point with that immunity needs to be below 1 still.
A distant memory from those heady, carefree pre-Covid-19 days.
If the GOP lose narrowly and hold the Senate, I think Pence could well be the challenger to Biden (or whoever) in 2024 but that's not saying he would be unchallenged. Haley might well enter the race but what about current FL Governor Ron DeSantis as the GOP challenger?
I suppose DeSantis could run as VP to Pence in 2024 but as you say historically winning that third term is a big ask.
Perhaps Pence's best chance at the top job is to emulate Nixon, lose and then sit out the next election so even in 2028 he could run against a Democrat - not likely to be Biden.
Whether that means Starmer will come up with a coherent policy offering (the lack of which was ultimately what did for Corbyn) is another question. But if he had been Labour leader at the last election it’s much less likely I would have abstained.
https://twitter.com/fatshez/status/1259910585099132929
https://twitter.com/acatherwoodnews/status/1259911126625783813
Sounds more like the world cup finals.
That might impress middle class stay-at-homers and the metropolitan posh but he'll struggle to win back northern working class voters until he starts showing some empathy.
Unfortunately I think the harsh reality is that this is an illness with around a 1% mortality rate, largely killing the elderly and infirm, and that between 60 and 80% of us are all going to get it over the next year or so.
It is a reality that few are willing to face up to yet. Whether they are insisting we can all live under lockdown for the next two years (gambling that a vaccine can be developed in that time, and ignoring the economy), or arguing that it might not be as bad as all that because of super spreaders developing immunity or icebergs of undetected cases or whatever.
The harsh reality is that most of us will get it and some will die. And there is very little that government can do about it, save for a little fiddling round the edges.
People hate feeling powerless. They hate it even more when their gods are powerless. As an astute commentator in a previous thread noticed, we have ascribed many of the omnipotent and omnipresent qualities we used to ascribe to our gods to the machinations of government. It is wilful self-deception.
No is an answer.
Too many people in this country aren't happy to take No as an answer.
Boris Johnson, clusterfuck.
FFS
Is that difficult?
'David Icke is a very smart man.'
He informs me that the lads were delighted to be back at work.
Or is moaning the only thing you're good at?
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1259914422023335937
And it must also apply to the millions of people who have never stopped working.
People acting as if everyone in the entire country uses public transport (85% of workers don't in normal circumstances) etc are just imbeciles.
Yes some people may not be able to go back to work, that's why they're saying those who can should. Its not complicated just because it doesn't apply to everyone. And if you ask a question and get a "No" as your answer don't whine the question wasn't answered.
* Childcare and schools may or may not be opening for a long time, and even if they do the children will only return part-time until this is all over, because (a) social distancing and (b) a lot of the nurseries probably won't survive financially
* Consequently, a parent will be stuck at home babysitting the kids for at least part of every week for the duration
* Therefore, if parents can't fit their work around their childcare commitments then they will have to give up work. This will create a lot of households with only one breadwinner where there were previously two, and a lot more living off Universal Credit for the duration
He won't say that because it's too grim. But it's true. The furlough scheme won't be around to keep these working parents in a wage forever, and employers won't keep paying them to sit at home after that just because they plead kiddycare.
The parents will end up losing their jobs. Other people who don't have the same responsibilities will take them on instead.
The problem is that people like @Philip_Thompson are defending what they want the Government to say, not what the Government has actually said.
I think a lot of people probably still think another month or two and be back to how things were. But the reality is, this could be all our new normals for the next 2 years.
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.
THe boss angrily refuses.
The man emotionally thanks the boss for being so understanding and getting him out of such a dreadful chore.
Genius!