I am concerned about Boris's health and less certain that he is going to make a quick recovery to his former self and indeed, as has been suggested by some, he may have to look to a quieter life with Carrie and his son once we have passed January 2021
I'm inclined to agree. I thought he looked good on Sunday's broadcast but he was probably made-up well. He's still looking pretty rough. There does seem to be some evidence surrounding long-term damage for those who have copped this virus worst.
I feel rather sorry for him tbh and I never thought I would.
I am concerned about Boris's health and less certain that he is going to make a quick recovery to his former self and indeed, as has been suggested by some, he may have to look to a quieter life with Carrie and his son once we have passed January 2021
I'm inclined to agree. I thought he looked good on Sunday's broadcast but he was probably made-up well. He's still looking pretty rough. There does seem to be some evidence surrounding long-term damage for those who have copped this virus worst.
I feel rather sorry for him tbh and I never thought I would.
To have had something you were so keen on, then achieved it, and while you have had it gone on to a great victory, and then to have that thing snatched from your grasp seems like something by Euripides in a bad mood.
The guidance says "this will be updated shortly" Until it's updated, it remains valid.
It wasn't updated on the 26th of February, or the 27th. Or the 28th or 29th.
Or the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th of March. Or the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, or 11th.
It was still up there, saying "there isn't any community transmission and we'll update this shortly" on the 12th of March.
If it was still up there saying the same thing today, would Boris be saying, "Aha, but it says it'll be updated shortly, so you can't use this against me!"
I am not saying it holds together but the guidance also says that it was applicable when there was no transmission of the virus in the community. It was self evidently superseded as soon as that ceased to be the case which was well before the 12th. Of course it should have been taken down earlier but hey, its not like the government has nothing else to do.
This crisis has so many aspects that it is much easier for someone like Starmer to forensically examine detail and interrogate that detail.
However, this has a long way to go and there is a need to keep a lid on excessive attacks, as I doubt the public will look on political point scoring well
I am concerned about Boris's health and less certain that he is going to make a quick recovery to his former self and indeed, as has been suggested by some, he may have to look to a quieter life with Carrie and his son once we have passed January 2021
There is a once in a hundred year pandemic going on, I doubt he gets much sleep, he will be as busy as hell and a month ago he was in ICU. Taking that into account I think he looks pretty good.
Indeed and after this depression we should see the biggest economic recovery since the postwar period. Why go through the worst period and then bugger off before the recovery?
I remember much similar when we introduced electronic voting in our council chamber, replacing the previous show of hands and officer count. Each councillor had three buttons in front of them marked yes, no, and not voting. It was remarkable how often someone would get it wrong, to much hilarity around the chamber as their vote against their colleagues flashed up on the big screen and their fellow councillors tried to get them to put their vote right,
After watching this happen over and over, I concluded that there was a certain type of councillor who didnt really listen to or think about the debate, who could easily become lost without the prompt of everyone around them raising their hands at the apposite moments.
The guidance says "this will be updated shortly" Until it's updated, it remains valid.
It wasn't updated on the 26th of February, or the 27th. Or the 28th or 29th.
Or the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th of March. Or the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, or 11th.
It was still up there, saying "there isn't any community transmission and we'll update this shortly" on the 12th of March.
If it was still up there saying the same thing today, would Boris be saying, "Aha, but it says it'll be updated shortly, so you can't use this against me!"
I am not saying it holds together but the guidance also says that it was applicable when there was no transmission of the virus in the community. It was self evidently superseded as soon as that ceased to be the case which was well before the 12th. Of course it should have been taken down earlier but hey, its not like the government has nothing else to do.
Precisely. They specifically put the disclaimer in there limiting its applicability, why do people think that disclaimer was in that paragraph?
Quite. Almost as destructive as that Andrew Neil empty chair video...
The mistake the Johnson fanclub are making is assuming that everything he got away with in the past when Corbyn was LOTO he will continue to get away with.
Southam Observer was correct in his earlier observation that the Tories entire strategy at the last GE was built on Corbyn being their opponent. Times have changed, what worked then is not necessarily going to work now.
This crisis has so many aspects that it is much easier for someone like Starmer to forensically examine detail and interrogate that detail.
However, this has a long way to go and there is a need to keep a lid on excessive attacks, as I doubt the public will look on political point scoring well
I am concerned about Boris's health and less certain that he is going to make a quick recovery to his former self and indeed, as has been suggested by some, he may have to look to a quieter life with Carrie and his son once we have passed January 2021
I don't think you should be looking at good or bad days for the government. We just need to get through this horrendous event with as little direct or collateral damage to UK citizens as possible.
If Boris is still well under the weather and can't handle Starmer's questioning to any great degree because of Covid-19 he needs to sit this out for six months and temporarily pass the baton to someone who is match fit. Sunak maybe, but not Raab.
On topic 5% of employed people having lost their jobs does not mean that 1 in 20 Britons have lost their job. It ignores the self employed, the retired, full time students etc etc. From memory there are about 33m people working in the UK but about 7m are self employed. 5% would therefore be 1.3m (which is horrific, I am not pretending otherwise).
The guidance says "this will be updated shortly" Until it's updated, it remains valid.
It wasn't updated on the 26th of February, or the 27th. Or the 28th or 29th.
Or the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th of March. Or the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, or 11th.
It was still up there, saying "there isn't any community transmission and we'll update this shortly" on the 12th of March.
If it was still up there saying the same thing today, would Boris be saying, "Aha, but it says it'll be updated shortly, so you can't use this against me!"
I am not saying it holds together but the guidance also says that it was applicable when there was no transmission of the virus in the community. It was self evidently superseded as soon as that ceased to be the case which was well before the 12th. Of course it should have been taken down earlier but hey, its not like the government has nothing else to do.
We need to distinguish between the government, ie Boris and his gang, and government in general, the whole state bureaucracy.
I would be surprised if there weren't IT and media people in government whose job was to check that official websites were up to date and appropriate.
I want to go on holiday. Two weeks by the sea, just watching the sky, the shadows of the clouds on the water, listening to the sound of the waves rolling across the shingle, breathing the spray-fresh air, feeling the wind in my face. Actually, make it three weeks.
I should have been driving across Europe toward the Alps this afternoon. Instead the highlight of my day has been taking the dog to the local park. The same as almost every day since March.
I fear the covid crisis is actually taking a turn for the WORSE. That is to say, as it now spreads into the Third World (look at India, slowly but surely picking up) we could see the Rona's ultimate ferocity, and we might see the really apocalyptic numbers come true
Nevertheless your own calculation of two million dead Brits looks just as absurd now as it did the day you first posted it up here on PB.
This crisis has so many aspects that it is much easier for someone like Starmer to forensically examine detail and interrogate that detail.
However, this has a long way to go and there is a need to keep a lid on excessive attacks, as I doubt the public will look on political point scoring well
I am concerned about Boris's health and less certain that he is going to make a quick recovery to his former self and indeed, as has been suggested by some, he may have to look to a quieter life with Carrie and his son once we have passed January 2021
There is a once in a hundred year pandemic going on, I doubt he gets much sleep, he will be as busy as hell and a month ago he was in ICU. Taking that into account I think he looks pretty good.
Indeed and after this depression we should see the biggest economic recovery since the postwar period. Why go through the worst period and then bugger off before the recovery?
The guidance says "this will be updated shortly" Until it's updated, it remains valid.
It wasn't updated on the 26th of February, or the 27th. Or the 28th or 29th.
Or the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th of March. Or the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, or 11th.
It was still up there, saying "there isn't any community transmission and we'll update this shortly" on the 12th of March.
If it was still up there saying the same thing today, would Boris be saying, "Aha, but it says it'll be updated shortly, so you can't use this against me!"
I am not saying it holds together but the guidance also says that it was applicable when there was no transmission of the virus in the community. It was self evidently superseded as soon as that ceased to be the case which was well before the 12th. Of course it should have been taken down earlier but hey, its not like the government has nothing else to do.
We need to distinguish between the government, ie Boris and his gang, and government in general, the whole state bureaucracy.
I would be surprised if there weren't IT and media people in government whose job was to check that official websites were up to date and appropriate.
Well there certainly ought to be for something as important as guidance in the middle of a pandemic. But Starmer is making much more out of this than he really should be. There are so many more important targets.
I want to go on holiday. Two weeks by the sea, just watching the sky, the shadows of the clouds on the water, listening to the sound of the waves rolling across the shingle, breathing the spray-fresh air, feeling the wind in my face. Actually, make it three weeks.
I should have been driving across Europe toward the Alps this afternoon. Instead the highlight of my day has been taking the dog to the local park. The same as almost every day since March.
This crisis has so many aspects that it is much easier for someone like Starmer to forensically examine detail and interrogate that detail.
However, this has a long way to go and there is a need to keep a lid on excessive attacks, as I doubt the public will look on political point scoring well
I am concerned about Boris's health and less certain that he is going to make a quick recovery to his former self and indeed, as has been suggested by some, he may have to look to a quieter life with Carrie and his son once we have passed January 2021
There is a once in a hundred year pandemic going on, I doubt he gets much sleep, he will be as busy as hell and a month ago he was in ICU. Taking that into account I think he looks pretty good.
Indeed and after this depression we should see the biggest economic recovery since the postwar period. Why go through the worst period and then bugger off before the recovery?
Fast or slow, is the question. Very slow, it appears right now.
I guess regardless of how descends into claim and counter claim, for Starmer it is job done. Bad headlines for the government, Boris bashed at PMQs. Bit like the dodgy Delboy dossier, by the time anybody actually checked these people were full of shit and neither PPE suppliers nor contacted the government properly, it had highlighted issues with PPE and story moved on.
I am told that more than one pollster that asks the question 'What (Covid-19) news item have you noticed the most in the past week?' the runaway winner is that the UK has the second highest deaths in the world in totality.
Second is care homes.
Social media posts (particularly the ones on Facebook) are totally destroying the reputation of the government.
These users are older people who use Facebook to see pictures of their family, and now their friends are sharing posts that are about the death figures/disaster in care homes.
I said at the time that it is the narrative is what counts. It may be correct that Italy is underreporting their deaths and Belgium has a higher pro rata death rate but that is not what people are remembering. What is registering is the "Most deaths in Europe" and "Care home disaster".
Quite. Almost as destructive as that Andrew Neil empty chair video...
The mistake the Johnson fanclub are making is assuming that everything he got away with in the past when Corbyn was LOTO he will continue to get away with.
Southam Observer was correct in his earlier observation that the Tories entire strategy at the last GE was built on Corbyn being their opponent. Times have changed, what worked then is not necessarily going to work now.
There is nothing good about Corbyn, and there wasn't about Brown either. Johnson now has to deal with a Labour leader who shouldn't be shot on sight. I think he'll be up to it, but we'll see.
I want to go on holiday. Two weeks by the sea, just watching the sky, the shadows of the clouds on the water, listening to the sound of the waves rolling across the shingle, breathing the spray-fresh air, feeling the wind in my face. Actually, make it three weeks.
I should have been driving across Europe toward the Alps this afternoon. Instead the highlight of my day has been taking the dog to the local park. The same as almost every day since March.
We were going to Japan. Now it's Whitstable.
We were going parent visiting in Wales last month, and to York Races in this one.
As it is, we've not left town since the start of lockdown. And might not again before the Autumn, at the rate things are going.
This crisis has so many aspects that it is much easier for someone like Starmer to forensically examine detail and interrogate that detail.
However, this has a long way to go and there is a need to keep a lid on excessive attacks, as I doubt the public will look on political point scoring well
I am concerned about Boris's health and less certain that he is going to make a quick recovery to his former self and indeed, as has been suggested by some, he may have to look to a quieter life with Carrie and his son once we have passed January 2021
There is a once in a hundred year pandemic going on, I doubt he gets much sleep, he will be as busy as hell and a month ago he was in ICU. Taking that into account I think he looks pretty good.
Indeed and after this depression we should see the biggest economic recovery since the postwar period. Why go through the worst period and then bugger off before the recovery?
I expect he will only go if his health demands it
It is possible but I hope he sees it through to 2024
I fear the covid crisis is actually taking a turn for the WORSE. That is to say, as it now spreads into the Third World (look at India, slowly but surely picking up) we could see the Rona's ultimate ferocity, and we might see the really apocalyptic numbers come true
Nevertheless your own calculation of two million dead Brits looks just as absurd now as it did the day you first posted it up here on PB.
I`ve went with 300,000 at the start of all this and have not revised the figure.
I want to go on holiday. Two weeks by the sea, just watching the sky, the shadows of the clouds on the water, listening to the sound of the waves rolling across the shingle, breathing the spray-fresh air, feeling the wind in my face. Actually, make it three weeks.
I should have been driving across Europe toward the Alps this afternoon. Instead the highlight of my day has been taking the dog to the local park. The same as almost every day since March.
We were going to Japan. Now it's Whitstable.
Lockdown must have been really bad for some....
BBC Radio Lincolnshire reporter Scott Dalton has been to the beach in Skegness to see how many people were out and about after the government's easing of lockdown restrictions.
He said it remained very quiet, though he spoke to a family who had driven two hours from Sheffield - within the new regulations - for a "change of scenery
I think this is going to backfire for Starmer, he'll be seen as politicising the disaster unnecessarily and using selective quoting from PHE isn't a good look. The reply from the PM will get more airtime than the original accusation.
Oh don't be silly, the public LOVE nit-picking lawyers getting a win on a technicality
Boris and SKS both have a tough brief, but Sir K's is harder. Boris has to say NHS is brilliant and government is pretty good. Starmer has to say NHS is outstandingly brilliant and never does anything wrong but that the government happens to be responsible for the terrible health crisis we are all in even though the NHS and all care workers are all brilliant etc. Both positions are rubbish of course, but Starmer's makes even less sense than Boris's.
This crisis has so many aspects that it is much easier for someone like Starmer to forensically examine detail and interrogate that detail.
However, this has a long way to go and there is a need to keep a lid on excessive attacks, as I doubt the public will look on political point scoring well
I am concerned about Boris's health and less certain that he is going to make a quick recovery to his former self and indeed, as has been suggested by some, he may have to look to a quieter life with Carrie and his son once we have passed January 2021
There is a once in a hundred year pandemic going on, I doubt he gets much sleep, he will be as busy as hell and a month ago he was in ICU. Taking that into account I think he looks pretty good.
Indeed and after this depression we should see the biggest economic recovery since the postwar period. Why go through the worst period and then bugger off before the recovery?
Fast or slow, is the question. Very slow, it appears right now.
There won't be any recovery right now, but once the breaks are removed next year (and I fully expect us all to be vaccinated by this time next year) then people will want to celebrate and move on with life.
I want to go on holiday. Two weeks by the sea, just watching the sky, the shadows of the clouds on the water, listening to the sound of the waves rolling across the shingle, breathing the spray-fresh air, feeling the wind in my face. Actually, make it three weeks.
I should have been driving across Europe toward the Alps this afternoon. Instead the highlight of my day has been taking the dog to the local park. The same as almost every day since March.
We were going to Japan. Now it's Whitstable.
We were going parent visiting in Wales last month, and to York Races in this one.
As it is, we've not left town since the start of lockdown. And might not again before the Autumn, at the rate things are going.
We were supposed to visit family in Vegas last month, and then stop off in New Orleans on the way back. Don't mind missing LV again: S-i-l and family are planning to move back to the East Coast in the next couple of years and I won't be sad if I never see Vegas again, but we still haven't met our new niece, which is sad. I was looking forward to the Big Easy though.
The guidance says "this will be updated shortly" Until it's updated, it remains valid.
It wasn't updated on the 26th of February, or the 27th. Or the 28th or 29th.
Or the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th of March. Or the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, or 11th.
It was still up there, saying "there isn't any community transmission and we'll update this shortly" on the 12th of March.
If it was still up there saying the same thing today, would Boris be saying, "Aha, but it says it'll be updated shortly, so you can't use this against me!"
I am not saying it holds together but the guidance also says that it was applicable when there was no transmission of the virus in the community. It was self evidently superseded as soon as that ceased to be the case which was well before the 12th. Of course it should have been taken down earlier but hey, its not like the government has nothing else to do.
We need to distinguish between the government, ie Boris and his gang, and government in general, the whole state bureaucracy.
I would be surprised if there weren't IT and media people in government whose job was to check that official websites were up to date and appropriate.
Well there certainly ought to be for something as important as guidance in the middle of a pandemic. But Starmer is making much more out of this than he really should be. There are so many more important targets.
It does seem a bit obscure when he could have challenged face masks and close proximity on public transport
I want to go on holiday. Two weeks by the sea, just watching the sky, the shadows of the clouds on the water, listening to the sound of the waves rolling across the shingle, breathing the spray-fresh air, feeling the wind in my face. Actually, make it three weeks.
I should have been driving across Europe toward the Alps this afternoon. Instead the highlight of my day has been taking the dog to the local park. The same as almost every day since March.
We were going to Japan. Now it's Whitstable.
I'm sure Whitstable has its own version of Bushido for you to explore.
I want to go on holiday. Two weeks by the sea, just watching the sky, the shadows of the clouds on the water, listening to the sound of the waves rolling across the shingle, breathing the spray-fresh air, feeling the wind in my face. Actually, make it three weeks.
I should have been driving across Europe toward the Alps this afternoon. Instead the highlight of my day has been taking the dog to the local park. The same as almost every day since March.
We were going to Japan. Now it's Whitstable.
We were going parent visiting in Wales last month, and to York Races in this one.
As it is, we've not left town since the start of lockdown. And might not again before the Autumn, at the rate things are going.
We were supposed to visit family in Vegas last month, and then stop off in New Orleans on the way back. Don't mind missing LV again: S-i-l and family are planning to move back to the East Coast in the next couple of years and I won't be sad if I never see Vegas again, but we still haven't met our new niece, which is sad. I was looking forward to the Big Easy though.
I`ve just cancelled our July trip to Grenada, Caribbean. It`s the children I feel most sorry for.
This crisis has so many aspects that it is much easier for someone like Starmer to forensically examine detail and interrogate that detail.
However, this has a long way to go and there is a need to keep a lid on excessive attacks, as I doubt the public will look on political point scoring well
I am concerned about Boris's health and less certain that he is going to make a quick recovery to his former self and indeed, as has been suggested by some, he may have to look to a quieter life with Carrie and his son once we have passed January 2021
The lazy barsteward should do his job, some application and taking an interest might help. The bollox about his health is just an excuse for when he gets caught doing nothing.
Indeed and after this depression we should see the biggest economic recovery since the postwar period. Why go through the worst period and then bugger off before the recovery?
I doubt many will see it in those terms and that assumes a "V" shape recession which is still to be confirmed.
Percentages can and will be weaponised so we go down 14% and back up 15% which leaves us one point ahead - er no, it leaves us one point behind.
Yes, everyone will be out getting their hair cut and their Big Mac fix but can we really sure it will be a rapid return? I can see why supporters of the Government might earnestly hope it's the case but we'll see.
This crisis has so many aspects that it is much easier for someone like Starmer to forensically examine detail and interrogate that detail.
However, this has a long way to go and there is a need to keep a lid on excessive attacks, as I doubt the public will look on political point scoring well
I am concerned about Boris's health and less certain that he is going to make a quick recovery to his former self and indeed, as has been suggested by some, he may have to look to a quieter life with Carrie and his son once we have passed January 2021
There is a once in a hundred year pandemic going on, I doubt he gets much sleep, he will be as busy as hell and a month ago he was in ICU. Taking that into account I think he looks pretty good.
Indeed and after this depression we should see the biggest economic recovery since the postwar period. Why go through the worst period and then bugger off before the recovery?
Fast or slow, is the question. Very slow, it appears right now.
Not sure why you would say that. If the government does run a £400-500bn deficit this year there will be a substantial economic bounce back. Whether it will be sustainable may be another question.
The real issue is how much of our productive economy is just going to be permanently lost. How many businesses will collapse and not open again and how many will they bring down with them? My total guess is that we will lose 8-10% of our economy. The remaining 90% may well bounce back 10% fairly quickly given that stimulus but that still leaves us short of where we were and sustainability will be an issue.
This crisis has so many aspects that it is much easier for someone like Starmer to forensically examine detail and interrogate that detail.
However, this has a long way to go and there is a need to keep a lid on excessive attacks, as I doubt the public will look on political point scoring well
I am concerned about Boris's health and less certain that he is going to make a quick recovery to his former self and indeed, as has been suggested by some, he may have to look to a quieter life with Carrie and his son once we have passed January 2021
There is a once in a hundred year pandemic going on, I doubt he gets much sleep, he will be as busy as hell and a month ago he was in ICU. Taking that into account I think he looks pretty good.
There you go posting things that are true and reasonable again...
When everyone was saying how great Starmer was doing - even I congratulated Starmer - only Mr Nabavi spotted the out of context quote and figured it out.
Misquoting PHE is disgraceful and playing politics with a disaster and getting caught misleading people about it could backfire and make Starmer more cautious next time. A forensic lawyer should have known better than to so obviously take words out of context.
Having come late to the last thread, I'll offer my 2p worth.
I think the Conservatives will follow something along the following lines in the run up to 2024: 1. To focus on Johnson's supposed merits, even his popularity has waned by 2024. 2. To ignore the opposition leader's (supposed) failings, other than as a by-product of trying to keep Brexit as a defining issue. 3. To focus on the far left's influence instead, claiming that Starmer is merely a puppet of the far left who are still running the show.
The far left could certainly help the Conservatives with the latter if they show they can still carry the key votes on the NEC as happened in 1983.
The main reason I rejoined a couple of weeks ago was so that I could vote for the sane candidates in NEC elections. There is little point Starmer doing well if the Corbynistas undermine what he is trying to achieve.
When is the independent report on anti-semitism finally comes out Starmer wants to publicly rebuke or call for the expulsion of anyone who tries to dismiss the findings and that includes Corbyn himself if he steps out of line.
It does seem a bit obscure when he could have challenged face masks and close proximity on public transport
As we are frequently told on here, public transport is only important to Londoners and no one else cares in the rest of the country.
PB notwithstanding, the evidence of some mass return to public transport is mixed - currently I have a 16-minute service operating from my station which would suggest packed trains and platforms but the figures I've seen suggest only 7% of passengers are back on the tube.
Can you find a busy tube carriage in rush hour? Yes. Is it representative of the whole network? No.
Transport for London and I suspect the train operators are in serious financial trouble and hearing the Government tell people to avoid public transport hasn't helped.
I think this is going to backfire for Starmer, he'll be seen as politicising the disaster unnecessarily and using selective quoting from PHE isn't a good look. The reply from the PM will get more airtime than the original accusation.
I think there is a substantial amount of wishful thinking in that comment.
I want to go on holiday. Two weeks by the sea, just watching the sky, the shadows of the clouds on the water, listening to the sound of the waves rolling across the shingle, breathing the spray-fresh air, feeling the wind in my face. Actually, make it three weeks.
I should have been driving across Europe toward the Alps this afternoon. Instead the highlight of my day has been taking the dog to the local park. The same as almost every day since March.
We were going to Japan. Now it's Whitstable.
Whitstable - it hasn't changed in 40 years. Well, other than the boating lake is now, I think, a golf course.
I want to go on holiday. Two weeks by the sea, just watching the sky, the shadows of the clouds on the water, listening to the sound of the waves rolling across the shingle, breathing the spray-fresh air, feeling the wind in my face. Actually, make it three weeks.
I should have been driving across Europe toward the Alps this afternoon. Instead the highlight of my day has been taking the dog to the local park. The same as almost every day since March.
We were going to Japan. Now it's Whitstable.
Lockdown must have been really bad for some....
BBC Radio Lincolnshire reporter Scott Dalton has been to the beach in Skegness to see how many people were out and about after the government's easing of lockdown restrictions.
He said it remained very quiet, though he spoke to a family who had driven two hours from Sheffield - within the new regulations - for a "change of scenery
SKEGNESS !!!
Skegness, as well as being so bracing, is at the beating heart of God's own country. Its reputation, utterly undeserved, keeps lots of people away from Lincolnshire making it a unique part of England full of empty roads, echoing history and chestnut trees.
This crisis has so many aspects that it is much easier for someone like Starmer to forensically examine detail and interrogate that detail.
However, this has a long way to go and there is a need to keep a lid on excessive attacks, as I doubt the public will look on political point scoring well
I am concerned about Boris's health and less certain that he is going to make a quick recovery to his former self and indeed, as has been suggested by some, he may have to look to a quieter life with Carrie and his son once we have passed January 2021
There is a once in a hundred year pandemic going on, I doubt he gets much sleep, he will be as busy as hell and a month ago he was in ICU. Taking that into account I think he looks pretty good.
Indeed and after this depression we should see the biggest economic recovery since the postwar period. Why go through the worst period and then bugger off before the recovery?
Fast or slow, is the question. Very slow, it appears right now.
Not sure why you would say that. If the government does run a £400-500bn deficit this year there will be a substantial economic bounce back. Whether it will be sustainable may be another question.
The real issue is how much of our productive economy is just going to be permanently lost. How many businesses will collapse and not open again and how many will they bring down with them? My total guess is that we will lose 8-10% of our economy. The remaining 90% may well bounce back 10% fairly quickly given that stimulus but that still leaves us short of where we were and sustainability will be an issue.
If people commute less to the office, and it's less fuel revenue/coffee shop for the economy but they're happier have we lost anything ?
It`s easy to double-count the immunity - I think that is what you have concluded?
R already allows for the current level of immunity. If immunity subequently rises further, R falls as it diverges further from R0.
Right.
R0 is what it would be in the wild. 2.7 or whatever.
R is what it is in practice. Lower than 2.7 due to behaviour (distancing, masks etc) and to whatever level of immunity we have reached.
Below 1, virus in decline.
I still don't quite get what all the discussion is about.
The threshold % of a population at which the spread of infection goes into decline (for shorthand lets use 'immunity', whether by infection and recovery or vaccine) is lower when the Rt (effective reproductive number) is suppressed.
So if Rt was, say (as this article notes) 1.13 in Singapore, once more than 11.5% of the population had immunity, the virus would go into decline even though the Rt is above 1.
Yes - if you generate an R which strips out the immunity effect.
However we can't do this because the data on immunity is not there. So the way the measure is being used, it is simply a measure of the extent to which the virus is (net) spreading or declining in practice.
Thus, by definition, R = 1 is the magic number separating net spread from net decline.
I had NO holidays booked. I have a policy of not booking them till the last minute because my work schedule is very unpredictable, and also because I hate the decision making related to it. Annoys the hell out of my OH.
It`s easy to double-count the immunity - I think that is what you have concluded?
R already allows for the current level of immunity. If immunity subequently rises further, R falls as it diverges further from R0.
Right.
R0 is what it would be in the wild. 2.7 or whatever.
R is what it is in practice. Lower than 2.7 due to behaviour (distancing, masks etc) and to whatever level of immunity we have reached.
Below 1, virus in decline.
I still don't quite get what all the discussion is about.
The threshold % of a population at which the spread of infection goes into decline (for shorthand lets use 'immunity', whether by infection and recovery or vaccine) is lower when the Rt (effective reproductive number) is suppressed.
So if Rt was, say (as this article notes) 1.13 in Singapore, once more than 11.5% of the population had immunity, the virus would go into decline even though the Rt is above 1.
Yes - if you generate an R which strips out the immunity effect.
However we can't do this because the data on immunity is not there. So the way the measure is being used, it is simply a measure of the extent to which the virus is (net) spreading or declining in practice.
Thus, by definition, R = 1 is the magic number separating net spread from net decline.
There's a risk of overthinking this.
Yes, sorry - this was the comment which I changed to 'WRONG. Whoops' in my self-response, once I got what you meant.
Also, Morecambe and Barrow aren't known for their great state of health these days.
No-one goes to Barrow for fun and if you live there dying has quite a bit going for it (not really), but if you want to order a nuclear submarine it is the one stop shop.
This crisis has so many aspects that it is much easier for someone like Starmer to forensically examine detail and interrogate that detail.
However, this has a long way to go and there is a need to keep a lid on excessive attacks, as I doubt the public will look on political point scoring well
I am concerned about Boris's health and less certain that he is going to make a quick recovery to his former self and indeed, as has been suggested by some, he may have to look to a quieter life with Carrie and his son once we have passed January 2021
There is a once in a hundred year pandemic going on, I doubt he gets much sleep, he will be as busy as hell and a month ago he was in ICU. Taking that into account I think he looks pretty good.
Indeed and after this depression we should see the biggest economic recovery since the postwar period. Why go through the worst period and then bugger off before the recovery?
Fast or slow, is the question. Very slow, it appears right now.
Not sure why you would say that. If the government does run a £400-500bn deficit this year there will be a substantial economic bounce back. Whether it will be sustainable may be another question.
The real issue is how much of our productive economy is just going to be permanently lost. How many businesses will collapse and not open again and how many will they bring down with them? My total guess is that we will lose 8-10% of our economy. The remaining 90% may well bounce back 10% fairly quickly given that stimulus but that still leaves us short of where we were and sustainability will be an issue.
If people commute less to the office, and it's less fuel revenue/coffee shop for the economy but they're happier have we lost anything ?
Probably healthier too. I'm exercising an extra 2-3 hours p/w, and cooking lovely meals rather than ordering in or eating in mediocre mid level hotel restaurants whilst travelling...
This crisis has so many aspects that it is much easier for someone like Starmer to forensically examine detail and interrogate that detail.
However, this has a long way to go and there is a need to keep a lid on excessive attacks, as I doubt the public will look on political point scoring well
I am concerned about Boris's health and less certain that he is going to make a quick recovery to his former self and indeed, as has been suggested by some, he may have to look to a quieter life with Carrie and his son once we have passed January 2021
There is a once in a hundred year pandemic going on, I doubt he gets much sleep, he will be as busy as hell and a month ago he was in ICU. Taking that into account I think he looks pretty good.
Indeed and after this depression we should see the biggest economic recovery since the postwar period. Why go through the worst period and then bugger off before the recovery?
Fast or slow, is the question. Very slow, it appears right now.
Not sure why you would say that. If the government does run a £400-500bn deficit this year there will be a substantial economic bounce back. Whether it will be sustainable may be another question.
The real issue is how much of our productive economy is just going to be permanently lost. How many businesses will collapse and not open again and how many will they bring down with them? My total guess is that we will lose 8-10% of our economy. The remaining 90% may well bounce back 10% fairly quickly given that stimulus but that still leaves us short of where we were and sustainability will be an issue.
If people commute less to the office, and it's less fuel revenue/coffee shop for the economy but they're happier have we lost anything ?
If the government wants to raise a lot of money, why not slap a huge wealth tax on all the tyrants and their hangers-on who use the London property market as a way to stash their ill-gotten gains?
It`s easy to double-count the immunity - I think that is what you have concluded?
R already allows for the current level of immunity. If immunity subequently rises further, R falls as it diverges further from R0.
Right.
R0 is what it would be in the wild. 2.7 or whatever.
R is what it is in practice. Lower than 2.7 due to behaviour (distancing, masks etc) and to whatever level of immunity we have reached.
Below 1, virus in decline.
I still don't quite get what all the discussion is about.
The threshold % of a population at which the spread of infection goes into decline (for shorthand lets use 'immunity', whether by infection and recovery or vaccine) is lower when the Rt (effective reproductive number) is suppressed.
So if Rt was, say (as this article notes) 1.13 in Singapore, once more than 11.5% of the population had immunity, the virus would go into decline even though the Rt is above 1.
Yes - if you generate an R which strips out the immunity effect.
However we can't do this because the data on immunity is not there. So the way the measure is being used, it is simply a measure of the extent to which the virus is (net) spreading or declining in practice.
Thus, by definition, R = 1 is the magic number separating net spread from net decline.
There's a risk of overthinking this.
Yep. Virus cases go up, bad. Virus cases decrease, good.
This crisis has so many aspects that it is much easier for someone like Starmer to forensically examine detail and interrogate that detail.
However, this has a long way to go and there is a need to keep a lid on excessive attacks, as I doubt the public will look on political point scoring well
I am concerned about Boris's health and less certain that he is going to make a quick recovery to his former self and indeed, as has been suggested by some, he may have to look to a quieter life with Carrie and his son once we have passed January 2021
There is a once in a hundred year pandemic going on, I doubt he gets much sleep, he will be as busy as hell and a month ago he was in ICU. Taking that into account I think he looks pretty good.
Indeed and after this depression we should see the biggest economic recovery since the postwar period. Why go through the worst period and then bugger off before the recovery?
Fast or slow, is the question. Very slow, it appears right now.
Not sure why you would say that. If the government does run a £400-500bn deficit this year there will be a substantial economic bounce back. Whether it will be sustainable may be another question.
The real issue is how much of our productive economy is just going to be permanently lost. How many businesses will collapse and not open again and how many will they bring down with them? My total guess is that we will lose 8-10% of our economy. The remaining 90% may well bounce back 10% fairly quickly given that stimulus but that still leaves us short of where we were and sustainability will be an issue.
The issue will be the overhang of families and small businesses that need to repair their finances after the crisis. Most will be in saving mode and it is hard to see that most people won’t be avoiding discretionary spending for quite some time, once the initial release-from-lockdown splurge is over.
This crisis has so many aspects that it is much easier for someone like Starmer to forensically examine detail and interrogate that detail.
However, this has a long way to go and there is a need to keep a lid on excessive attacks, as I doubt the public will look on political point scoring well
I am concerned about Boris's health and less certain that he is going to make a quick recovery to his former self and indeed, as has been suggested by some, he may have to look to a quieter life with Carrie and his son once we have passed January 2021
There is a once in a hundred year pandemic going on, I doubt he gets much sleep, he will be as busy as hell and a month ago he was in ICU. Taking that into account I think he looks pretty good.
Indeed and after this depression we should see the biggest economic recovery since the postwar period. Why go through the worst period and then bugger off before the recovery?
Fast or slow, is the question. Very slow, it appears right now.
Not sure why you would say that. If the government does run a £400-500bn deficit this year there will be a substantial economic bounce back. Whether it will be sustainable may be another question.
The real issue is how much of our productive economy is just going to be permanently lost. How many businesses will collapse and not open again and how many will they bring down with them? My total guess is that we will lose 8-10% of our economy. The remaining 90% may well bounce back 10% fairly quickly given that stimulus but that still leaves us short of where we were and sustainability will be an issue.
If people commute less to the office, and it's less fuel revenue/coffee shop for the economy but they're happier have we lost anything ?
You`ve answered your own question. It all boils down to happiness - so If happier then that person has gained.
Though how anyone can be happier given the current state of things is beyond my comprehension.
I had NO holidays booked. I have a policy of not booking them till the last minute because my work schedule is very unpredictable, and also because I hate the decision making related to it. Annoys the hell out of my OH.
This year it has really paid dividends.
You’re not on holiday and neither are we, who have had to cancel. Funny idea of a dividend.
This crisis has so many aspects that it is much easier for someone like Starmer to forensically examine detail and interrogate that detail.
However, this has a long way to go and there is a need to keep a lid on excessive attacks, as I doubt the public will look on political point scoring well
I am concerned about Boris's health and less certain that he is going to make a quick recovery to his former self and indeed, as has been suggested by some, he may have to look to a quieter life with Carrie and his son once we have passed January 2021
There is a once in a hundred year pandemic going on, I doubt he gets much sleep, he will be as busy as hell and a month ago he was in ICU. Taking that into account I think he looks pretty good.
Indeed and after this depression we should see the biggest economic recovery since the postwar period. Why go through the worst period and then bugger off before the recovery?
Fast or slow, is the question. Very slow, it appears right now.
Not sure why you would say that. If the government does run a £400-500bn deficit this year there will be a substantial economic bounce back. Whether it will be sustainable may be another question.
The real issue is how much of our productive economy is just going to be permanently lost. How many businesses will collapse and not open again and how many will they bring down with them? My total guess is that we will lose 8-10% of our economy. The remaining 90% may well bounce back 10% fairly quickly given that stimulus but that still leaves us short of where we were and sustainability will be an issue.
If people commute less to the office, and it's less fuel revenue/coffee shop for the economy but they're happier have we lost anything ?
At the end of all this, more so than any typical recession, there are going to be winners and losers. A lot of people who are still in work will find that their quality of life will have improved no end, and many of them will find themselves with more disposable income into the bargain. At least until the tax rises bite...
We'll also end up with an awful lot more people long-term unemployed or labouring for a pittance in really shit conditions, for whom the ordeal will just carry on.
It`s easy to double-count the immunity - I think that is what you have concluded?
R already allows for the current level of immunity. If immunity subequently rises further, R falls as it diverges further from R0.
Right.
R0 is what it would be in the wild. 2.7 or whatever.
R is what it is in practice. Lower than 2.7 due to behaviour (distancing, masks etc) and to whatever level of immunity we have reached.
Below 1, virus in decline.
I still don't quite get what all the discussion is about.
The threshold % of a population at which the spread of infection goes into decline (for shorthand lets use 'immunity', whether by infection and recovery or vaccine) is lower when the Rt (effective reproductive number) is suppressed.
So if Rt was, say (as this article notes) 1.13 in Singapore, once more than 11.5% of the population had immunity, the virus would go into decline even though the Rt is above 1.
Yes - if you generate an R which strips out the immunity effect.
However we can't do this because the data on immunity is not there. So the way the measure is being used, it is simply a measure of the extent to which the virus is (net) spreading or declining in practice.
Thus, by definition, R = 1 is the magic number separating net spread from net decline.
There's a risk of overthinking this.
Yes, sorry - this was the comment which I changed to 'WRONG. Whoops' in my self-response, once I got what you meant.
Right. I replied because you are not wrong as such. It would be possible (and potentially useful) to separate immunity from behaviour impacts via an R number tailored like that. But this is not where we are with this virus atm.
If the government wants to raise a lot of money, why not slap a huge wealth tax on all the tyrants and their hangers-on who use the London property market as a way to stash their ill-gotten gains?
A widely held view.
But then businesses who benefit from such people start whining.
I had NO holidays booked. I have a policy of not booking them till the last minute because my work schedule is very unpredictable, and also because I hate the decision making related to it. Annoys the hell out of my OH.
This year it has really paid dividends.
You’re not on holiday and neither are we, who have had to cancel. Funny idea of a dividend.
Its the small things that keep me going atm.
The dividend was literally 'I didn't waste any time doing a task I hate, booking a holiday I couldn't go on'.
This crisis has so many aspects that it is much easier for someone like Starmer to forensically examine detail and interrogate that detail.
However, this has a long way to go and there is a need to keep a lid on excessive attacks, as I doubt the public will look on political point scoring well
I am concerned about Boris's health and less certain that he is going to make a quick recovery to his former self and indeed, as has been suggested by some, he may have to look to a quieter life with Carrie and his son once we have passed January 2021
There is a once in a hundred year pandemic going on, I doubt he gets much sleep, he will be as busy as hell and a month ago he was in ICU. Taking that into account I think he looks pretty good.
Indeed and after this depression we should see the biggest economic recovery since the postwar period. Why go through the worst period and then bugger off before the recovery?
I expect he will only go if his health demands it
It is possible but I hope he sees it through to 2024
IMHO
It is not beyond the realms of fantasy that he resigns if the going gets really tough and uses health as the excuse. Another variation on "leaving to spend more time with the family". I appreciate that you are not as cynical as I am where Boris's character is concerned!
It`s easy to double-count the immunity - I think that is what you have concluded?
R already allows for the current level of immunity. If immunity subequently rises further, R falls as it diverges further from R0.
Right.
R0 is what it would be in the wild. 2.7 or whatever.
R is what it is in practice. Lower than 2.7 due to behaviour (distancing, masks etc) and to whatever level of immunity we have reached.
Below 1, virus in decline.
I still don't quite get what all the discussion is about.
The threshold % of a population at which the spread of infection goes into decline (for shorthand lets use 'immunity', whether by infection and recovery or vaccine) is lower when the Rt (effective reproductive number) is suppressed.
So if Rt was, say (as this article notes) 1.13 in Singapore, once more than 11.5% of the population had immunity, the virus would go into decline even though the Rt is above 1.
Yes - if you generate an R which strips out the immunity effect.
However we can't do this because the data on immunity is not there. So the way the measure is being used, it is simply a measure of the extent to which the virus is (net) spreading or declining in practice.
Thus, by definition, R = 1 is the magic number separating net spread from net decline.
There's a risk of overthinking this.
Yes, sorry - this was the comment which I changed to 'WRONG. Whoops' in my self-response, once I got what you meant.
Right. I replied because you are not wrong as such. It would be possible (and potentially useful) to separate immunity from behaviour impacts via an R number tailored like that. But this is not where we are in the UK atm.
Onward Christian Soldiers.
Aha, I understand. So many wires crossed in different directions, luckily those Christian Soldiers have sorted them all.
I want to go on holiday. Two weeks by the sea, just watching the sky, the shadows of the clouds on the water, listening to the sound of the waves rolling across the shingle, breathing the spray-fresh air, feeling the wind in my face. Actually, make it three weeks.
I should have been driving across Europe toward the Alps this afternoon. Instead the highlight of my day has been taking the dog to the local park. The same as almost every day since March.
We were going to Japan. Now it's Whitstable.
Uncooked seafood in both, but your choice avoids the flight.
When everyone was saying how great Starmer was doing - even I congratulated Starmer - only Mr Nabavi spotted the out of context quote and figured it out.
Misquoting PHE is disgraceful and playing politics with a disaster and getting caught misleading people about it could backfire and make Starmer more cautious next time. A forensic lawyer should have known better than to so obviously take words out of context.
To be fair to SKS he did not quote out of context - what happened was the Labour spin operation cited the wrong bit of the advice as the "quote" - which the government then rightly pointed out was shorn of the important qualifications not present in the section SKS actually quoted. So "feck ups" one each to Labour and the Tories.
The danger for SKS is this feels a bit processology rather than the much bigger picture of dead oldies.
If the government wants to raise a lot of money, why not slap a huge wealth tax on all the tyrants and their hangers-on who use the London property market as a way to stash their ill-gotten gains?
I thought this was an interesting video...how money is laundered & ends up in London.
If the government wants to raise a lot of money, why not slap a huge wealth tax on all the tyrants and their hangers-on who use the London property market as a way to stash their ill-gotten gains?
Wealth taxes and London prices aren't quite aligned. Allegedly I'm rich, but it really,really doesn't feel that way.
The guidance says "this will be updated shortly" Until it's updated, it remains valid.
It wasn't updated on the 26th of February, or the 27th. Or the 28th or 29th.
Or the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th of March. Or the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, or 11th.
It was still up there, saying "there isn't any community transmission and we'll update this shortly" on the 12th of March.
If it was still up there saying the same thing today, would Boris be saying, "Aha, but it says it'll be updated shortly, so you can't use this against me!"
I am not saying it holds together but the guidance also says that it was applicable when there was no transmission of the virus in the community. It was self evidently superseded as soon as that ceased to be the case which was well before the 12th. Of course it should have been taken down earlier but hey, its not like the government has nothing else to do.
So - the defence is that yes it said exactly what was claimed, but the people it was aimed at should have known to ignore it?
Yet we’ve also been discussing how people kept being discharged into care homes as if they were continuing to believe the government-published advice directed specifically at them (which we all agree was wrong but that we’d rather hope people would be ignoring it by then)?
Who was the one that we’re saying is using a technicality?
The excellent news my favourite Chinese takeaway has re-opened has convinced me the end of civilisation is probably going to be delayed a tad.
From what little I saw another strong performance by Starmer at PMQs and the care home issue looks a real scandal in the making.
There's an eternity to the next election and while Starmer has still to engage with the British public, he's made a decent start. The challenge for him now will be to craft and enunciate a clear and sensible Labour alternative for 2024. If he can do this he will get plenty of listeners and perhaps voters but if all he does is put lipstick on Corbyn;s pig of a policy programme he'll get nowhere.
Also, Morecambe and Barrow aren't known for their great state of health these days.
No-one goes to Barrow for fun and if you live there dying has quite a bit going for it (not really), but if you want to order a nuclear submarine it is the one stop shop.
If the government wants to raise a lot of money, why not slap a huge wealth tax on all the tyrants and their hangers-on who use the London property market as a way to stash their ill-gotten gains?
Because too many MPs might face embarrassing revelations?
Also, Morecambe and Barrow aren't known for their great state of health these days.
No-one goes to Barrow for fun and if you live there dying has quite a bit going for it (not really), but if you want to order a nuclear submarine it is the one stop shop.
They also have a pretty decent Pets-At-Home in Barrow.
I had NO holidays booked. I have a policy of not booking them till the last minute because my work schedule is very unpredictable, and also because I hate the decision making related to it. Annoys the hell out of my OH.
This year it has really paid dividends.
You’re not on holiday and neither are we, who have had to cancel. Funny idea of a dividend.
Its the small things that keep me going atm.
The dividend was literally 'I didn't waste any time doing a task I hate, booking a holiday I couldn't go on'.
Planning trips is always fun, whether you eventually do them or not.
I’ve got to admit, saying that the Government guidance says something in the 57th paragraph out of 61 that is untrue and therefore the people to whom the advice is directed should know to completely disregard the entire guidance and substitute in something completely different instead without any further guidance... that feels a lot more like trying to invoke a technicality to me.
At the end of all this, more so than any typical recession, there are going to be winners and losers. A lot of people who are still in work will find that their quality of life will have improved no end, and many of them will find themselves with more disposable income into the bargain. At least until the tax rises bite...
We'll also end up with an awful lot more people long-term unemployed or labouring for a pittance in really shit conditions, for whom the ordeal will just carry on.
I've worked at home 2-3 days a week since the 1990s. This is different and I won't say the social aspect of work isn't missed despite all the digital cuppas and virtual watercooler chats.
It's different for Mrs Stodge who has rarely worked at home but she has adapted - we human beings are really good at that, remember? - and enjoys the lie-in and doesn't miss a crowded tube.
I've said before adversity breeds opportunity and capitalism can be brutally Darwinist in seeing off the weak and providing new ground for new business ideas. 44% of employed adults working at home is a lot and even if it settles at 30% once life returns to something nearer normal it will be a change.
It's quite likely I will never go back to the office because there won't be one - we'll hire meeting space as we need it to entertain clients but virtual meetings seem fine.
My personal hope is the ludicrous formality of dress codes in some businesses and companies will be swept away. I'm not suggesting Rupert Bear jimjams for work but do we really need suits and ties to be "professional"? Not any more.
When everyone was saying how great Starmer was doing - even I congratulated Starmer - only Mr Nabavi spotted the out of context quote and figured it out.
Misquoting PHE is disgraceful and playing politics with a disaster and getting caught misleading people about it could backfire and make Starmer more cautious next time. A forensic lawyer should have known better than to so obviously take words out of context.
To be fair to SKS he did not quote out of context - what happened was the Labour spin operation cited the wrong bit of the advice as the "quote" - which the government then rightly pointed out was shorn of the important qualifications not present in the section SKS actually quoted. So "feck ups" one each to Labour and the Tories.
The danger for SKS is this feels a bit processology rather than the much bigger picture of dead oldies.
No, the very real danger is that he now looks like he's making a disingenuous political point rather than raising a very real issue and asking for clarity on it.
At the end of all this, more so than any typical recession, there are going to be winners and losers. A lot of people who are still in work will find that their quality of life will have improved no end, and many of them will find themselves with more disposable income into the bargain. At least until the tax rises bite...
We'll also end up with an awful lot more people long-term unemployed or labouring for a pittance in really shit conditions, for whom the ordeal will just carry on.
I've worked at home 2-3 days a week since the 1990s. This is different and I won't say the social aspect of work isn't missed despite all the digital cuppas and virtual watercooler chats.
It's different for Mrs Stodge who has rarely worked at home but she has adapted - we human beings are really good at that, remember? - and enjoys the lie-in and doesn't miss a crowded tube.
I've said before adversity breeds opportunity and capitalism can be brutally Darwinist in seeing off the weak and providing new ground for new business ideas. 44% of employed adults working at home is a lot and even if it settles at 30% once life returns to something nearer normal it will be a change.
It's quite likely I will never go back to the office because there won't be one - we'll hire meeting space as we need it to entertain clients but virtual meetings seem fine.
My personal hope is the ludicrous formality of dress codes in some businesses and companies will be swept away. I'm not suggesting Rupert Bear jimjams for work but do we really need suits and ties to be "professional"? Not any more.
Bleak reading if you can't face four more years of Trump.
"The 2020 election, Kreiss predicted, will be “a big test of whether empirical reality will outweigh motivated partisan reasoning.” "
"If the test Kreiss anticipates does determine who our next president is, and if the digital world becomes a key battleground, as it certainly will, Democrats believe Joe Biden and his campaign need to be better prepared."
“Biden’s first virtual online chat got 5,000 people. Just one with Lara Trump gets 945,000.”
Mexico City...government covering up the real numbers and people just ignoring the lockdown / social distancing. 600 people a day minimum in Mexico City alone.
I had NO holidays booked. I have a policy of not booking them till the last minute because my work schedule is very unpredictable, and also because I hate the decision making related to it. Annoys the hell out of my OH.
This year it has really paid dividends.
You’re not on holiday and neither are we, who have had to cancel. Funny idea of a dividend.
Its the small things that keep me going atm.
The dividend was literally 'I didn't waste any time doing a task I hate, booking a holiday I couldn't go on'.
Planning trips is always fun, whether you eventually do them or not.
Not for me. I actually find it agonising. Which 4 star hotel? Which flights? Which airport? The very definition of a first world problem, but the choice is bewildering.
I can't imagine there is much working from home going on in Barrow, everyone an essential worker due to the nature of the industries there ?
Astute programme is still live, and the Dreadnought programme still going ahead.
Relatively easy to socially distance on that actually: you just let the sparkies and fitters into the subs two or three at a time into different modules. Planners, designers and PM can do it remote.
I’ve got to admit, saying that the Government guidance says something in the 57th paragraph out of 61 that is untrue and therefore the people to whom the advice is directed should know to completely disregard the entire guidance and substitute in something completely different instead without any further guidance... that feels a lot more like trying to invoke a technicality to me.
Has anybody told people that a lot of these activities aren't going to be possible for a significant time after lockdown & even then not going to be back to normal until a vaccine has been found i.e. going to the boozer where it must be no more than 25% full, you must only go with a couple of people and remain seated in your little area, isnt what most people go to the pub for.
The plan seems to be to reopen pubs on 1 July. So, you are looking at potentially three months of outdoor boozing.
I don’t know about you, but sitting in a pub on a sunny Saturday drinking sounds absolutely lovely to me.
Bleak reading if you can't face four more years of Trump.
"The 2020 election, Kreiss predicted, will be “a big test of whether empirical reality will outweigh motivated partisan reasoning.” "
"If the test Kreiss anticipates does determine who our next president is, and if the digital world becomes a key battleground, as it certainly will, Democrats believe Joe Biden and his campaign need to be better prepared."
“Biden’s first virtual online chat got 5,000 people. Just one with Lara Trump gets 945,000.”
Kinda disappointingly low infection count tbh. We have basically identical excess mortality to Spain (and Belgium/Italy/NL), so we're probably all rather similar - barring drastic differences in % of the elderly it infected.
2.35 million infected for 32k deaths, 1.36% mortality rate. Nasty (Edit: maybe lower IFR due to the lengthy time before it's detectable? would allow for quite a bit more infections).
Comments
I feel rather sorry for him tbh and I never thought I would.
But it looks like a distinct possibility.
After watching this happen over and over, I concluded that there was a certain type of councillor who didnt really listen to or think about the debate, who could easily become lost without the prompt of everyone around them raising their hands at the apposite moments.
To strip it out is just completely dishonest.
Southam Observer was correct in his earlier observation that the Tories entire strategy at the last GE was built on Corbyn being their opponent. Times have changed, what worked then is not necessarily going to work now.
If Boris is still well under the weather and can't handle Starmer's questioning to any great degree because of Covid-19 he needs to sit this out for six months and
temporarily pass the baton to someone who is match fit. Sunak maybe, but not Raab.
I would be surprised if there weren't IT and media people in government whose job was to check that official websites were up to date and appropriate.
Starmer I can believe in - his mates less so.
As it is, we've not left town since the start of lockdown. And might not again before the Autumn, at the rate things are going.
It is possible but I hope he sees it through to 2024
IMHO
BBC Radio Lincolnshire reporter Scott Dalton has been to the beach in Skegness to see how many people were out and about after the government's easing of lockdown restrictions.
He said it remained very quiet, though he spoke to a family who had driven two hours from Sheffield - within the new regulations - for a "change of scenery
SKEGNESS !!!
Percentages can and will be weaponised so we go down 14% and back up 15% which leaves us one point ahead - er no, it leaves us one point behind.
Yes, everyone will be out getting their hair cut and their Big Mac fix but can we really sure it will be a rapid return? I can see why supporters of the Government might earnestly hope it's the case but we'll see.
The real issue is how much of our productive economy is just going to be permanently lost. How many businesses will collapse and not open again and how many will they bring down with them? My total guess is that we will lose 8-10% of our economy. The remaining 90% may well bounce back 10% fairly quickly given that stimulus but that still leaves us short of where we were and sustainability will be an issue.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8314601/Cumbrian-town-Barrow-Furness-recorded-highest-rate-coronavirus-cases-UK.html
When everyone was saying how great Starmer was doing - even I congratulated Starmer - only Mr Nabavi spotted the out of context quote and figured it out.
Misquoting PHE is disgraceful and playing politics with a disaster and getting caught misleading people about it could backfire and make Starmer more cautious next time. A forensic lawyer should have known better than to so obviously take words out of context.
The main reason I rejoined a couple of weeks ago was so that I could vote for the sane candidates in NEC elections. There is little point Starmer doing well if the Corbynistas undermine what he is trying to achieve.
When is the independent report on anti-semitism finally comes out Starmer wants to publicly rebuke or call for the expulsion of anyone who tries to dismiss the findings and that includes Corbyn himself if he steps out of line.
PB notwithstanding, the evidence of some mass return to public transport is mixed - currently I have a 16-minute service operating from my station which would suggest packed trains and platforms but the figures I've seen suggest only 7% of passengers are back on the tube.
Can you find a busy tube carriage in rush hour? Yes. Is it representative of the whole network? No.
Transport for London and I suspect the train operators are in serious financial trouble and hearing the Government tell people to avoid public transport hasn't helped.
I think there is a substantial amount of wishful thinking in that comment.
However we can't do this because the data on immunity is not there. So the way the measure is being used, it is simply a measure of the extent to which the virus is (net) spreading or declining in practice.
Thus, by definition, R = 1 is the magic number separating net spread from net decline.
There's a risk of overthinking this.
This year it has really paid dividends.
Actually last year in Blackpool I did lose a challenge and had to eat cock rock, there's photographs somewhere.
We stay at the Imperial Hotel which is important to politics.
Though how anyone can be happier given the current state of things is beyond my comprehension.
We'll also end up with an awful lot more people long-term unemployed or labouring for a pittance in really shit conditions, for whom the ordeal will just carry on.
Onward Christian Soldiers.
But then businesses who benefit from such people start whining.
The dividend was literally 'I didn't waste any time doing a task I hate, booking a holiday I couldn't go on'.
The danger for SKS is this feels a bit processology rather than the much bigger picture of dead oldies.
https://youtu.be/ZmEvAk5LRko
Yet we’ve also been discussing how people kept being discharged into care homes as if they were continuing to believe the government-published advice directed specifically at them (which we all agree was wrong but that we’d rather hope people would be ignoring it by then)?
Who was the one that we’re saying is using a technicality?
From what little I saw another strong performance by Starmer at PMQs and the care home issue looks a real scandal in the making.
There's an eternity to the next election and while Starmer has still to engage with the British public, he's made a decent start. The challenge for him now will be to craft and enunciate a clear and sensible Labour alternative for 2024. If he can do this he will get plenty of listeners and perhaps voters but if all he does is put lipstick on Corbyn;s pig of a policy programme he'll get nowhere.
https://public.flourish.studio/story/339356/
57% in Care Homes.
(Being serious sorry for those affected)
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-for-social-or-community-care-and-residential-settings-on-covid-19/guidance-for-social-or-community-care-and-residential-settings-on-covid-19#guidance-on-facemasks
It's different for Mrs Stodge who has rarely worked at home but she has adapted - we human beings are really good at that, remember? - and enjoys the lie-in and doesn't miss a crowded tube.
I've said before adversity breeds opportunity and capitalism can be brutally Darwinist in seeing off the weak and providing new ground for new business ideas. 44% of employed adults working at home is a lot and even if it settles at 30% once life returns to something nearer normal it will be a change.
It's quite likely I will never go back to the office because there won't be one - we'll hire meeting space as we need it to entertain clients but virtual meetings seem fine.
My personal hope is the ludicrous formality of dress codes in some businesses and companies will be swept away. I'm not suggesting Rupert Bear jimjams for work but do we really need suits and ties to be "professional"? Not any more.
https://youtu.be/EOcahxnQsak
Relatively easy to socially distance on that actually: you just let the sparkies and fitters into the subs two or three at a time into different modules. Planners, designers and PM can do it remote.
I don’t know about you, but sitting in a pub on a sunny Saturday drinking sounds absolutely lovely to me.
At the moment it seems to be "I'm not Trump." and "I'm not as bad as Hillary."
Ok, good starts, but why does he think that's enough?
2.35 million infected for 32k deaths, 1.36% mortality rate. Nasty (Edit: maybe lower IFR due to the lengthy time before it's detectable? would allow for quite a bit more infections).
https://twitter.com/_MiguelHernan/status/1260625031119409156