Not locking down would probably have meant following the New York model..
Perhaps.
My view has always been we should have had a short lockdown (say, up to the point where we were able to increase capacity via Nightingale Hospitals), as well as making provision to shield the elderly and vulnerable (from priority supermarket deliveries to live-in carers). But after that we should have released the lockdown and allowed gradual spread throughout the community.
However, I'm also now of the opinion that the lockdown should have been far stricter. Eight weeks with nobody leaving their homes except for emergencies (how hard is it to organise food deliveries for the majority - you don't need to go out) would have squashed this thing, maybe giving us a chance at unlocking to track and trace.
Where we've ended up is the worst of all possible worlds. We've inflicted maximum economic damage, still ended up with a high casualty rate, but haven't reduced the spread of the virus enough to be able to track and trace.
Most people think this will be over in a month and we will slowly be getting back to normal. The question is how they react when they find out that's not the case.
How many of the tests were just posted. I see the ratio of tests to people tested is the worst yet. No idea why DHSC Twitter is using "tested" simply not true
More importantly how many of the 3,446 new cases identified are subject to full track and trace of all their contacts to you know
ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination prevents SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in rhesus macaques https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.093195v1 Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in December 20191,2 and is responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic3. Vaccines are an essential countermeasure urgently needed to control the pandemic4. Here, we show that the adenovirus-vectored vaccine ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, encoding the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, is immunogenic in mice, eliciting a robust humoral and cell-mediated response. This response was not Th2 dominated, as demonstrated by IgG subclass and cytokine expression profiling. A single vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 induced a humoral and cellular immune response in rhesus macaques. We observed a significantly reduced viral load in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and respiratory tract tissue of vaccinated animals challenged with SARS-CoV-2 compared with control animals, and no pneumonia was observed in vaccinated rhesus macaques. Importantly, no evidence of immune-enhanced disease following viral challenge in vaccinated animals was observed. ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 is currently under investigation in a phase I clinical trial. Safety, immunogenicity and efficacy against symptomatic PCR-positive COVID-19 disease will now be assessed in randomised controlled human clinical trials.
Not locking down would probably have meant following the New York model..
Perhaps.
My view has always been we should have had a short lockdown (say, up to the point where we were able to increase capacity via Nightingale Hospitals), as well as making provision to shield the elderly and vulnerable (from priority supermarket deliveries to live-in carers). But after that we should have released the lockdown and allowed gradual spread throughout the community.
However, I'm also now of the opinion that the lockdown should have been far stricter. Eight weeks with nobody leaving their homes except for emergencies (how hard is it to organise food deliveries for the majority - you don't need to go out) would have squashed this thing, maybe giving us a chance at unlocking to track and trace.
Where we've ended up is the worst of all possible worlds. We've inflicted maximum economic damage, still ended up with a high casualty rate, but haven't reduced the spread of the virus enough to be able to track and trace.
Most people think this will be over in a month and we will slowly be getting back to normal. The question is how they react when they find out that's not the case.
One issue is that the food delivery capacity for your idea was nowhere near the ability of supermarkets to supply.
It's my view that the course of action the government has pursued will cause a great depression that will be an order of magnitude more harmful than the virus. Here's a professor from Bristol University saying just that:
"If the countermeasures we take reduce our life expectancy by more than 3 months, then because there are so many of us in the country, that means we will actually suffer more loss of life than we will from the epidemic itself".
I'm not arguing against lockdown because I'm bored and fancy a pint with my mates, I'm arguing against it because I think it's a calamitous policy that will ultimately hurt more than it helps.
Broadly speaking I'm a utilitarian - if something benefits a lot of people at the expense of a few people, I tend to be in favour unless it's outrageously unfair. But the Bristol Prof's view goes too far - effectively he says that we should accept the imminent death of N people in order to give the rest of us 3 months' longer lifespans. No. I'll take 3 months' less life rather than subscribe to sacrificing 100,000 lives to avoid it. If that's the choice.
We aren't in the EU anymore, isn't that what you wanted?
That means I can't point out crap decisions?
It's their decision not ours.
"UPDATE: UK government has U-turned on decision..."?
I think in this case it was the EU's decision because the UK was discriminatory in allowing quarantine-free entry from France while disallowing it from other countries with lower Covid-19 incidence. The EU is very hot on this. Whatever FTA finally gets decided between the UK and the EU, it won't allow the UK to treat member states differently. (No prioritisation of Swedes over Romanians for instance)
No gratitude for the fact we did not impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 as Germany for instance did for 7 years
Was that fact that you're requesting gratitude for really some sort of sacrifice made by the UK to its own detriment, or was it more a case of the UKG making the decision to do its own economy a favour, by, on the one hand, attracting 'the best and the brightest' for its financial services and other high-value industries, and, on the other hand, attracting less - but still sufficiently - skilled workers for production plants, construction sites, hospitals and nursing homes, etc., because the UK workforce was not prepared or inclined to fill these more menial roles?
The development of unemployment numbers doesn't seem to indicate that net migration had driven the British out of their jobs, and it seems fairly arguable whether the widely percieved, but hardly measurable, wage suppression was more an effect of net migration or post-GFC wage austerity.
No no no. Nothing to do with the economy. It was a sadistic and calculated move by the fanatically PC Blair to "rub the right's nose in diversity".
ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination prevents SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in rhesus macaques https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.093195v1 Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in December 20191,2 and is responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic3. Vaccines are an essential countermeasure urgently needed to control the pandemic4. Here, we show that the adenovirus-vectored vaccine ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, encoding the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, is immunogenic in mice, eliciting a robust humoral and cell-mediated response. This response was not Th2 dominated, as demonstrated by IgG subclass and cytokine expression profiling. A single vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 induced a humoral and cellular immune response in rhesus macaques. We observed a significantly reduced viral load in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and respiratory tract tissue of vaccinated animals challenged with SARS-CoV-2 compared with control animals, and no pneumonia was observed in vaccinated rhesus macaques. Importantly, no evidence of immune-enhanced disease following viral challenge in vaccinated animals was observed. ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 is currently under investigation in a phase I clinical trial. Safety, immunogenicity and efficacy against symptomatic PCR-positive COVID-19 disease will now be assessed in randomised controlled human clinical trials.
The vaccinated animals did show viral shedding from the upper respiratory tract, but this was a very high dosage viral challenge trial, likely well in excess of any normal human exposure.
And contrast with similar studies for the original SARS virus vaccines, which...resulted in immunopathology after vaccination and challenge, with more severe disease in vaccinated animals than in controls...
The idiot journalists realise this happens every day and is a good thing right? The PCR test is only 80% accurate, due to collection issues, so it is common to want to test people more than once, and definitely if you are letting them out.
They report this is as new mystery phenomenon, when it has been happening since day one.
That election was over a decade before I was born. I wonder what the cut off is for it to no longer be considered "in modern times"?
It's strange to think but 1970 now is comparably long ago as the Great Depression period before before WWII was when I was in primary school.
If you ever want to feel old, subtract your age from your birth, and then look at what was happening in that year. Most people consider things that happened during their lives as relatively recent, and exaggerate just how far back "history" is
Eek, I see what you mean. That takes me back to 1880!
We aren't in the EU anymore, isn't that what you wanted?
That means I can't point out crap decisions?
It's their decision not ours.
"UPDATE: UK government has U-turned on decision..."?
I think in this case it was the EU's decision because the UK was discriminatory in allowing quarantine-free entry from France while disallowing it from other countries with lower Covid-19 incidence. The EU is very hot on this. Whatever FTA finally gets decided between the UK and the EU, it won't allow the UK to treat member states differently. (No prioritisation of Swedes over Romanians for instance)
Yep - there is no d'Artagnan or Diana Ross in the EU.
It's my view that the course of action the government has pursued will cause a great depression that will be an order of magnitude more harmful than the virus. Here's a professor from Bristol University saying just that:
"If the countermeasures we take reduce our life expectancy by more than 3 months, then because there are so many of us in the country, that means we will actually suffer more loss of life than we will from the epidemic itself".
I'm not arguing against lockdown because I'm bored and fancy a pint with my mates, I'm arguing against it because I think it's a calamitous policy that will ultimately hurt more than it helps.
Broadly speaking I'm a utilitarian - if something benefits a lot of people at the expense of a few people, I tend to be in favour unless it's outrageously unfair. But the Bristol Prof's view goes too far - effectively he says that we should accept the imminent death of N people in order to give the rest of us 3 months' longer lifespans. No. I'll take 3 months' less life rather than subscribe to sacrificing 100,000 lives to avoid it. If that's the choice.
The Prof is also assuming - without any hard evidence at all - that avoiding taking countermeasures would not have resulted in a similar depression.
So he's effectively suggesting sacrificing a number of lives for an outcome which might be no better.
Looks like summer in Blackpool, Brighton or Skegness it is then
Damn - what does this quarantine actually mean though? Does it just mean self-isolation like we are doing now?
It means you cannot go out at all I think for 14 days on your arrival or return
How will they know?
You probably get put up in a hotel
I`d be surprised if they did that. Put everyone who arrives in UK in hotels - presumably organised and paid for by the government?
My hunch is it just means self isolation like now. If that is the case still in July then why not go away and take the quarantine hit? (Depending on the quarantine arrangements at ethe French side, or wherever.)
We aren't in the EU anymore, isn't that what you wanted?
That means I can't point out crap decisions?
It's their decision not ours.
"UPDATE: UK government has U-turned on decision..."?
I think in this case it was the EU's decision because the UK was discriminatory in allowing quarantine-free entry from France while disallowing it from other countries with lower Covid-19 incidence. The EU is very hot on this. Whatever FTA finally gets decided between the UK and the EU, it won't allow the UK to treat member states differently. (No prioritisation of Swedes over Romanians for instance)
The EU would presumably object to the idea of a discriminatory policy as a long term solution. I thought this was a temporary measure, in the context of the current CV crisis. Many such temporary measures are already in place at intra-EU borders, eg. Germany's borders with France, Netherlands, Austria, Denmark.
Ted Heath's majority of 31 in 1970 included 8 Ulster Unionists still taking the Tory Whip. Without them , his majority was just 15 - reduced to 13 a year later following the Bromsgove by-election - and to just 11 in December 1972 after their loss of Sutton & Cheam.
So why is Nadine Dorries sharing far right fake news when she's a health minister during a pandemic?
(Guardian) Nadine Dorries, a health minister, and two other Conservative MPs, Lucy Allan and Maria Caulfield, have been reprimanded by the party whips for sharing a tweet that contained a false smear about Sir Keir Starmer. (See 11.49am.) A Downing Street spokesman said:
These tweets have rightly been deleted. The MPs involved have been spoken to by the whips’ office and reminded of their responsibility to check the validity of information before they post on social media sites.
UPDATE: Caulfield is a government whip herself, which makes this especially embarrassing for her.
We aren't in the EU anymore, isn't that what you wanted?
That means I can't point out crap decisions?
It's their decision not ours.
"UPDATE: UK government has U-turned on decision..."?
I think in this case it was the EU's decision because the UK was discriminatory in allowing quarantine-free entry from France while disallowing it from other countries with lower Covid-19 incidence. The EU is very hot on this. Whatever FTA finally gets decided between the UK and the EU, it won't allow the UK to treat member states differently. (No prioritisation of Swedes over Romanians for instance)
The EU would presumably object to the idea of a discriminatory policy as a long term solution. I thought this was a temporary measure, in the context of the current CV crisis. Many such temporary measures are already in place at intra-EU borders.
That's OK but it has to be justified by the threat posed. So the UK could potentially put a block on Swedes and Belgians because of the higher infection in those countries, but it is discriminatory to allow the French to come in freely, but not the less infected Danes.
Although, frankly, none of these countries apart from Belgium have infection rates as high as the UK. The whole thing is moot.
But about a week ago, whoever was updating them seems to have stooped doing so. I can find the numbers on a Swedish government site, most of witch is also available in English. but suspect that many people, including a lot of journalists.
how easy/difficult is it to update a Wikipedia page? can anybody volatier, or do i need to be varifide first? being able to spell would be helpful but if its just copying numbers form one table to anther is there any reason I don't start doing it?
It's not too hard, though it can be fiddly. Details here:
You're allowed to edit freely. If someone puts something false/indecent/idiotic/off-topic then someone else will change it. There is a procedure for arguing about it (e.g. the pages on Israel and Palestine are permanent battlegrounds) with a moderator who will decide on unresolved arguments. I have a nerdy retired friend who spends hours every day doing little else.
But yes, running your text through a spellchecker is a good idea if it's not just numbers.
So why is Nadine Dorries sharing far right fake news when she's a health minister during a pandemic?
(Guardian) Nadine Dorries, a health minister, and two other Conservative MPs, Lucy Allan and Maria Caulfield, have been reprimanded by the party whips for sharing a tweet that contained a false smear about Sir Keir Starmer. (See 11.49am.) A Downing Street spokesman said:
These tweets have rightly been deleted. The MPs involved have been spoken to by the whips’ office and reminded of their responsibility to check the validity of information before they post on social media sites.
UPDATE: Caulfield is a government whip herself, which makes this especially embarrassing for her.
Too many tweets make a.....and especially true with the old retw@ttering.
Only need to see all retw@ttering of the Boris "people of colour / talent", and the clipped This Morning videos that got jumped all over.
Fact checking is completely out of fashion these days.
It's my view that the course of action the government has pursued will cause a great depression that will be an order of magnitude more harmful than the virus. Here's a professor from Bristol University saying just that:
"If the countermeasures we take reduce our life expectancy by more than 3 months, then because there are so many of us in the country, that means we will actually suffer more loss of life than we will from the epidemic itself".
I'm not arguing against lockdown because I'm bored and fancy a pint with my mates, I'm arguing against it because I think it's a calamitous policy that will ultimately hurt more than it helps.
Broadly speaking I'm a utilitarian - if something benefits a lot of people at the expense of a few people, I tend to be in favour unless it's outrageously unfair. But the Bristol Prof's view goes too far - effectively he says that we should accept the imminent death of N people in order to give the rest of us 3 months' longer lifespans. No. I'll take 3 months' less life rather than subscribe to sacrificing 100,000 lives to avoid it. If that's the choice.
I think that's a fair point and it's difficult to deal with the most emotive topic of all in a dispassionate way.
It's also hard to view all lives as the same. Would I give up three months of my life to give my grandfather an extra two years? Yes. Would I give up three months to give a random 86 year old I've never met an extra two years? Probably not. Even though, from a utilitarian perspective (if you assume quality of life in all years is equal) I should.
I'm also acutely aware that my own experiences of the global financial crisis have strongly weighted my personal fear of economic calamity. The GFC left me penniless, couch surfing for the best part of 18 months, trying to navigate the benefits system and having what seemed like endless doors slammed in my face. The thought that others will go through the same experience now for a lockdown that may well be largely ineffective horrifies me. I wouldn't want anyone else to go through *that* to add three months to someone else's life.
Looks like summer in Blackpool, Brighton or Skegness it is then
Damn - what does this quarantine actually mean though? Does it just mean self-isolation like we are doing now?
It means you cannot go out at all I think for 14 days on your arrival or return
How will they know?
You probably get put up in a hotel
I`d be surprised if they did that. Put everyone who arrives in UK in hotels - presumably organised and paid for by the government?
My hunch is it just means self isolation like now. If that is the case still in July then why not go away and take the quarantine hit? (Depending on the quarantine arrangements at ethe French side, or wherever.)
The proposal is to register their home address
The suggestion that hotels are used is an idea but not confirmed
No gratitude for the fact we did not impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 as Germany for instance did for 7 years
Was that fact that you're requesting gratitude for really some sort of sacrifice made by the UK to its own detriment, or was it more a case of the UKG making the decision to do its own economy a favour, by, on the one hand, attracting 'the best and the brightest' for its financial services and other high-value industries, and, on the other hand, attracting less - but still sufficiently - skilled workers for production plants, construction sites, hospitals and nursing homes, etc., because the UK workforce was not prepared or inclined to fill these more menial roles?
The development of unemployment numbers doesn't seem to indicate that net migration had driven the British out of their jobs, and it seems fairly arguable whether the widely percieved, but hardly measurable, wage suppression was more an effect of net migration or post-GFC wage austerity.
That decision undoubtedly suppressed wages for the lower skilled and added to pressure on housing and public services and was a key reason for the Leave vote in 2016
Nope, the key reason for the Leave vote was most that voted that way were just xenophobic. You don't need to worry though, because though you have sucked up to the loony right ever since, you voted Remain, and are only therefore xenophobic by association.
We aren't in the EU anymore, isn't that what you wanted?
That means I can't point out crap decisions?
It's their decision not ours.
"UPDATE: UK government has U-turned on decision..."?
I think in this case it was the EU's decision because the UK was discriminatory in allowing quarantine-free entry from France while disallowing it from other countries with lower Covid-19 incidence. The EU is very hot on this. Whatever FTA finally gets decided between the UK and the EU, it won't allow the UK to treat member states differently. (No prioritisation of Swedes over Romanians for instance)
The EU would presumably object to the idea of a discriminatory policy as a long term solution. I thought this was a temporary measure, in the context of the current CV crisis. Many such temporary measures are already in place at intra-EU borders, eg. Germany's borders with France, Netherlands, Austria, Denmark.
What about quarantine-free access from Ireland? Or do we have an opt-out for the Common Travel Area? It could also have implications for future opening of borders on a "bubble" basis.
It's my view that the course of action the government has pursued will cause a great depression that will be an order of magnitude more harmful than the virus. Here's a professor from Bristol University saying just that:
"If the countermeasures we take reduce our life expectancy by more than 3 months, then because there are so many of us in the country, that means we will actually suffer more loss of life than we will from the epidemic itself".
I'm not arguing against lockdown because I'm bored and fancy a pint with my mates, I'm arguing against it because I think it's a calamitous policy that will ultimately hurt more than it helps.
Broadly speaking I'm a utilitarian - if something benefits a lot of people at the expense of a few people, I tend to be in favour unless it's outrageously unfair. But the Bristol Prof's view goes too far - effectively he says that we should accept the imminent death of N people in order to give the rest of us 3 months' longer lifespans. No. I'll take 3 months' less life rather than subscribe to sacrificing 100,000 lives to avoid it. If that's the choice.
But life never presents to us that degree of clarity. Especially in the case of new and unpredictable disease we cannot know in advance what would be the best, or most utilitarian policy. So in policy right now we find that we look at how to avoid actual harm in front of us now. This is made no easier by the fact that every ninety something who may have had a fortnight lopped off their life is someone's mum, and in case you need reminding there is always Channel 4 news and friends to remind you both of the fact and which government is personally responsible for it.
No gratitude for the fact we did not impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 as Germany for instance did for 7 years
Was that fact that you're requesting gratitude for really some sort of sacrifice made by the UK to its own detriment, or was it more a case of the UKG making the decision to do its own economy a favour, by, on the one hand, attracting 'the best and the brightest' for its financial services and other high-value industries, and, on the other hand, attracting less - but still sufficiently - skilled workers for production plants, construction sites, hospitals and nursing homes, etc., because the UK workforce was not prepared or inclined to fill these more menial roles?
The development of unemployment numbers doesn't seem to indicate that net migration had driven the British out of their jobs, and it seems fairly arguable whether the widely percieved, but hardly measurable, wage suppression was more an effect of net migration or post-GFC wage austerity.
That decision undoubtedly suppressed wages for the lower skilled and added to pressure on housing and public services and was a key reason for the Leave vote in 2016
Nope, the key reason for the Leave vote was most that voted that way were just xenophobic. You don't need to worry though, because though you have sucked up to the loony right ever since, you voted Remain, and are only therefore xenophobic by association.
You seriously believe that 52% of the voting population are xenophobes?
So why is Nadine Dorries sharing far right fake news when she's a health minister during a pandemic?
(Guardian) Nadine Dorries, a health minister, and two other Conservative MPs, Lucy Allan and Maria Caulfield, have been reprimanded by the party whips for sharing a tweet that contained a false smear about Sir Keir Starmer. (See 11.49am.) A Downing Street spokesman said:
These tweets have rightly been deleted. The MPs involved have been spoken to by the whips’ office and reminded of their responsibility to check the validity of information before they post on social media sites.
UPDATE: Caulfield is a government whip herself, which makes this especially embarrassing for her.
(Does that qualify as self-flagellation ?)
Good.
Whatever were they thinking, though maybe thinking is not their thought process
That election was over a decade before I was born. I wonder what the cut off is for it to no longer be considered "in modern times"?
It's strange to think but 1970 now is comparably long ago as the Great Depression period before before WWII was when I was in primary school.
If you ever want to feel old, subtract your age from your birth, and then look at what was happening in that year. Most people consider things that happened during their lives as relatively recent, and exaggerate just how far back "history" is
Eek, I see what you mean. That takes me back to 1880!
An interesting year politically. Benjamin Disraeli was PM at the start of the year, but the Liberals under the leadership of Lord Hartington and Lord Granville defeated him to secure the Liberals’ third (of four) electoral majorities. However, they both withdrew from consideration for the premiership in favour of Gladstone, who thus became the only figure who was not recognised leader of any party to become Prime Minister due to a general election.
We aren't in the EU anymore, isn't that what you wanted?
That means I can't point out crap decisions?
It's their decision not ours.
"UPDATE: UK government has U-turned on decision..."?
I think in this case it was the EU's decision because the UK was discriminatory in allowing quarantine-free entry from France while disallowing it from other countries with lower Covid-19 incidence. The EU is very hot on this. Whatever FTA finally gets decided between the UK and the EU, it won't allow the UK to treat member states differently. (No prioritisation of Swedes over Romanians for instance)
The EU would presumably object to the idea of a discriminatory policy as a long term solution. I thought this was a temporary measure, in the context of the current CV crisis. Many such temporary measures are already in place at intra-EU borders, eg. Germany's borders with France, Netherlands, Austria, Denmark.
What about quarantine-free access from Ireland? Or do we have an opt-out for the Common Travel Area? It could also have implications for future opening of borders on a "bubble" basis.
The CTA has been recognised as a "special case" since we joined the EEC.
No gratitude for the fact we did not impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 as Germany for instance did for 7 years
Was that fact that you're requesting gratitude for really some sort of sacrifice made by the UK to its own detriment, or was it more a case of the UKG making the decision to do its own economy a favour, by, on the one hand, attracting 'the best and the brightest' for its financial services and other high-value industries, and, on the other hand, attracting less - but still sufficiently - skilled workers for production plants, construction sites, hospitals and nursing homes, etc., because the UK workforce was not prepared or inclined to fill these more menial roles?
The development of unemployment numbers doesn't seem to indicate that net migration had driven the British out of their jobs, and it seems fairly arguable whether the widely percieved, but hardly measurable, wage suppression was more an effect of net migration or post-GFC wage austerity.
That decision undoubtedly suppressed wages for the lower skilled and added to pressure on housing and public services and was a key reason for the Leave vote in 2016
Nope, the key reason for the Leave vote was most that voted that way were just xenophobic. You don't need to worry though, because though you have sucked up to the loony right ever since, you voted Remain, and are only therefore xenophobic by association.
...by the way, I liked the fact that the person you lovingly refer to as "Boris" named two nurses that looked after him and one was from New Zealand and the other from EU/Portugal. I wonder whether he thinks about the hateful disease of nationalism that he, along with Farage et al, managed to stir up in this country? Perhaps not. After all it helped his career eh? That is all that counts to "Boris"
It's my view that the course of action the government has pursued will cause a great depression that will be an order of magnitude more harmful than the virus. Here's a professor from Bristol University saying just that:
"If the countermeasures we take reduce our life expectancy by more than 3 months, then because there are so many of us in the country, that means we will actually suffer more loss of life than we will from the epidemic itself".
I'm not arguing against lockdown because I'm bored and fancy a pint with my mates, I'm arguing against it because I think it's a calamitous policy that will ultimately hurt more than it helps.
Broadly speaking I'm a utilitarian - if something benefits a lot of people at the expense of a few people, I tend to be in favour unless it's outrageously unfair. But the Bristol Prof's view goes too far - effectively he says that we should accept the imminent death of N people in order to give the rest of us 3 months' longer lifespans. No. I'll take 3 months' less life rather than subscribe to sacrificing 100,000 lives to avoid it. If that's the choice.
The Prof is also assuming - without any hard evidence at all - that avoiding taking countermeasures would not have resulted in a similar depression.
So he's effectively suggesting sacrificing a number of lives for an outcome which might be no better.
Yes, I think the 'grand bargain' thing is off beam re this crisis. The virus without restrictions so severe as to wreck the economy and impinge on personal freedoms would have wrecked the economy and impinged on personal freedoms.
But I am interested in the general concept. For example, one I floated a while back, which sounds a bit silly but IMO isn't, since it illustrates the point well.
If a million people having a harmless but uncomfortable nosebleed for 60 minutes prevents a 75 year old man in Basildon* dropping dead of a heart attack, is this a good trade for the nation?
This press conference is a good example of why we really need topic specific ones now. Grant Shapps is having to answer loads of questions on antibody tests and cancelled operations.
Now I don't exactly hold old Mr Green in very high regard, but he is transport secretary, not health secretary.
We really need something like
Mon - Health, Tue - Economics / Business Wed - Medical Research Update, Thurs - Transport Fri - Sports / Leisure ...
I also notice how little we get the big boys doing these press conferences anymore. We hardly ever get Boris or Mr Yorkshire Tea. Gove and Hancock rarely appear. Patel appears to have been hidden like JRM during the GE.
It's my view that the course of action the government has pursued will cause a great depression that will be an order of magnitude more harmful than the virus. Here's a professor from Bristol University saying just that:
"If the countermeasures we take reduce our life expectancy by more than 3 months, then because there are so many of us in the country, that means we will actually suffer more loss of life than we will from the epidemic itself".
I'm not arguing against lockdown because I'm bored and fancy a pint with my mates, I'm arguing against it because I think it's a calamitous policy that will ultimately hurt more than it helps.
Broadly speaking I'm a utilitarian - if something benefits a lot of people at the expense of a few people, I tend to be in favour unless it's outrageously unfair. But the Bristol Prof's view goes too far - effectively he says that we should accept the imminent death of N people in order to give the rest of us 3 months' longer lifespans. No. I'll take 3 months' less life rather than subscribe to sacrificing 100,000 lives to avoid it. If that's the choice.
The Prof is also assuming - without any hard evidence at all - that avoiding taking countermeasures would not have resulted in a similar depression.
So he's effectively suggesting sacrificing a number of lives for an outcome which might be no better.
Yes, I think the 'grand bargain' thing is off beam re this crisis. The virus without restrictions so severe as to wreck the economy and impinge on personal freedoms would have wrecked the economy and impinged on personal freedoms.
But I am interested in the general concept. For example, one I floated a while back, which sounds a bit silly but IMO isn't, since it illustrates the point well.
If a million people having a harmless but uncomfortable nosebleed for 60 minutes prevents a 75 year old man in Basildon* dropping dead of a heart attack, is this a good trade for the nation?
* he doesn't have to be in Basildon.
The genuine differences seem to be between countries with proactive/competent and reactive/dialling-it-in governments. The lockdown/no lockdown debate is a distraction.
No gratitude for the fact we did not impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 as Germany for instance did for 7 years
Was that fact that you're requesting gratitude for really some sort of sacrifice made by the UK to its own detriment, or was it more a case of the UKG making the decision to do its own economy a favour, by, on the one hand, attracting 'the best and the brightest' for its financial services and other high-value industries, and, on the other hand, attracting less - but still sufficiently - skilled workers for production plants, construction sites, hospitals and nursing homes, etc., because the UK workforce was not prepared or inclined to fill these more menial roles?
The development of unemployment numbers doesn't seem to indicate that net migration had driven the British out of their jobs, and it seems fairly arguable whether the widely percieved, but hardly measurable, wage suppression was more an effect of net migration or post-GFC wage austerity.
That decision undoubtedly suppressed wages for the lower skilled and added to pressure on housing and public services and was a key reason for the Leave vote in 2016
Nope, the key reason for the Leave vote was most that voted that way were just xenophobic. You don't need to worry though, because though you have sucked up to the loony right ever since, you voted Remain, and are only therefore xenophobic by association.
You seriously believe that 52% of the voting population are xenophobes?
I am not a politician, so I don't have to pretend. Every Leave voter I have encountered, and yes it is quite a few, and sadly even a number in my own extended family, express views that it is obvious that it is xenophobia at best and racism at worse that led them to how they voted. So yes I do seriously believe it. At least there are almost half who either overcame such views or don't have them, and that is at least comforting.
Ted Heath's majority of 31 in 1970 included 8 Ulster Unionists still taking the Tory Whip. Without them , his majority was just 15 - reduced to 13 a year later following the Bromsgove by-election - and to just 11 in December 1972 after their loss of Sutton & Cheam.
In 1951 there were around 15-20 Liberal Nationals,* without whom Churchill didn’t have a majority at all. Your point being?
*Identifying Liberal Nationals is an inexact science, as some identified as Liberals, some as Liberals and Conservatives, some as Liberals and Unionists and some as Liberal Nationals. It is safe to say however that Churchill’s majority was dependent on them and the nine Ulster Unionists in a way that Eden’s or Macmillan’s was not.
Is Khan responsible for the Crossrail delay, which seems to be a pretty significant part of that thread argument ? (A genuine question, as I have no idea of the answer to that, but I'm fairly sure we have someone here who knows.)
ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination prevents SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in rhesus macaques https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.093195v1 Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in December 20191,2 and is responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic3. Vaccines are an essential countermeasure urgently needed to control the pandemic4. Here, we show that the adenovirus-vectored vaccine ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, encoding the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, is immunogenic in mice, eliciting a robust humoral and cell-mediated response. This response was not Th2 dominated, as demonstrated by IgG subclass and cytokine expression profiling. A single vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 induced a humoral and cellular immune response in rhesus macaques. We observed a significantly reduced viral load in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and respiratory tract tissue of vaccinated animals challenged with SARS-CoV-2 compared with control animals, and no pneumonia was observed in vaccinated rhesus macaques. Importantly, no evidence of immune-enhanced disease following viral challenge in vaccinated animals was observed. ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 is currently under investigation in a phase I clinical trial. Safety, immunogenicity and efficacy against symptomatic PCR-positive COVID-19 disease will now be assessed in randomised controlled human clinical trials.
The vaccinated animals did show viral shedding from the upper respiratory tract, but this was a very high dosage viral challenge trial, likely well in excess of any normal human exposure.
And contrast with similar studies for the original SARS virus vaccines, which...resulted in immunopathology after vaccination and challenge, with more severe disease in vaccinated animals than in controls...
Thanks, once again, Nigel for posting this. Very promising indeed.
That election was over a decade before I was born. I wonder what the cut off is for it to no longer be considered "in modern times"?
It's strange to think but 1970 now is comparably long ago as the Great Depression period before before WWII was when I was in primary school.
I was a counting agent for the Liberals at that election. My Labour opposite number, someone I knew quite well, had a miniature radio with an earpiece and was trying to keep his spirits up by depressing mine!
I was sitting my O levels in June 1970 and was seriously sidetracked by the election campaign - being just as obsessed by polls and psephology then as I continue to be today. It certainly undermined my performance in terms of grades - if not passes. Feels like just a few years ago - as indeed does the 1964 election a few months before I sat the 11plus. Tempus fugit.
It's my view that the course of action the government has pursued will cause a great depression that will be an order of magnitude more harmful than the virus. Here's a professor from Bristol University saying just that:
"If the countermeasures we take reduce our life expectancy by more than 3 months, then because there are so many of us in the country, that means we will actually suffer more loss of life than we will from the epidemic itself".
I'm not arguing against lockdown because I'm bored and fancy a pint with my mates, I'm arguing against it because I think it's a calamitous policy that will ultimately hurt more than it helps.
Broadly speaking I'm a utilitarian - if something benefits a lot of people at the expense of a few people, I tend to be in favour unless it's outrageously unfair. But the Bristol Prof's view goes too far - effectively he says that we should accept the imminent death of N people in order to give the rest of us 3 months' longer lifespans. No. I'll take 3 months' less life rather than subscribe to sacrificing 100,000 lives to avoid it. If that's the choice.
The flaw in that argument is that "sacrificing a life" is equivalent to "causing x to forgo n months of life," so the contrast you seek to make between sacrificing lives and gaining extra months is illusory. So if the rest of us times 3 months exceeds let's say 100,000 x 12 months (median time to go till death of people in care homes) we win, on the utilitarian view. And that's before you consider quality of life issues. 40% of people in care homes are *diagnosed* as suffering serious depression, and I bet there's as many again undiagnosed. So keeping them alive isn't that much of a kindness anyway.
ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination prevents SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in rhesus macaques https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.093195v1 Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in December 20191,2 and is responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic3. Vaccines are an essential countermeasure urgently needed to control the pandemic4. Here, we show that the adenovirus-vectored vaccine ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, encoding the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, is immunogenic in mice, eliciting a robust humoral and cell-mediated response. This response was not Th2 dominated, as demonstrated by IgG subclass and cytokine expression profiling. A single vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 induced a humoral and cellular immune response in rhesus macaques. We observed a significantly reduced viral load in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and respiratory tract tissue of vaccinated animals challenged with SARS-CoV-2 compared with control animals, and no pneumonia was observed in vaccinated rhesus macaques. Importantly, no evidence of immune-enhanced disease following viral challenge in vaccinated animals was observed. ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 is currently under investigation in a phase I clinical trial. Safety, immunogenicity and efficacy against symptomatic PCR-positive COVID-19 disease will now be assessed in randomised controlled human clinical trials.
The vaccinated animals did show viral shedding from the upper respiratory tract, but this was a very high dosage viral challenge trial, likely well in excess of any normal human exposure.
And contrast with similar studies for the original SARS virus vaccines, which...resulted in immunopathology after vaccination and challenge, with more severe disease in vaccinated animals than in controls...
Thanks, once again, Nigel for posting this. Very promising indeed.
It's my view that the course of action the government has pursued will cause a great depression that will be an order of magnitude more harmful than the virus. Here's a professor from Bristol University saying just that:
"If the countermeasures we take reduce our life expectancy by more than 3 months, then because there are so many of us in the country, that means we will actually suffer more loss of life than we will from the epidemic itself".
I'm not arguing against lockdown because I'm bored and fancy a pint with my mates, I'm arguing against it because I think it's a calamitous policy that will ultimately hurt more than it helps.
Broadly speaking I'm a utilitarian - if something benefits a lot of people at the expense of a few people, I tend to be in favour unless it's outrageously unfair. But the Bristol Prof's view goes too far - effectively he says that we should accept the imminent death of N people in order to give the rest of us 3 months' longer lifespans. No. I'll take 3 months' less life rather than subscribe to sacrificing 100,000 lives to avoid it. If that's the choice.
The Prof is also assuming - without any hard evidence at all - that avoiding taking countermeasures would not have resulted in a similar depression.
So he's effectively suggesting sacrificing a number of lives for an outcome which might be no better.
Yes, I think the 'grand bargain' thing is off beam re this crisis. The virus without restrictions so severe as to wreck the economy and impinge on personal freedoms would have wrecked the economy and impinged on personal freedoms.
But I am interested in the general concept. For example, one I floated a while back, which sounds a bit silly but IMO isn't, since it illustrates the point well.
If a million people having a harmless but uncomfortable nosebleed for 60 minutes prevents a 75 year old man in Basildon* dropping dead of a heart attack, is this a good trade for the nation?
* he doesn't have to be in Basildon.
The genuine differences seem to be between countries with proactive/competent and reactive/dialling-it-in governments. The lockdown/no lockdown debate is a distraction.
Exactly right. It's about competence not some great philosophical weighing up of elderly lives against younger ones or of lives generally against money. Also it's very different for the developed world c.f. poorer nations without advanced healthcare.
Ted Heath's majority of 31 in 1970 included 8 Ulster Unionists still taking the Tory Whip. Without them , his majority was just 15 - reduced to 13 a year later following the Bromsgove by-election - and to just 11 in December 1972 after their loss of Sutton & Cheam.
In 1951 there were around 15-20 Liberal Nationals,* without whom Churchill didn’t have a majority at all. Your point being?
*Identifying Liberal Nationals is an inexact science, as some identified as Liberals, some as Liberals and Conservatives, some as Liberals and Unionists and some as Liberal Nationals. It is safe to say however that Churchill’s majority was dependent on them and the nine Ulster Unionists in a way that Eden’s or Macmillan’s was not.
To a large extent - if not totally - the National Liberals had been swallowed by the Tories by the early 1950s. I know they still had their own Chief Whip at that time, but in reality they had lost much of the seperate identity they had had under John Simon in the 1930s. I think of Gwilym Lloyd George - though I believe he was elected as a Liberal & Conservative in 1951 , having lost Pembroke to Labour against the national swing in 1950. Of course, Heseltine was originally a National Liberal - and John Nott.
Is Wyvern Cricket still doing his analysis of the deaths data for England and Wales? Haven't seen it on here since last week. Can anyone provide a link if he is still doing it?
Over half the Isle of Wight have downloaded the app
Not enough people.
I always thought it was a risky choice because there are so many retired people there who are less likely to have smartphones.
The Island is stuck in the 1950s. It's part of its charm
I realise this makes me a very, very bad person, but I have downloaded the app using a spoof, IoW postcode, just to see what would happen. I cannot believe I am uniquely evil (in this respect, anyway).
Ted Heath's majority of 31 in 1970 included 8 Ulster Unionists still taking the Tory Whip. Without them , his majority was just 15 - reduced to 13 a year later following the Bromsgove by-election - and to just 11 in December 1972 after their loss of Sutton & Cheam.
In 1951 there were around 15-20 Liberal Nationals,* without whom Churchill didn’t have a majority at all. Your point being?
*Identifying Liberal Nationals is an inexact science, as some identified as Liberals, some as Liberals and Conservatives, some as Liberals and Unionists and some as Liberal Nationals. It is safe to say however that Churchill’s majority was dependent on them and the nine Ulster Unionists in a way that Eden’s or Macmillan’s was not.
To a large extent - if not totally - the National Liberals had been swallowed by the Tories by the early 1950s. I know they still had their own Chief Whip at that time, but in reality they had lost much of the seperate identity they had had under John Simon in the 1930s. I think of Gwilym Lloyd George - though I believe he was elected as a Liberal & Conservative in 1951 , having lost Pembroke to Labour against the national swing in 1950. Of course, Heseltine was originally a National Liberal - and John Nott.
Gwilym Lloyd George was a funny one from that point of view (I had a long and rather unproductive argument about him with our own dear Hyufd only the other week). He described himself as a Liberal in every election he fought - even though he lost the Liberal whip after joining the Conservative front bench under Churchill. But after switching to NuTN he was supported by Central Office, so was described by others including The Times as a ‘Liberal and Conservative.’ This didn’t sit well with the local Tory association, who on at least one occasion put up a candidate against him (I think it was in 1951).
I think it was only after he became a peer in 1957 that he actually joined the Conservatives.
It's my view that the course of action the government has pursued will cause a great depression that will be an order of magnitude more harmful than the virus. Here's a professor from Bristol University saying just that:
"If the countermeasures we take reduce our life expectancy by more than 3 months, then because there are so many of us in the country, that means we will actually suffer more loss of life than we will from the epidemic itself".
I'm not arguing against lockdown because I'm bored and fancy a pint with my mates, I'm arguing against it because I think it's a calamitous policy that will ultimately hurt more than it helps.
Broadly speaking I'm a utilitarian - if something benefits a lot of people at the expense of a few people, I tend to be in favour unless it's outrageously unfair. But the Bristol Prof's view goes too far - effectively he says that we should accept the imminent death of N people in order to give the rest of us 3 months' longer lifespans. No. I'll take 3 months' less life rather than subscribe to sacrificing 100,000 lives to avoid it. If that's the choice.
The Prof is also assuming - without any hard evidence at all - that avoiding taking countermeasures would not have resulted in a similar depression.
So he's effectively suggesting sacrificing a number of lives for an outcome which might be no better.
Yes, I think the 'grand bargain' thing is off beam re this crisis. The virus without restrictions so severe as to wreck the economy and impinge on personal freedoms would have wrecked the economy and impinged on personal freedoms.
But I am interested in the general concept. For example, one I floated a while back, which sounds a bit silly but IMO isn't, since it illustrates the point well.
If a million people having a harmless but uncomfortable nosebleed for 60 minutes prevents a 75 year old man in Basildon* dropping dead of a heart attack, is this a good trade for the nation?
* he doesn't have to be in Basildon.
The genuine differences seem to be between countries with proactive/competent and reactive/dialling-it-in governments. The lockdown/no lockdown debate is a distraction.
Exactly right. It's about competence not some great philosophical weighing up of elderly lives against younger ones or of lives generally against money. Also it's very different for the developed world c.f. poorer nations without advanced healthcare.
Though some poorer nations with effective public health systems are doing relatively well too.
Comments
My view has always been we should have had a short lockdown (say, up to the point where we were able to increase capacity via Nightingale Hospitals), as well as making provision to shield the elderly and vulnerable (from priority supermarket deliveries to live-in carers). But after that we should have released the lockdown and allowed gradual spread throughout the community.
However, I'm also now of the opinion that the lockdown should have been far stricter. Eight weeks with nobody leaving their homes except for emergencies (how hard is it to organise food deliveries for the majority - you don't need to go out) would have squashed this thing, maybe giving us a chance at unlocking to track and trace.
Where we've ended up is the worst of all possible worlds. We've inflicted maximum economic damage, still ended up with a high casualty rate, but haven't reduced the spread of the virus enough to be able to track and trace.
Most people think this will be over in a month and we will slowly be getting back to normal. The question is how they react when they find out that's not the case.
More importantly how many of the 3,446 new cases identified are subject to full track and trace of all their contacts to you know
Actually save some lives
ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination prevents SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in rhesus macaques
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.093195v1
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in December 20191,2 and is responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic3. Vaccines are an essential countermeasure urgently needed to control the pandemic4. Here, we show that the adenovirus-vectored vaccine ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, encoding the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, is immunogenic in mice, eliciting a robust humoral and cell-mediated response. This response was not Th2 dominated, as demonstrated by IgG subclass and cytokine expression profiling. A single vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 induced a humoral and cellular immune response in rhesus macaques. We observed a significantly reduced viral load in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and respiratory tract tissue of vaccinated animals challenged with SARS-CoV-2 compared with control animals, and no pneumonia was observed in vaccinated rhesus macaques. Importantly, no evidence of immune-enhanced disease following viral challenge in vaccinated animals was observed. ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 is currently under investigation in a phase I clinical trial. Safety, immunogenicity and efficacy against symptomatic PCR-positive COVID-19 disease will now be assessed in randomised controlled human clinical trials.
And contrast with similar studies for the original SARS virus vaccines, which...resulted in immunopathology after vaccination and challenge, with more severe disease in vaccinated animals than in controls...
They report this is as new mystery phenomenon, when it has been happening since day one.
And I expect arrivals will drop to a trickle compared to normal levels
So he's effectively suggesting sacrificing a number of lives for an outcome which might be no better.
My hunch is it just means self isolation like now. If that is the case still in July then why not go away and take the quarantine hit? (Depending on the quarantine arrangements at ethe French side, or wherever.)
https://twitter.com/ShaunBaileyUK/status/1260608062127321090?s=20
https://twitter.com/ShaunBaileyUK/status/1260940409989193729?s=20
And I am a conservative but condemn idiotic actions like this, just as I criticise Dawn Butler for her unacceptable comments
These tweets have rightly been deleted. The MPs involved have been spoken to by the whips’ office and reminded of their responsibility to check the validity of information before they post on social media sites.
UPDATE: Caulfield is a government whip herself, which makes this especially embarrassing for her.
(Does that qualify as self-flagellation ?)
Although, frankly, none of these countries apart from Belgium have infection rates as high as the UK. The whole thing is moot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Editing
You're allowed to edit freely. If someone puts something false/indecent/idiotic/off-topic then someone else will change it. There is a procedure for arguing about it (e.g. the pages on Israel and Palestine are permanent battlegrounds) with a moderator who will decide on unresolved arguments. I have a nerdy retired friend who spends hours every day doing little else.
But yes, running your text through a spellchecker is a good idea if it's not just numbers.
Only need to see all retw@ttering of the Boris "people of colour / talent", and the clipped This Morning videos that got jumped all over.
Fact checking is completely out of fashion these days.
It's also hard to view all lives as the same. Would I give up three months of my life to give my grandfather an extra two years? Yes. Would I give up three months to give a random 86 year old I've never met an extra two years? Probably not. Even though, from a utilitarian perspective (if you assume quality of life in all years is equal) I should.
I'm also acutely aware that my own experiences of the global financial crisis have strongly weighted my personal fear of economic calamity. The GFC left me penniless, couch surfing for the best part of 18 months, trying to navigate the benefits system and having what seemed like endless doors slammed in my face. The thought that others will go through the same experience now for a lockdown that may well be largely ineffective horrifies me. I wouldn't want anyone else to go through *that* to add three months to someone else's life.
The suggestion that hotels are used is an idea but not confirmed
Trump on China: 'We could cut off the whole relationship'
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/trump-on-china-we-could-cut-off-the-whole-relationship
Whatever were they thinking, though maybe thinking is not their thought process
But I am interested in the general concept. For example, one I floated a while back, which sounds a bit silly but IMO isn't, since it illustrates the point well.
If a million people having a harmless but uncomfortable nosebleed for 60 minutes prevents a 75 year old man in Basildon* dropping dead of a heart attack, is this a good trade for the nation?
* he doesn't have to be in Basildon.
Now I don't exactly hold old Mr Green in very high regard, but he is transport secretary, not health secretary.
We really need something like
Mon - Health,
Tue - Economics / Business
Wed - Medical Research Update,
Thurs - Transport
Fri - Sports / Leisure
...
I also notice how little we get the big boys doing these press conferences anymore. We hardly ever get Boris or Mr Yorkshire Tea. Gove and Hancock rarely appear. Patel appears to have been hidden like JRM during the GE.
The lockdown/no lockdown debate is a distraction.
https://twitter.com/DougSaunders/status/1260667166677970953?s=20
*Identifying Liberal Nationals is an inexact science, as some identified as Liberals, some as Liberals and Conservatives, some as Liberals and Unionists and some as Liberal Nationals. It is safe to say however that Churchill’s majority was dependent on them and the nine Ulster Unionists in a way that Eden’s or Macmillan’s was not.
https://twitter.com/MahuiChina/status/1260866328463843328
https://twitter.com/MahuiChina/status/1260866335170605057
https://twitter.com/MahuiChina/status/1260866336256909312
(A genuine question, as I have no idea of the answer to that, but I'm fairly sure we have someone here who knows.)
That will also solve Macron’s fiscal problem and leave the rest of us with an unparalleled opportunity to watch a 1789-style explosion.
And I suppose the revolutionary war doesn't count, either.
I'm always happier posting good news.
(That might be too subtle a pun, but we’ll see.)
The most important function of the guillotine in 1793 was that it deCapetated the monarchy.
Thanks
Wales needs to throw out labour in 2021
I think it was only after he became a peer in 1957 that he actually joined the Conservatives.