I think David is right on this. The problem is who takes over. Sunak seems the obvious choice, but will he be once the tough decisions start to be made? The lack of talent in the Cabinet is truly something to behold. No wonder Sajid and Hunt are already on manouevres.
Sajid is a talentless no hoper, if he is the one then Starmer is a dead cert. Sunak looks the part at this point and if he continues as he is now he will be the top Tory by a mile. Hunt is about the only other one that sounds half competent. Going to be tough for Tories to hang on once Brexit piles the crap on top of the virus expenditure , I would not bet someone else's money on Tories at this point.
I'd go further than that and say that speculating about 2024 is essentially pointless. Not only have we no idea what the economic situation will look like by that point, we don't even know if the country as presently constituted will still exist.
I for one hope it is not, the sooner we are independent the better.
On this day in 1964 I married my beloved at St Gerardine's Church in Lossiemouth
Congratulations to you both. Alec Douglas-Home was then PM.
Best PB style congratulations ever!
And in the same vein, congrats Big G, another Douglas, Douglas Young, was the leader of the SNP in that year.
I've never been more aware of the BBC as a State Broadcaster than now. It's mobile front page is essentially a cut and paste from the Ministry of Information.
Even to the point of getting it presumably intentionally wrong over the new exercise rules. It says you can now exercise outside with someone from outside your household for the first time. Which is wrong. You always could.
No you couldn't unless you reckon you can freely stand shoulder to shoulder with strangers and that there's no such thing as a 2 metre rule.
"Restrictions on gatherings
7. During the emergency period, no person may participate in a gathering in a public place of more than two people except—
(a)where all the persons in the gathering are members of the same household, (b)where the gathering is essential for work purposes, (c)to attend a funeral, etc..."
And the two metre rule is advice not the law.
Not all rules are laws.
The two metre rule is a rule. The only exercising once per day was a rule.
That was my point. You could always under the law go outside with two people. The BBC is making out that it is a recent thing.
It is if you are following the rules and not just the law.
If the government announced they were lifting the two metre rule and the BBC reported that would you say "why are they reporting that it was never the law?"
You are becoming a bit HYUFD-like.
You could always exercise outdoors with someone not in your household. As per the law.
Nothing has changed in this respect yet the BBC is reporting as though it is a new development.
So what?
You are the one being HYUFD like but where HYUFD worships opinion polls you are doing the same with the law as if only the law is relevant. There's more to life than opinion polls or the law. The media doesn't just report the law. If only law changes were reported there wouldn't be very much at all for the media to report on would there?
Being able to exercise multiple times per day IS NEW within the coronavirus guidance. The media reports a whole lot more on coronavirus as a whole than it does changes in the law so the guidance changing is newsworthy.
The BBC says this today:
"Individuals in England are now allowed to meet with one other person from outside their household if they stay outdoors"
That is simply inaccurate.
It's entirely accurate. That's what is allowed within the guidance now.
Where does it reference law? You are the one trying to make it about law ... that quote doesn't mention the law.
It is inaccurate because you could always do that.
I would have expected the BBC to put the new guidance into context.
No you couldn't always within the guidance rules. The new guidance should be put into context by being compared with the old guidance. That is like for like context.
If the quote says from "it is now legal ..." then that would be inaccurate but it doesn't say that. You are the one reading law into it where law isn't even mentioned.
If you want to discuss context then provide the link to the full article and we can discuss that.
Not to interfere in this exchange but from PT on the subject of whether "Boris" really was 17.5 stone before he got the virus -
You say you can well believe it because he is "athletic" and "all muscle".
I would like you to reflect on that comment. I know it was late, but still.
Only if moobs and beer belly are made of muscle, and athletics consist of lifting a knife and fork!
Johnson has an impulsive personality and has never demonstrated self discipline when faced by temptation.
I know you have a bitter take on Boris but you may find that the public enquiries have a lot more to say about the public health bodies and the scientific advisors
Unfortunately my Mother in Laws excellent care home in the Isle of Wight now has several cases. Worrying, and a desperately sad situation.
One of the many awful things about Covid-19 is how people die without family around them. Even our hardy ICU consultants, who have made decisions to end intervention on a weekly basis for years find this distressing.
And, dare one venture to say it, the Covid crisis in care homes doesn't end with the disease. A high proportion of care home residents are demented, and are presently being warehoused in solitary confinement basically with no human contact apart from help with feeding and essential personal care, gradually wasting away despite the best efforts of the staff.
At the end of all of this there are going to be many relatives who, having left their loved ones in a state of mild cognitive impairment, go back again to discover that they are either completely uncommunicative or have no idea who this stranger who's just come to see them actually is.
There's arguably an issue here of the prioritisation of quantity of life over quality of life, but in your line of work I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that society often isn't very comfortable about having conversations on that subject.
I wonder if this crisis will lead to us reassess our attitude to assisted dying. I certainly have no intention of spending my last 5 years in a vegetative state in a care home but at the moment my only safe option would be to book a trip to Dignitas.
There is so much that is right in this article that it's a pity the underlying premise renders it null and void.
Johnson won the Tories their biggest victory since Margaret Thatcher. She was given free rein in three General Elections (1979, 1983, 1987) and no one would touch her.
We tend to filter what we think we know through the prism of recent experience and I'm afraid David you have fallen foul of this. You're thinking Boris is Cameron. He isn't. Cameron did win but only just and his coalition victory followed by 12-seat majority gave the plotters the oxygen they needed.
Boris has one single undeniable firewall. He won handsomely. The party won't touch him.
The Tories won the 1983 and 1987 elections by significantly bigger majorities than Johnson managed in 2019 against Corbyn. That did not stop the Tories ditching her in 1990 when she became an electoral liability.
And as a result the Tories only won one majority for the next 25 years and the poll tax was far more unpopular with Tory voters than WTO terms with Boris will be with them
But had Thatcher stayed, it is likely that the Tories would have lost office in 1991 or 1992. In the shortrun , at least, ditching her did work!
"No return to school until it is safe to do so". FFS doesn`t she know there`s a virus around? - it will never be safe to do so. Even if a vaccine if found it won`t be 100% effective.
The government has to go on the attack regarding these illogical Labour Party views, espoused even by Starmer at PMQs.
DH is right that the Tory party is pretty swift to defenestrate a leader looking likely to lose an election.
I have never been a Boris fan. He has always looked the bumbling amateur public school boy who bullshits his way through life.
It got Blair three election victories, didn't it?
And being thoughtful oiks got Brown and May precisely nowhere, after some initial successes.
You could easily make a case that the country likes being led by people who make them feel more optimistic, especially when the circumstances don't justify it. For my money, we've had two leaders like that in the past two decades (Blair and Johnson), and two who clearly weren't (Brown and May). Cameron is somewhere between, hence his mediocre but not disastrous electoral record.
? Perhaps my antennae aren't as developed as those of the class obsessed English, but to me Blair always gave the impression of suppressing his public school background, appeared anything but bumbling and his adoption of estuarine tones was the opposite of Johnson's Classical pretensions.
Is that the same Tony Blair that went to public school in... Scotland?
I'm sure that would be a killer point if I could work out what it was.
He was infected by Scottishness?
There used to be a trio of stripper bars in the West Port in Edinburgh known colloquially as the pubic triangle, similarly Fettes, Edinburgh Academy and Stewart's Melville could be described as the public school triangle (though you can probably randomly chuck a triangle onto a map of Edinburgh and come up with 3 private schools). I'd venture that there was a good deal more Scottishness in the former than the latter.
So the Scots who are either posh, or class-aware aren't 'properly Scottish'. That makes more sense as a definition. I wonder what you'd do with these non-Scottish Scots in your brave new Scotland? Ship them all off to the a remote Hebridean Island maybe? Edinburgh would look funny empty.
Lucky , no matter how much you protest it is plain to anyone that Scotland is far less class conscious than England. We have our share , much smaller, of hoorays but in general people don't have the doff your cap/they are better than me attitude that you see down south.
It is awareness that we're speaking of Malc, not necessarily 'kowtowing'. Complaining about the poshos in the big house (or complaining about the local neds) is as much awareness of the class system as the deferential behaviour you describe.
Lucky , I disagree, you have the poshos v neds in all countries but few have the ingrained social structure that still pervades England. We saw that in bold on here as Starmer was deemed an absolute pleb due to the schools he had attended and fact his parents were not of the correct class yet absolute arseholes are feted because they are from the right stock and went to Eton/Cambridge/Oxford etc. There is nothing near that attitude in Scotland.
Starmer went to private school, has an Oxford degree and is a knight of the realm.
On that basis he is the poshest party leader since Douglas Home
Don't get all isam on us. He went to a grammar school which became fee paying while he was there. Did they say existing students didn't need to pay? No idea. My guess is yes.
Reigate grammar school was an independence school for most of the time Starmer was there
But not when he started.
And that's the point. His parents didn't send him to a private school. They chose to send him to a grammar school or rather he got into a grammar school under his own efforts by virtue of passing the 11+. What was he to say at 14 or whenever - Mum/Dad, with a name like "Keir" I can't continue to go there now it's become fee paying for new entrants, so couldn't you send me instead to Reigate secondary modern so that I can take a CSE in metalwork?
And for the avoidance of doubt he also chose to go to a redbrick university (Leeds) as an undergraduate. They didn't give out first class honours there like confetti in those days, so the fact that he got one and went to Oxbridge for his masters on the back of it is all the more impressive.
If PB Tories want to portray someone who has demostrated such personal achievement as instead having been born with a silver spoon in his mouth, aka Cameron, Johnson et al, more fool them. I hope the Tories try the same in 2024, because if they do they'll have been reduced to clutching at straws.
IDS went to a secondary modern in Solihull, not a posh private school like Starmer's ultimately was.
May was also mainly state educated and Thatcher and Heath and Major, Howard and Hague all went to state schools.
Starmer is certainly posher than all Tory leaders for the last 50 years bar Boris and Cameron but he is a knight of the realm unlike them.
He is also posher than any Labour leader since Blair
Starmer has unquestionably achieved more personally than any other UK political leader for a very long time. To find another leader who started where he did and arrived where he is now would be a tough task until you get to people like Major, Heath, Kinnock, Callaghan and Wilson. Of them, perhaps only Wilson can match what Starmer achieved before he entered politics. Tories who wish to portray him as posh should continue to do so, in my view. They merely demonstrate just how little they understand working class aspiration.
Michael Howard was also a top barrister and went to a grammar school, Ted Heath came top of the civil service exams and went to grammar school and William Hague went to a comprehensive school and then got a first from Oxford and worked for McKinsey and Co an elite management consultants
You are not born into a grammar school. You get into one. It;s far tougher to do when you are from a working class background, as Starmer was. Still, you know all this. You just do not want to accept it. That's fine. It just makes you look a bit silly.
I've never been more aware of the BBC as a State Broadcaster than now. It's mobile front page is essentially a cut and paste from the Ministry of Information.
Even to the point of getting it presumably intentionally wrong over the new exercise rules. It says you can now exercise outside with someone from outside your household for the first time. Which is wrong. You always could.
No you couldn't unless you reckon you can freely stand shoulder to shoulder with strangers and that there's no such thing as a 2 metre rule.
"Restrictions on gatherings
7. During the emergency period, no person may participate in a gathering in a public place of more than two people except—
(a)where all the persons in the gathering are members of the same household, (b)where the gathering is essential for work purposes, (c)to attend a funeral, etc..."
And the two metre rule is advice not the law.
Not all rules are laws.
The two metre rule is a rule. The only exercising once per day was a rule.
That was my point. You could always under the law go outside with two people. The BBC is making out that it is a recent thing.
It is if you are following the rules and not just the law.
If the government announced they were lifting the two metre rule and the BBC reported that would you say "why are they reporting that it was never the law?"
You are becoming a bit HYUFD-like.
You could always exercise outdoors with someone not in your household. As per the law.
Nothing has changed in this respect yet the BBC is reporting as though it is a new development.
So what?
You are the one being HYUFD like but where HYUFD worships opinion polls you are doing the same with the law as if only the law is relevant. There's more to life than opinion polls or the law. The media doesn't just report the law. If only law changes were reported there wouldn't be very much at all for the media to report on would there?
Being able to exercise multiple times per day IS NEW within the coronavirus guidance. The media reports a whole lot more on coronavirus as a whole than it does changes in the law so the guidance changing is newsworthy.
The BBC says this today:
"Individuals in England are now allowed to meet with one other person from outside their household if they stay outdoors"
That is simply inaccurate.
It's entirely accurate. That's what is allowed within the guidance now.
Where does it reference law? You are the one trying to make it about law ... that quote doesn't mention the law.
It is inaccurate because you could always do that.
I would have expected the BBC to put the new guidance into context.
No you couldn't always within the guidance rules. The new guidance should be put into context by being compared with the old guidance. That is like for like context.
If the quote says from "it is now legal ..." then that would be inaccurate but it doesn't say that. You are the one reading law into it where law isn't even mentioned.
If you want to discuss context then provide the link to the full article and we can discuss that.
Not to interfere in this exchange but from PT on the subject of whether "Boris" really was 17.5 stone before he got the virus -
You say you can well believe it because he is "athletic" and "all muscle".
I would like you to reflect on that comment. I know it was late, but still.
No that's not what I said. I said I can well believe it because he is both fat and muscular and muscle is denser than fat. Pure numbers don't mean much alone.
A 17.5 stone all muscle individual would look like a weightlifter not Boris. A 17.5 muscular and fat individual could well look like Boris. While a 17.5 pure fat weakling who never exercised would look much bigger while being no heavier.
If PB Tories want to portray someone who has demonstrated such personal achievement as instead having been born with a silver spoon in his mouth, aka Cameron, Johnson et al, more fool them.
The "Tories" are simply highlighting Starmer's hypocritical prolier than thou fibs: pretending to be working class when he is no such thing.
The wider point is that the SNP line that England is full of posho snobs is simply not true. In fact having an upper class background is a severe disadvantage, particularly in politics.
In what way is Starmer pretending to be working class?
That said, anyone who believes that being upper calss is a disadvantage clearly does not live anywhere near the real world!
Come now, think of the privations and travails these poor souls had to endure, with Eton & Oxford educated BJ bravely leading the way.
'Two-thirds of Boris Johnson's cabinet went to private schools'
It specifically says at the top of it "the new guidelines" not "the new law". That sets the context.
Maybe for us on here but for the casual browser less so.
Actually the article says "rules".
Very confusing for many people.
It literally says it in the very first paragraph that explains the new rules in black and white.
You are proving my point for me. Are "rules" guidance or the law?
Clue: it is referring to the guidelines.
The rules are guidelines as the article says.
The law is the law. This isn't an article about the law. If it wanted to say law it would say law.
The article says this:
"This easing only applies to two individuals from separate households"
"This easing".
But it was always the case.
No it explicitly wasn't. If you think it was the provide the previous guidelines (which is what this article is about) that says it was previously allowed.
You're comparing apples with oranges. New guidelines need to be compared with old guidelines while new laws need to be compared with old laws.
The BBC should be making the distinction.
It should be explaining and examining the government's actions in the round, not acting as a government spokesman.
Why? Why should it?
This is an article about guidelines. Why should it need to explain the difference between guidelines and law? The words mean different things and they used the right words.
You made a mistake and misread the article. Stop digging a hole.
Strange response. Of course the BBC should be making the distinction. It is there to inform. Not to support the government's position which was clearly set out by @Ishmael_Z although to be fair it is obvious to everyone apart from small children.
It is informing what the new guidelines are.
If you want to be informed what the word guidelines means then consult a dictionary.
It says they are"rules". Because no one is going to misinterpret that as "Rule of Law" are they now.
Not if they are literate and read the word guidelines, no. If they're illiterate then they're probably not reading it either.
Thornhill report makes painful reading. It would be hard to be otherwise after the 2019 GE
"The report notes that while Swinson was hampered by having less than five months between winning the party leadership and the election, her decision to immediately seek a new party chief executive undermined decision-making structures.
“This had the unintended consequence creating an ‘inner circle’ of advisers at arm’s length from the resources of the party machine, and put decision-making in the hands of an unaccountable group around the leader,” the report says. “It also severed some people from the roles and responsibilities they were employed to do, and led to the overpromotion of others.”
The report says: "...the party "effectively ignored" the biggest group of voters: those who were neither fervently remain or leave". A curious comment - it seemed to me that the vast majority were either fervently remain or fervently leave.
I need to read the full report, but it sounds as if no attempt to paper over the cracks. Many lessons to learn.
The repeal A50 policy was viable when No Deal Brexit on Halloween was the threat, but needed a back up plan for when BoZo's "Oven Ready Deal" appeared. It was off putting to many Remainers, and all Leavers.
I have said all along that the LDs newly expanded membership risked becoming a single issue anti Brexit party. Now that it is out of the way, hopefully we can get back to potholes, bus routes and barcharts
It was a disastrous decision to support the SNP in facilitating a December election.
I've never been more aware of the BBC as a State Broadcaster than now. It's mobile front page is essentially a cut and paste from the Ministry of Information.
Even to the point of getting it presumably intentionally wrong over the new exercise rules. It says you can now exercise outside with someone from outside your household for the first time. Which is wrong. You always could.
No you couldn't unless you reckon you can freely stand shoulder to shoulder with strangers and that there's no such thing as a 2 metre rule.
"Restrictions on gatherings
7. During the emergency period, no person may participate in a gathering in a public place of more than two people except—
(a)where all the persons in the gathering are members of the same household, (b)where the gathering is essential for work purposes, (c)to attend a funeral, etc..."
And the two metre rule is advice not the law.
Not all rules are laws.
The two metre rule is a rule. The only exercising once per day was a rule.
That was my point. You could always under the law go outside with two people. The BBC is making out that it is a recent thing.
It is if you are following the rules and not just the law.
If the government announced they were lifting the two metre rule and the BBC reported that would you say "why are they reporting that it was never the law?"
You are becoming a bit HYUFD-like.
You could always exercise outdoors with someone not in your household. As per the law.
Nothing has changed in this respect yet the BBC is reporting as though it is a new development.
So what?
You are the one being HYUFD like but where HYUFD worships opinion polls you are doing the same with the law as if only the law is relevant. There's more to life than opinion polls or the law. The media doesn't just report the law. If only law changes were reported there wouldn't be very much at all for the media to report on would there?
Being able to exercise multiple times per day IS NEW within the coronavirus guidance. The media reports a whole lot more on coronavirus as a whole than it does changes in the law so the guidance changing is newsworthy.
The BBC says this today:
"Individuals in England are now allowed to meet with one other person from outside their household if they stay outdoors"
That is simply inaccurate.
It's entirely accurate. That's what is allowed within the guidance now.
Where does it reference law? You are the one trying to make it about law ... that quote doesn't mention the law.
It is inaccurate because you could always do that.
I would have expected the BBC to put the new guidance into context.
No you couldn't always within the guidance rules. The new guidance should be put into context by being compared with the old guidance. That is like for like context.
If the quote says from "it is now legal ..." then that would be inaccurate but it doesn't say that. You are the one reading law into it where law isn't even mentioned.
If you want to discuss context then provide the link to the full article and we can discuss that.
Not to interfere in this exchange but from PT on the subject of whether "Boris" really was 17.5 stone before he got the virus -
You say you can well believe it because he is "athletic" and "all muscle".
I would like you to reflect on that comment. I know it was late, but still.
Only if moobs and beer belly are made of muscle, and athletics consist of lifting a knife and fork!
Johnson has an impulsive personality and has never demonstrated self discipline when faced by temptation.
He's both fat and muscular. It's possible to be both. He cycles and jogs and is active in his job, while also being fat.
A sloth who spent all day on the couch who was the same height and weight would look bigger than him while having the same weight wouldn't they?
You are not born into a grammar school. You get into one. It;s far tougher to do when you are from a working class background, as Starmer was.
Really? (on both "far tougher" and Starmer being working class)
My background is more working class than Sir K's - my father worked in a factory, he didn't own one. Unfortunately though I probably* would have got into a grammar school the local Labour council got rid of them.
* I passed the mock 11plus exam, never got to take the real thing.
I've never been more aware of the BBC as a State Broadcaster than now. It's mobile front page is essentially a cut and paste from the Ministry of Information.
Even to the point of getting it presumably intentionally wrong over the new exercise rules. It says you can now exercise outside with someone from outside your household for the first time. Which is wrong. You always could.
No you couldn't unless you reckon you can freely stand shoulder to shoulder with strangers and that there's no such thing as a 2 metre rule.
"Restrictions on gatherings
7. During the emergency period, no person may participate in a gathering in a public place of more than two people except—
(a)where all the persons in the gathering are members of the same household, (b)where the gathering is essential for work purposes, (c)to attend a funeral, etc..."
And the two metre rule is advice not the law.
Not all rules are laws.
The two metre rule is a rule. The only exercising once per day was a rule.
That was my point. You could always under the law go outside with two people. The BBC is making out that it is a recent thing.
It is if you are following the rules and not just the law.
If the government announced they were lifting the two metre rule and the BBC reported that would you say "why are they reporting that it was never the law?"
You are becoming a bit HYUFD-like.
You could always exercise outdoors with someone not in your household. As per the law.
Nothing has changed in this respect yet the BBC is reporting as though it is a new development.
So what?
You are the one being HYUFD like but where HYUFD worships opinion polls you are doing the same with the law as if only the law is relevant. There's more to life than opinion polls or the law. The media doesn't just report the law. If only law changes were reported there wouldn't be very much at all for the media to report on would there?
Being able to exercise multiple times per day IS NEW within the coronavirus guidance. The media reports a whole lot more on coronavirus as a whole than it does changes in the law so the guidance changing is newsworthy.
The BBC says this today:
"Individuals in England are now allowed to meet with one other person from outside their household if they stay outdoors"
That is simply inaccurate.
It's entirely accurate. That's what is allowed within the guidance now.
Where does it reference law? You are the one trying to make it about law ... that quote doesn't mention the law.
It is inaccurate because you could always do that.
I would have expected the BBC to put the new guidance into context.
No you couldn't always within the guidance rules. The new guidance should be put into context by being compared with the old guidance. That is like for like context.
If the quote says from "it is now legal ..." then that would be inaccurate but it doesn't say that. You are the one reading law into it where law isn't even mentioned.
If you want to discuss context then provide the link to the full article and we can discuss that.
Not to interfere in this exchange but from PT on the subject of whether "Boris" really was 17.5 stone before he got the virus -
You say you can well believe it because he is "athletic" and "all muscle".
I would like you to reflect on that comment. I know it was late, but still.
No that's not what I said. I said I can well believe it because he is both fat and muscular and muscle is denser than fat. Pure numbers don't mean much alone.
A 17.5 stone all muscle individual would look like a weightlifter not Boris. A 17.5 muscular and fat individual could well look like Boris. While a 17.5 pure fat weakling who never exercised would look much bigger while being no heavier.
You can keep dancing on the head of a pin but facts are facts , he was and still is a fat barsteward
I've never been more aware of the BBC as a State Broadcaster than now. It's mobile front page is essentially a cut and paste from the Ministry of Information.
Even to the point of getting it presumably intentionally wrong over the new exercise rules. It says you can now exercise outside with someone from outside your household for the first time. Which is wrong. You always could.
No you couldn't unless you reckon you can freely stand shoulder to shoulder with strangers and that there's no such thing as a 2 metre rule.
"Restrictions on gatherings
7. During the emergency period, no person may participate in a gathering in a public place of more than two people except—
(a)where all the persons in the gathering are members of the same household, (b)where the gathering is essential for work purposes, (c)to attend a funeral, etc..."
And the two metre rule is advice not the law.
Not all rules are laws.
The two metre rule is a rule. The only exercising once per day was a rule.
That was my point. You could always under the law go outside with two people. The BBC is making out that it is a recent thing.
It is if you are following the rules and not just the law.
If the government announced they were lifting the two metre rule and the BBC reported that would you say "why are they reporting that it was never the law?"
You are becoming a bit HYUFD-like.
You could always exercise outdoors with someone not in your household. As per the law.
Nothing has changed in this respect yet the BBC is reporting as though it is a new development.
So what?
You are the one being HYUFD like but where HYUFD worships opinion polls you are doing the same with the law as if only the law is relevant. There's more to life than opinion polls or the law. The media doesn't just report the law. If only law changes were reported there wouldn't be very much at all for the media to report on would there?
Being able to exercise multiple times per day IS NEW within the coronavirus guidance. The media reports a whole lot more on coronavirus as a whole than it does changes in the law so the guidance changing is newsworthy.
The BBC says this today:
"Individuals in England are now allowed to meet with one other person from outside their household if they stay outdoors"
That is simply inaccurate.
It's entirely accurate. That's what is allowed within the guidance now.
Where does it reference law? You are the one trying to make it about law ... that quote doesn't mention the law.
It is inaccurate because you could always do that.
I would have expected the BBC to put the new guidance into context.
No you couldn't always within the guidance rules. The new guidance should be put into context by being compared with the old guidance. That is like for like context.
If the quote says from "it is now legal ..." then that would be inaccurate but it doesn't say that. You are the one reading law into it where law isn't even mentioned.
If you want to discuss context then provide the link to the full article and we can discuss that.
Not to interfere in this exchange but from PT on the subject of whether "Boris" really was 17.5 stone before he got the virus -
You say you can well believe it because he is "athletic" and "all muscle".
I would like you to reflect on that comment. I know it was late, but still.
Only if moobs and beer belly are made of muscle, and athletics consist of lifting a knife and fork!
Johnson has an impulsive personality and has never demonstrated self discipline when faced by temptation.
He's both fat and muscular. It's possible to be both. He cycles and jogs and is active in his job, while also being fat.
A sloth who spent all day on the couch who was the same height and weight would look bigger than him while having the same weight wouldn't they?
utter drivel, how many times have you heard of him cycling or jogging and how is he fit at his job, sitting at a desk and out guzzling at events day and night. You have lost it big time, you have outstripped HYFUD in the crazy Tory stakes.
DH is right that the Tory party is pretty swift to defenestrate a leader looking likely to lose an election.
I have never been a Boris fan. He has always looked the bumbling amateur public school boy who bullshits his way through life.
It got Blair three election victories, didn't it?
And being thoughtful oiks got Brown and May precisely nowhere, after some initial successes.
You could easily make a case that the country likes being led by people who make them feel more optimistic, especially when the circumstances don't justify it. For my money, we've had two leaders like that in the past two decades (Blair and Johnson), and two who clearly weren't (Brown and May). Cameron is somewhere between, hence his mediocre but not disastrous electoral record.
? Perhaps my antennae aren't as developed as those of the class obsessed English, but to me Blair always gave the impression of suppressing his public school background, appeared anything but bumbling and his adoption of estuarine tones was the opposite of Johnson's Classical pretensions.
Is that the same Tony Blair that went to public school in... Scotland?
I'm sure that would be a killer point if I could work out what it was.
He was infected by Scottishness?
There used to be a trio of stripper bars in the West Port in Edinburgh known colloquially as the pubic triangle, similarly Fettes, Edinburgh Academy and Stewart's Melville could be described as the public school triangle (though you can probably randomly chuck a triangle onto a map of Edinburgh and come up with 3 private schools). I'd venture that there was a good deal more Scottishness in the former than the latter.
So the Scots who are either posh, or class-aware aren't 'properly Scottish'. That makes more sense as a definition. I wonder what you'd do with these non-Scottish Scots in your brave new Scotland? Ship them all off to the a remote Hebridean Island maybe? Edinburgh would look funny empty.
It's a good point. My experience of posh Scots makes Scotland look like a feudal bastion in comparison with down-to-earth, egalitarian England.
Quite. At my first employer in Scotland the office staff spoke quite unironically about 'undesirables' in their local area. I know several lovely Scots obsessed with name-dropping when they might have run into an Earl at some committee or event (at least one of whom is a vocal SNP supporter - which doesn't stop him going weak at the knees at a sniff of the tweedy upper crust). I can't see a shred of evidence that Scots are any less aware of or interested in social class, though perhaps it is more so on the West Coast where I've spent less time.
There was none of this shit in Fife.
You must have managed to avoid St Andrews then, as well as not venturing over the bridge. Except to make a bee line for the safely Scottish confines of the Burke and Hare.
Personally I think the "allowed to travel as far as possible" was the most stupid. It isn't really enforceable to say only stay within say an hour drive of home, but the message would be clear, sure go out and exercise or go for a walk in your local area, but we still are trying to limit the spread so please don't all head to Devon or Cornwall (where instances of coronavirus are very low).
As soon as you say go as far as you like, people will then stretch the elastic and think I wonder if I can get away with a weekend away, sleeping in my car or I hide somewhere in a tent.
And now we get this mess...Pc Plod stopping people, who I imagine will be rightly pissed off.
G, it confirms nothing , Wilson is a mentally deranged old labour SNP hating fcukwit. Anyone and I mean anyone who thinks a word he utters or writes is crazy as well, he makes Tories look like they tell the truth. A sad old Labour loser.
There is so much that is right in this article that it's a pity the underlying premise renders it null and void.
Johnson won the Tories their biggest victory since Margaret Thatcher. She was given free rein in three General Elections (1979, 1983, 1987) and no one would touch her.
We tend to filter what we think we know through the prism of recent experience and I'm afraid David you have fallen foul of this. You're thinking Boris is Cameron. He isn't. Cameron did win but only just and his coalition victory followed by 12-seat majority gave the plotters the oxygen they needed.
Boris has one single undeniable firewall. He won handsomely. The party won't touch him.
The Tories won the 1983 and 1987 elections by significantly bigger majorities than Johnson managed in 2019 against Corbyn. That did not stop the Tories ditching her in 1990 when she became an electoral liability.
And as a result the Tories only won one majority for the next 25 years and the poll tax was far more unpopular with Tory voters than WTO terms with Boris will be with them
But had Thatcher stayed, it is likely that the Tories would have lost office in 1991 or 1992. In the shortrun , at least, ditching her did work!
I don't call 1990 to 1997 "in the short run" it certainly didn't feel short at the time.
G, it confirms nothing , Wilson is a mentally deranged old labour SNP hating fcukwit. Anyone and I mean anyone who thinks a word he utters or writes is crazy as well, he makes Tories look like they tell the truth. A sad old Labour loser.
Now now, don't hold back and tell us what you really think for a change
I've not read what Wilson wrote mind, it's really just an excuse to engage: why the Young Pretender?
DH is right that the Tory party is pretty swift to defenestrate a leader looking likely to lose an election.
I have never been a Boris fan. He has always looked the bumbling amateur public school boy who bullshits his way through life.
It got Blair three election victories, didn't it?
And being thoughtful oiks got Brown and May precisely nowhere, after some initial successes.
You could easily make a case that the country likes being led by people who make them feel more optimistic, especially when the circumstances don't justify it. For my money, we've had two leaders like that in the past two decades (Blair and Johnson), and two who clearly weren't (Brown and May). Cameron is somewhere between, hence his mediocre but not disastrous electoral record.
? Perhaps my antennae aren't as developed as those of the class obsessed English, but to me Blair always gave the impression of suppressing his public school background, appeared anything but bumbling and his adoption of estuarine tones was the opposite of Johnson's Classical pretensions.
Is that the same Tony Blair that went to public school in... Scotland?
I'm sure that would be a killer point if I could work out what it was.
He was infected by Scottishness?
There used to be a trio of stripper bars in the West Port in Edinburgh known colloquially as the pubic triangle, similarly Fettes, Edinburgh Academy and Stewart's Melville could be described as the public school triangle (though you can probably randomly chuck a triangle onto a map of Edinburgh and come up with 3 private schools). I'd venture that there was a good deal more Scottishness in the former than the latter.
So the Scots who are either posh, or class-aware aren't 'properly Scottish'. That makes more sense as a definition. I wonder what you'd do with these non-Scottish Scots in your brave new Scotland? Ship them all off to the a remote Hebridean Island maybe? Edinburgh would look funny empty.
Lucky , no matter how much you protest it is plain to anyone that Scotland is far less class conscious than England. We have our share , much smaller, of hoorays but in general people don't have the doff your cap/they are better than me attitude that you see down south.
It is awareness that we're speaking of Malc, not necessarily 'kowtowing'. Complaining about the poshos in the big house (or complaining about the local neds) is as much awareness of the class system as the deferential behaviour you describe.
Lucky , I disagree, you have the poshos v neds in all countries but few have the ingrained social structure that still pervades England. We saw that in bold on here as Starmer was deemed an absolute pleb due to the schools he had attended and fact his parents were not of the correct class yet absolute arseholes are feted because they are from the right stock and went to Eton/Cambridge/Oxford etc. There is nothing near that attitude in Scotland.
Starmer went to private school, has an Oxford degree and is a knight of the realm.
On that basis he is the poshest party leader since Douglas Home
Don't get all isam on us. He went to a grammar school which became fee paying while he was there. Did they say existing students didn't need to pay? No idea. My guess is yes.
Reigate grammar school was an independence school for most of the time Starmer was there
But not when he started.
And that's the point. His parents didn't send him to a private school. They chose to send him to a grammar school or rather he got into a grammar school under his own efforts by virtue of passing the 11+. What was he to say at 14 or whenever - Mum/Dad, with a name like "Keir" I can't continue to go there now it's become fee paying for new entrants, so couldn't you send me instead to Reigate secondary modern so that I can take a CSE in metalwork?
And for the avoidance of doubt he also chose to go to a redbrick university (Leeds) as an undergraduate. They didn't give out first class honours there like confetti in those days, so the fact that he got one and went to Oxbridge for his masters on the back of it is all the more impressive.
If PB Tories want to portray someone who has demostrated such personal achievement as instead having been born with a silver spoon in his mouth, aka Cameron, Johnson et al, more fool them. I hope the Tories try the same in 2024, because if they do they'll have been reduced to clutching at straws.
IDS went to a secondary modern in Solihull, not a posh private school like Starmer's ultimately was.
May was also mainly state educated and Thatcher and Heath and Major, Howard and Hague all went to state schools.
Starmer is certainly posher than all Tory leaders for the last 50 years bar Boris and Cameron but he is a knight of the realm unlike them.
He is also posher than any Labour leader since Blair
Starmer has unquestionably achieved more personally than any other UK political leader for a very long time. To find another leader who started where he did and arrived where he is now would be a tough task until you get to people like Major, Heath, Kinnock, Callaghan and Wilson. Of them, perhaps only Wilson can match what Starmer achieved before he entered politics. Tories who wish to portray him as posh should continue to do so, in my view. They merely demonstrate just how little they understand working class aspiration.
Michael Howard was also a top barrister and went to a grammar school, Ted Heath came top of the civil service exams and went to grammar school and William Hague went to a comprehensive school and then got a first from Oxford and worked for McKinsey and Co an elite management consultants
You are not born into a grammar school. You get into one. It;s far tougher to do when you are from a working class background, as Starmer was. Still, you know all this. You just do not want to accept it. That's fine. It just makes you look a bit silly.
Heath's father was a builder, his mother a maid, his background was more working class than Starmer's and he got into a grammar school too and it was still a grammar school when he left, not an independent school
Bars that do not serve "self prepared" food are not allowed to open, but this was a pub which also does food. We had to leave at 10:30 though. There were also quite strict rules, which I won't bore you all with.
Bars that do not serve "self prepared" food are not allowed to open, but this was a pub which also does food. We had to leave at 10:30 though. There were also quite strict rules, which I won't bore you all with.
Pubs and bars are not allowed to open until at least July other than for serving takeaways.
So if you stayed on the premises not sure that was legal
Personally I think the "allowed to travel as far as possible" was the most stupid. It isn't really enforceable to say only stay within say an hour drive of home, but the message would be clear, sure go out and exercise or go for a walk in your local area, but we still are trying to limit the spread so please don't all head to Devon or Cornwall (where instances of coronavirus are very low).
As soon as you say go as far as you like, people will then stretch the elastic and think I wonder if I can get away with a weekend away, sleeping in my car or I hide somewhere in a tent.
And now we get this mess...Pc Plod stopping people, who I imagine will be rightly pissed off.
Bars that do not serve "self prepared" food are not allowed to open, but this was a pub which also does food. We had to leave at 10:30 though. There were also quite strict rules, which I won't bore you all with.
Pubs and bars are not allowed to open until at least July other than for serving takeaways.
So if you stayed on the premises not sure that was legal
Thornhill report makes painful reading. It would be hard to be otherwise after the 2019 GE
"The report notes that while Swinson was hampered by having less than five months between winning the party leadership and the election, her decision to immediately seek a new party chief executive undermined decision-making structures.
“This had the unintended consequence creating an ‘inner circle’ of advisers at arm’s length from the resources of the party machine, and put decision-making in the hands of an unaccountable group around the leader,” the report says. “It also severed some people from the roles and responsibilities they were employed to do, and led to the overpromotion of others.”
The report says: "...the party "effectively ignored" the biggest group of voters: those who were neither fervently remain or leave". A curious comment - it seemed to me that the vast majority were either fervently remain or fervently leave.
The biggest mistake was supporting an early election rather than let the Tories stew while keep pushing for a second referendum on Boris's deal to resolve the stalemate. Several LibDem MPs were against an early election including Farron and Cable but were over-ruled with disastrous consequences. Decision driven by hubris.
It should be noted that it was Corbyn’s reversal on this that was crucial though. Admittedly that came after the Liberal Democrats and SNP had already made the switch.
But Corbyn had effectively lost his veto on an early election once the LDs and SNP came out in favour of it.
Personally I think the "allowed to travel as far as possible" was the most stupid. It isn't really enforceable to say only stay within say an hour drive of home, but the message would be clear, sure go out and exercise or go for a walk in your local area, but we still are trying to limit the spread so please don't all head to Devon or Cornwall (where instances of coronavirus are very low).
As soon as you say go as far as you like, people will then stretch the elastic and think I wonder if I can get away with a weekend away, sleeping in my car or I hide somewhere in a tent.
And now we get this mess...Pc Plod stopping people, who I imagine will be rightly pissed off.
It is enforcable to set a maximum distance from your home though. For weeks in France it was 1km.
I believe in France it is still 100km. I mean in reality the plod can't check every car, how far they are from home etc. But it would send a clear message, don't go on a 300 mile round trip to Skegness just because.
Bars that do not serve "self prepared" food are not allowed to open, but this was a pub which also does food. We had to leave at 10:30 though. There were also quite strict rules, which I won't bore you all with.
Pubs and bars are not allowed to open until at least July other than for serving takeaways.
So if you stayed on the premises not sure that was legal
Personally I think the "allowed to travel as far as possible" was the most stupid. It isn't really enforceable to say only stay within say an hour drive of home, but the message would be clear, sure go out and exercise or go for a walk in your local area, but we still are trying to limit the spread so please don't all head to Devon or Cornwall (where instances of coronavirus are very low).
As soon as you say go as far as you like, people will then stretch the elastic and think I wonder if I can get away with a weekend away, sleeping in my car or I hide somewhere in a tent.
And now we get this mess...Pc Plod stopping people, who I imagine will be rightly pissed off.
It is enforcable to set a maximum distance from your home though. For weeks in France it was 1km.
I believe in France it is still 100km. I mean in reality the plod can't check every car, how far they are from home etc. But it would send a clear message, don't go on a 300 mile round trip to Skegness just because.
Don't the French have region specific number plates? So maybe more enforceable there?
I've never been more aware of the BBC as a State Broadcaster than now. It's mobile front page is essentially a cut and paste from the Ministry of Information.
Even to the point of getting it presumably intentionally wrong over the new exercise rules. It says you can now exercise outside with someone from outside your household for the first time. Which is wrong. You always could.
No you couldn't unless you reckon you can freely stand shoulder to shoulder with strangers and that there's no such thing as a 2 metre rule.
"Restrictions on gatherings
7. During the emergency period, no person may participate in a gathering in a public place of more than two people except—
(a)where all the persons in the gathering are members of the same household, (b)where the gathering is essential for work purposes, (c)to attend a funeral, etc..."
And the two metre rule is advice not the law.
Not all rules are laws.
The two metre rule is a rule. The only exercising once per day was a rule.
That was my point. You could always under the law go outside with two people. The BBC is making out that it is a recent thing.
It is if you are following the rules and not just the law.
If the government announced they were lifting the two metre rule and the BBC reported that would you say "why are they reporting that it was never the law?"
You are becoming a bit HYUFD-like.
You could always exercise outdoors with someone not in your household. As per the law.
Nothing has changed in this respect yet the BBC is reporting as though it is a new development.
So what?
You are the one being HYUFD like but where HYUFD worships opinion polls you are doing the same with the law as if only the law is relevant. There's more to life than opinion polls or the law. The media doesn't just report the law. If only law changes were reported there wouldn't be very much at all for the media to report on would there?
Being able to exercise multiple times per day IS NEW within the coronavirus guidance. The media reports a whole lot more on coronavirus as a whole than it does changes in the law so the guidance changing is newsworthy.
The BBC says this today:
"Individuals in England are now allowed to meet with one other person from outside their household if they stay outdoors"
That is simply inaccurate.
It's entirely accurate. That's what is allowed within the guidance now.
Where does it reference law? You are the one trying to make it about law ... that quote doesn't mention the law.
It is inaccurate because you could always do that.
I would have expected the BBC to put the new guidance into context.
No you couldn't always within the guidance rules. The new guidance should be put into context by being compared with the old guidance. That is like for like context.
If the quote says from "it is now legal ..." then that would be inaccurate but it doesn't say that. You are the one reading law into it where law isn't even mentioned.
If you want to discuss context then provide the link to the full article and we can discuss that.
Not to interfere in this exchange but from PT on the subject of whether "Boris" really was 17.5 stone before he got the virus -
You say you can well believe it because he is "athletic" and "all muscle".
I would like you to reflect on that comment. I know it was late, but still.
No that's not what I said. I said I can well believe it because he is both fat and muscular and muscle is denser than fat. Pure numbers don't mean much alone.
A 17.5 stone all muscle individual would look like a weightlifter not Boris. A 17.5 muscular and fat individual could well look like Boris. While a 17.5 pure fat weakling who never exercised would look much bigger while being no heavier.
You can keep dancing on the head of a pin but facts are facts , he was and still is a fat barsteward
Absolutely! Which is why I believe he was that heavy! It was Kinabalu who didn't not me.
Bars that do not serve "self prepared" food are not allowed to open, but this was a pub which also does food. We had to leave at 10:30 though. There were also quite strict rules, which I won't bore you all with.
Pubs and bars are not allowed to open until at least July other than for serving takeaways.
So if you stayed on the premises not sure that was legal
So that could well be never then, or at least 2 years. The education of especially disadvantaged kids will be effected for life.
Dying affects people for life too. This whole schools business is a bit of a mess. If the schools can reopen, why did we need to cancel A-levels? Why wear masks in shops or on buses but not in more crowded classrooms? And so on. The government has issued pages and pages of guidance but a lot amounts to "work something out".
Imbalanced Host Response to SARS-CoV-2 Drives Development of COVID-19
https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30489-X#.Xr6tLTAUN3I ... Because of its recent emergence, there is a paucity of information regarding viral behavior and host response following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Here we offer an in-depth analysis of the transcriptional response to SARS-CoV-2 compared with other respiratory viruses. Cell and animal models of SARS-CoV-2 infection, in addition to transcriptional and serum profiling of COVID-19 patients, consistently revealed a unique and inappropriate inflammatory response. This response is defined by low levels of type I and III interferons juxtaposed to elevated chemokines and high expression of IL-6. We propose that reduced innate antiviral defenses coupled with exuberant inflammatory cytokine production are the defining and driving features of COVID-19....
DH is right that the Tory party is pretty swift to defenestrate a leader looking likely to lose an election.
I have never been a Boris fan. He has always looked the bumbling amateur public school boy who bullshits his way through life.
It got Blair three election victories, didn't it?
And being thoughtful oiks got Brown and May precisely nowhere, after some initial successes.
You could easily make a case that the country likes being led by people who make them feel more optimistic, especially when the circumstances don't justify it. For my money, we've had two leaders like that in the past two decades (Blair and Johnson), and two who clearly weren't (Brown and May). Cameron is somewhere between, hence his mediocre but not disastrous electoral record.
? Perhaps my antennae aren't as developed as those of the class obsessed English, but to me Blair always gave the impression of suppressing his public school background, appeared anything but bumbling and his adoption of estuarine tones was the opposite of Johnson's Classical pretensions.
Is that the same Tony Blair that went to public school in... Scotland?
I'm sure that would be a killer point if I could work out what it was.
He was infected by Scottishness?
There used to be a trio of stripper bars in the West Port in Edinburgh known colloquially as the pubic triangle, similarly Fettes, Edinburgh Academy and Stewart's Melville could be described as the public school triangle (though you can probably randomly chuck a triangle onto a map of Edinburgh and come up with 3 private schools). I'd venture that there was a good deal more Scottishness in the former than the latter.
So the Scots who are either posh, or class-aware aren't 'properly Scottish'. That makes more sense as a definition. I wonder what you'd do with these non-Scottish Scots in your brave new Scotland? Ship them all off to the a remote Hebridean Island maybe? Edinburgh would look funny empty.
I believe you still think of Scots as 'they' dontcha? Always good to get the anthropological view of those who deign to live among us.
Not being Scottish, I do, yes. I think the 'they' word about millionaires, women, people who can play the piano, children etc. But I think of us all as being British - which is lovely.
What I don't do is grade people on their Scottishness, which you apparently do.
Do I think of a middle aged stripper making a buck while sad old guys stare into their pints of Special as more Scottish than Tony Blair? You bet.
As others have pointed out, Tony Blair has spent large portions of his life outside Scotland and hasn't resided here since childhood, so not the best example. Is the middle-aged stripper more Scottish than Lord Hopetoun or Alexander McCall-Smith? Evidently you seem to think so. I don't.
The Lib Dems need to make a deal with Keir Starmer, in return for the implementation of STV. Simple as that.
And the SNP need to make a deal with Keir Starmer on a referendum on independence.
The two demands go together.
If the Scots get independence then the Labour needs STV to avoid permanent Tory hegemony in England and Wales.
STV prevents the SNP from winning disproportionate numbers of MPs. I don't know how Labour have done with STV in Scottish local elections, but I'd have thought it's one of their best chances of a recovery in Westminster elections in Scotland.
STV in England and Wales would be implemented after the Scots get independence. It would be up to the Scots what system they adopt subsequently.
STV would likely prevent there ever being a majority Labour government again, just as for the Tories.
The LDs and occasionally the Brexit Party or another UKIP style party would always be Kingmakers
Once we were out of the straightjacket of FPTP the party system would most likely splinter and we would have far more parties than we do now and therefore far more possible coalition combinations.
The Conservatives have undoubtedly been the main beneficiary from our unrepresentative voting system, same as the GOP has clearly been the main beneficiary of the bias inherent in the Electoral College. What a coincidence!
Without FPTP though and with PR there would have been no Attlee majority Government in 1945 or 1950 or Wilson majority Government in 1964 or 1966 and even no New Labour majority in 1997 and zero chance of Corbyn ever even getting close to winning a majority at a general election as he was in 2017.
Every elected GOP President until Trump has also got over 50% of the vote at least once, Bill Clinton however never got over 50%
Honestly HYUFD whilst none of that is wrong it does not have any bearing on the point I was making.
In recent history the only party that has benefited from being able to win the presidency despite losing the popular vote has been the GOP. It has happened twice (Trump and Bush) and may well likely happen a third time.
How likely do you think it is that the EC system would still be in place if the situation was reversed and the had won the presidency in 2000 and 2016 despite losing the popular vote?
As far as the UK is concerned both major parties have benefitted from FPTP but the Tories have benefitted most and would have the most to lose if we switched to a fair PR system. That is evidenced by the fact that the Tories remain rock solidly against PR whilst Labour have dallied with it and implemented it in the devolved parliaments.
G, it confirms nothing , Wilson is a mentally deranged old labour SNP hating fcukwit. Anyone and I mean anyone who thinks a word he utters or writes is crazy as well, he makes Tories look like they tell the truth. A sad old Labour loser.
And the facts in the case?
Imagine Nike had held their conference in Carlisle and 70 guests took a trip across the Border. Then imagine one was found to have transmitted Covid-19 to another 25, providing by far the strongest intimation of the virus’s UK presence.
Let us further imagine UK ministers failed to inform the public of this outbreak of a disease, the deadliness of which was far from understood by the population at large.
When, ten weeks later, that revelation emerged through BBC television, howls of outrage would have been heard from Land’s End to John O’Groats – nowhere more feverishly than from the St Andrew’s House podium.
Personally I think the "allowed to travel as far as possible" was the most stupid. It isn't really enforceable to say only stay within say an hour drive of home, but the message would be clear, sure go out and exercise or go for a walk in your local area, but we still are trying to limit the spread so please don't all head to Devon or Cornwall (where instances of coronavirus are very low).
As soon as you say go as far as you like, people will then stretch the elastic and think I wonder if I can get away with a weekend away, sleeping in my car or I hide somewhere in a tent.
And now we get this mess...Pc Plod stopping people, who I imagine will be rightly pissed off.
It is enforcable to set a maximum distance from your home though. For weeks in France it was 1km.
I believe in France it is still 100km. I mean in reality the plod can't check every car, how far they are from home etc. But it would send a clear message, don't go on a 300 mile round trip to Skegness just because.
Don't the French have region specific number plates? So maybe more enforceable there?
So do we, or at least, the number plate tells you where a car was registered; it might have moved since.
So that could well be never then, or at least 2 years. The education of especially disadvantaged kids will be effected for life.
Dying affects people for life too. This whole schools business is a bit of a mess. If the schools can reopen, why did we need to cancel A-levels? Why wear masks in shops or on buses but not in more crowded classrooms? And so on. The government has issued pages and pages of guidance but a lot amounts to "work something out".
Well cancelling A-Levels is easy to answer. Firstly when this was announced, nobody knew how this would pan out, teachers and parents demanded clarity, so a decision was made. Furthermore, kids need consistent preparation time (plus I am sure a lot of dealing with illness / death among family and friends etc).
Masks, well you know my opinion on this. But Nordic countries have their teachers wear them, but not the kids. I believe a total of 2 kids with no underlying health condition have died, and there isn't much evidence that kids are proving to be some massive transport vector (in the same say going to a nightclub is).
I think what the government are trying to do (and aren't saying) is they are preparing us for this to be our lives for years. Not enough of us have had this, but still plenty of community transmission despite the lockdown. Just sitting out waiting for many more months won't really solve anything.
So, instead they are trying to restart the engine of society. It will take a lot of time, and probably some stop / start. We see that with jobs, and with schools they are trying to start to get some kids back into the classroom.
The reality a lot of it amount to work something out, is because the reality is nobody fully knows anything, so it is a lot of exactly that, working something out as we go through it. If we don't move, we never will. It will always be too unsafe for some.
That isn't to say they couldn't do better, but we aren't really doing much different from every other country in Europe.
As Italy and Greece start to reopen - including possibly international travel, the U.K. set to introduce 14 day quarantine for arrivals - 10 weeks after most of the rest of the planet...
I've never been more aware of the BBC as a State Broadcaster than now. It's mobile front page is essentially a cut and paste from the Ministry of Information.
Even to the point of getting it presumably intentionally wrong over the new exercise rules. It says you can now exercise outside with someone from outside your household for the first time. Which is wrong. You always could.
we have been painfully aware of that in Scotland for many years
Although in our case it’s been subcontracted to BBC Scotland.
I've never been more aware of the BBC as a State Broadcaster than now. It's mobile front page is essentially a cut and paste from the Ministry of Information.
Even to the point of getting it presumably intentionally wrong over the new exercise rules. It says you can now exercise outside with someone from outside your household for the first time. Which is wrong. You always could.
No you couldn't unless you reckon you can freely stand shoulder to shoulder with strangers and that there's no such thing as a 2 metre rule.
"Restrictions on gatherings
7. During the emergency period, no person may participate in a gathering in a public place of more than two people except—
(a)where all the persons in the gathering are members of the same household, (b)where the gathering is essential for work purposes, (c)to attend a funeral, etc..."
And the two metre rule is advice not the law.
Not all rules are laws.
The two metre rule is a rule. The only exercising once per day was a rule.
That was my point. You could always under the law go outside with two people. The BBC is making out that it is a recent thing.
It is if you are following the rules and not just the law.
If the government announced they were lifting the two metre rule and the BBC reported that would you say "why are they reporting that it was never the law?"
You are becoming a bit HYUFD-like.
You could always exercise outdoors with someone not in your household. As per the law.
Nothing has changed in this respect yet the BBC is reporting as though it is a new development.
So what?
You are the one being HYUFD like but where HYUFD worships opinion polls you are doing the same with the law as if only the law is relevant. There's more to life than opinion polls or the law. The media doesn't just report the law. If only law changes were reported there wouldn't be very much at all for the media to report on would there?
Being able to exercise multiple times per day IS NEW within the coronavirus guidance. The media reports a whole lot more on coronavirus as a whole than it does changes in the law so the guidance changing is newsworthy.
The BBC says this today:
"Individuals in England are now allowed to meet with one other person from outside their household if they stay outdoors"
That is simply inaccurate.
It's entirely accurate. That's what is allowed within the guidance now.
Where does it reference law? You are the one trying to make it about law ... that quote doesn't mention the law.
It is inaccurate because you could always do that.
I would have expected the BBC to put the new guidance into context.
No you couldn't always within the guidance rules. The new guidance should be put into context by being compared with the old guidance. That is like for like context.
If the quote says from "it is now legal ..." then that would be inaccurate but it doesn't say that. You are the one reading law into it where law isn't even mentioned.
If you want to discuss context then provide the link to the full article and we can discuss that.
Not to interfere in this exchange but from PT on the subject of whether "Boris" really was 17.5 stone before he got the virus -
You say you can well believe it because he is "athletic" and "all muscle".
I would like you to reflect on that comment. I know it was late, but still.
No that's not what I said. I said I can well believe it because he is both fat and muscular and muscle is denser than fat. Pure numbers don't mean much alone.
A 17.5 stone all muscle individual would look like a weightlifter not Boris. A 17.5 muscular and fat individual could well look like Boris. While a 17.5 pure fat weakling who never exercised would look much bigger while being no heavier.
You can keep dancing on the head of a pin but facts are facts , he was and still is a fat barsteward
As Italy and Greece start to reopen - including possibly international travel, the U.K. set to introduce 14 day quarantine for arrivals - 10 weeks after most of the rest of the planet...
Along with deciding not to do any community testing / testing hospital transfers to care homes, this has to be one of the most idiotic decisions. Everybody has done this, but us, an island, said no its too hard, too complex, not effective. How hard is to say, just freight drivers, and they aren't allowed to x, y and z.
I've never been more aware of the BBC as a State Broadcaster than now. It's mobile front page is essentially a cut and paste from the Ministry of Information.
Even to the point of getting it presumably intentionally wrong over the new exercise rules. It says you can now exercise outside with someone from outside your household for the first time. Which is wrong. You always could.
No you couldn't unless you reckon you can freely stand shoulder to shoulder with strangers and that there's no such thing as a 2 metre rule.
"Restrictions on gatherings
7. During the emergency period, no person may participate in a gathering in a public place of more than two people except—
(a)where all the persons in the gathering are members of the same household, (b)where the gathering is essential for work purposes, (c)to attend a funeral, etc..."
And the two metre rule is advice not the law.
Not all rules are laws.
The two metre rule is a rule. The only exercising once per day was a rule.
That was my point. You could always under the law go outside with two people. The BBC is making out that it is a recent thing.
It is if you are following the rules and not just the law.
If the government announced they were lifting the two metre rule and the BBC reported that would you say "why are they reporting that it was never the law?"
You are becoming a bit HYUFD-like.
You could always exercise outdoors with someone not in your household. As per the law.
Nothing has changed in this respect yet the BBC is reporting as though it is a new development.
So what?
You are the one being HYUFD like but where HYUFD worships opinion polls you are doing the same with the law as if only the law is relevant. There's more to life than opinion polls or the law. The media doesn't just report the law. If only law changes were reported there wouldn't be very much at all for the media to report on would there?
Being able to exercise multiple times per day IS NEW within the coronavirus guidance. The media reports a whole lot more on coronavirus as a whole than it does changes in the law so the guidance changing is newsworthy.
The BBC says this today:
"Individuals in England are now allowed to meet with one other person from outside their household if they stay outdoors"
That is simply inaccurate.
It's entirely accurate. That's what is allowed within the guidance now.
Where does it reference law? You are the one trying to make it about law ... that quote doesn't mention the law.
It is inaccurate because you could always do that.
I would have expected the BBC to put the new guidance into context.
No you couldn't always within the guidance rules. The new guidance should be put into context by being compared with the old guidance. That is like for like context.
If the quote says from "it is now legal ..." then that would be inaccurate but it doesn't say that. You are the one reading law into it where law isn't even mentioned.
If you want to discuss context then provide the link to the full article and we can discuss that.
Not to interfere in this exchange but from PT on the subject of whether "Boris" really was 17.5 stone before he got the virus -
You say you can well believe it because he is "athletic" and "all muscle".
I would like you to reflect on that comment. I know it was late, but still.
Only if moobs and beer belly are made of muscle, and athletics consist of lifting a knife and fork!
Johnson has an impulsive personality and has never demonstrated self discipline when faced by temptation.
He's both fat and muscular. It's possible to be both. He cycles and jogs and is active in his job, while also being fat.
A sloth who spent all day on the couch who was the same height and weight would look bigger than him while having the same weight wouldn't they?
I don't think he has done much of either this year. Not sure that he has been particularly active in his job either!
Obviously he has had a major illness, and I expect lost a lot of lean body mass with that. Severe illness mobilises the metabolic rate, and muscle gets broken down first.
As Italy and Greece start to reopen - including possibly international travel, the U.K. set to introduce 14 day quarantine for arrivals - 10 weeks after most of the rest of the planet...
Along with deciding not to do any community testing / testing hospital transfers to care homes, this has to be one of the most idiotic decisions. Everybody has done this, but us, an island, said no its too hard, too complex, not effective. How hard is to say, just freight drivers, and they aren't allowed to x, y and z.
Probably very. Freight needs to go everywhere not just x, y and z.
Besides tourism has been cancelled. How many travellers are actually arriving who don't have a very good reason as it happens anyway? Any numbers on that?
Imbalanced Host Response to SARS-CoV-2 Drives Development of COVID-19
https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30489-X#.Xr6tLTAUN3I ... Because of its recent emergence, there is a paucity of information regarding viral behavior and host response following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Here we offer an in-depth analysis of the transcriptional response to SARS-CoV-2 compared with other respiratory viruses. Cell and animal models of SARS-CoV-2 infection, in addition to transcriptional and serum profiling of COVID-19 patients, consistently revealed a unique and inappropriate inflammatory response. This response is defined by low levels of type I and III interferons juxtaposed to elevated chemokines and high expression of IL-6. We propose that reduced innate antiviral defenses coupled with exuberant inflammatory cytokine production are the defining and driving features of COVID-19....
And from the discussion at the end: ... What makes SARS-CoV-2 distinct from other viruses used in this study is the propensity to selectively induce morbidity and mortality in older populations (Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia Emergency Response Epidemiology Team, 2020). The physiological basis for this morbidity is believed to be selective death of type II pneumocytes, which results in loss of air exchange and fluid leakage into the lungs (Qian et al., 2013, Xu et al., 2020). Although it remains to be determined whether the inappropriate inflammatory response to SARS-CoV-2 is responsible for the abnormally high lethality in older populations, it does explain why the virus is generally asymptomatic in young people with healthy and robust immune systems (Lu et al., 2020). Given the results here, it is tempting to speculate that an already restricted immune response in the aging population prevents successful inhibition of viral spread at early stages of infection, further exacerbating the morbidity and mortality observed for this age group (Jing et al., 2009, Montecino-Rodriguez et al., 2013). Taken together, the data presented here suggest that the response to SARS-CoV-2 is imbalanced with regard to controlling virus replication versus activation of the adaptive immune response. Given this dynamic, treatments for COVID-19 have less to do with the IFN response and more to do with controlling inflammation. Because our data suggest that numerous chemokines and ILs are elevated in COVID-19 patients, future efforts should focus on U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs that can be rapidly deployed and have immunomodulating properties.
The Lib Dems need to make a deal with Keir Starmer, in return for the implementation of STV. Simple as that.
And the SNP need to make a deal with Keir Starmer on a referendum on independence.
The two demands go together.
If the Scots get independence then the Labour needs STV to avoid permanent Tory hegemony in England and Wales.
STV prevents the SNP from winning disproportionate numbers of MPs. I don't know how Labour have done with STV in Scottish local elections, but I'd have thought it's one of their best chances of a recovery in Westminster elections in Scotland.
STV in England and Wales would be implemented after the Scots get independence. It would be up to the Scots what system they adopt subsequently.
STV would likely prevent there ever being a majority Labour government again, just as for the Tories.
The LDs and occasionally the Brexit Party or another UKIP style party would always be Kingmakers
Once we were out of the straightjacket of FPTP the party system would most likely splinter and we would have far more parties than we do now and therefore far more possible coalition combinations.
The Conservatives have undoubtedly been the main beneficiary from our unrepresentative voting system, same as the GOP has clearly been the main beneficiary of the bias inherent in the Electoral College. What a coincidence!
Without FPTP though and with PR there would have been no Attlee majority Government in 1945 or 1950 or Wilson majority Government in 1964 or 1966 and even no New Labour majority in 1997 and zero chance of Corbyn ever even getting close to winning a majority at a general election as he was in 2017.
Every elected GOP President until Trump has also got over 50% of the vote at least once, Bill Clinton however never got over 50%
Honestly HYUFD whilst none of that is wrong it does not have any bearing on the point I was making.
In recent history the only party that has benefited from being able to win the presidency despite losing the popular vote has been the GOP. It has happened twice (Trump and Bush) and may well likely happen a third time.
How likely do you think it is that the EC system would still be in place if the situation was reversed and the had won the presidency in 2000 and 2016 despite losing the popular vote?
As far as the UK is concerned both major parties have benefitted from FPTP but the Tories have benefitted most and would have the most to lose if we switched to a fair PR system. That is evidenced by the fact that the Tories remain rock solidly against PR whilst Labour have dallied with it and implemented it in the devolved parliaments.
Arguably Nixon would have won the popular vote in 1960 if it had not been for Mayor Daley ballot stuffing in Chicago, JFK won it by less than 0.5%.
In 2012 Obama had a bigger margin over Romney in terms of percentage of the Electoral College than his popular vote lead.
The Tories do not necessarily have a great deal to lose under PR and certainly not much more than Labour. Indeed the only coalition government involving the LDs since WW2 was with the Tories not Labour and in 2015 the Tories could have done a deal with UKIP under PR.
Both the Tories and Labour and the SNP too would be losers under PR, the big winners would be the LDs and to a lesser extent the Greens and the Brexit Party
As Italy and Greece start to reopen - including possibly international travel, the U.K. set to introduce 14 day quarantine for arrivals - 10 weeks after most of the rest of the planet...
Along with deciding not to do any community testing / testing hospital transfers to care homes, this has to be one of the most idiotic decisions. Everybody has done this, but us, an island, said no its too hard, too complex, not effective. How hard is to say, just freight drivers, and they aren't allowed to x, y and z.
Probably very. Freight needs to go everywhere not just x, y and z.
Besides tourism has been cancelled. How many travellers are actually arriving who don't have a very good reason as it happens anyway? Any numbers on that?
Well for starters, we have had 10,000 is not 100,000 returnees. We didn't quarantine them. Lots will be returning to stay with family, used public transport to get home.
We should have locked them away straight from the airport.
As Italy and Greece start to reopen - including possibly international travel, the U.K. set to introduce 14 day quarantine for arrivals - 10 weeks after most of the rest of the planet...
It would not surprise me to discover eventually that with so many tens of thousands of UK passport holders stuck out on the sub-continent, the UK Govt. was worried that having them undertake 14 days quarantine on return would somehow be thought racist.
Personally I think the "allowed to travel as far as possible" was the most stupid. It isn't really enforceable to say only stay within say an hour drive of home, but the message would be clear, sure go out and exercise or go for a walk in your local area, but we still are trying to limit the spread so please don't all head to Devon or Cornwall (where instances of coronavirus are very low).
As soon as you say go as far as you like, people will then stretch the elastic and think I wonder if I can get away with a weekend away, sleeping in my car or I hide somewhere in a tent.
And now we get this mess...Pc Plod stopping people, who I imagine will be rightly pissed off.
It is enforcable to set a maximum distance from your home though. For weeks in France it was 1km.
I believe in France it is still 100km. I mean in reality the plod can't check every car, how far they are from home etc. But it would send a clear message, don't go on a 300 mile round trip to Skegness just because.
They will just have reconfigured the number plate cameras that are usually used for detecting vehicles with the proper tax or insurance. If your car is seen more than a specific distance from its registered address then you get a visit. Not sure people quite realise how easy it is for the police to track every movement of your car automatically.
I actually feel sorry for Jo Swinson. She did what she thought was right and didn’t sit on the fence.
It's type of thing people say they want politicians to do but actually despise when the politicians do it.
Exactly right. It's a myth, along with wanting politicians to work together. People really don't want that, they like partisan attacks. Sure it can go too far for many people, but that's no tthe same thing.
So that could well be never then, or at least 2 years. The education of especially disadvantaged kids will be effected for life.
Dying affects people for life too. This whole schools business is a bit of a mess. If the schools can reopen, why did we need to cancel A-levels? Why wear masks in shops or on buses but not in more crowded classrooms? And so on. The government has issued pages and pages of guidance but a lot amounts to "work something out".
Masks, well you know my opinion on this. But Nordic countries have their teachers wear them, but not the kids. I believe a total of 2 kids with no underlying health condition have died, and there isn't much evidence that kids are proving to be some massive transport vector (in the same say going to a nightclub is).
I
Is an 18 year old doing A levels less of a risk than one in a nightclub? Probably, but not by much.
I think children do catch it, and there is some risk of onward transmission, but life is about balancing and mitigating risks. Strong ground rules. No playground games, lots of washing, etc.
Temperature taken at the schoolgate, with staggered start times. Swab all children on their first day back, and entire classes if a case occurs.
Which Bundesliga team are we all adopting? I am going with FC St Pauli for their impeccable left wing and anti-fash credentials. Even though they are having a shit year.
Eintracht Frankfurt.
Fox jr went to a game there when on German exchange as a kid.
1730 KO vs Monchen Gladbach, who seem to be having a good season so far.
Apart from the predictable Bayern hegemony, the Bundesliga does seem quite fluid.
I’ve been to watch Hertha Berlin and RB Leipzig and prefer Hertha, despite the associations of their home ground. In the present circumstances though, maybe I should be rooting for a Paderborn miracle....
Regular cycle route was absolutely heaving with people today compared with previous weekends, loads of people on bikes or fishing along the canal. I wonder if there really has been a big change or if its just coincidence.
So that could well be never then, or at least 2 years. The education of especially disadvantaged kids will be effected for life.
Dying affects people for life too. This whole schools business is a bit of a mess. If the schools can reopen, why did we need to cancel A-levels? Why wear masks in shops or on buses but not in more crowded classrooms? And so on. The government has issued pages and pages of guidance but a lot amounts to "work something out".
Masks, well you know my opinion on this. But Nordic countries have their teachers wear them, but not the kids. I believe a total of 2 kids with no underlying health condition have died, and there isn't much evidence that kids are proving to be some massive transport vector (in the same say going to a nightclub is).
I
Is an 18 year old doing A levels less of a risk than one in a nightclub? Probably, but not by much.
I think children do catch it, and there is some risk of onward transmission, but life is about balancing and mitigating risks. Strong ground rules. No playground games, lots of washing, etc.
Temperature taken at the schoolgate, with staggered start times. Swab all children on their first day back, and entire classes if a case occurs.
Well I hope the older kids that do go back aren't crushed together snogging all day....
I think the idea of only having a just few year groups back before summer is that they can run small classes, so even the 15 / 17 year olds can remain sufficiently socially distance.
Also, kids clearly do catch it, but the risk to healthy ones is so so small. I would have thought more 17-18 year olds end up hospitalized with drink / drugs over a normal summer, than will be admitted due to coronavirus from sitting socially distance in a classroom.
As Italy and Greece start to reopen - including possibly international travel, the U.K. set to introduce 14 day quarantine for arrivals - 10 weeks after most of the rest of the planet...
It would not surprise me to discover eventually that with so many tens of thousands of UK passport holders stuck out on the sub-continent, the UK Govt. was worried that having them undertake 14 days quarantine on return would somehow be thought racist.
My brother is going to have to self quarantine. he has been stuck in the Canaries since end of March.. no possible flight before 1 June..
The Lib Dems need to make a deal with Keir Starmer, in return for the implementation of STV. Simple as that.
Maybe after the election and with a referendum. Labour can't do pre-election deals because it brings the unanswerable question of "would you do a deal with the SNP?"
Can’t avoid it forever. A deal with the SNP is pretty much a necessity in order for Labour to form a Government under FPTP.
If that's Labour thinking then you might as well wave goodbye to majority government forever. People just won't vote for a party that aims to be in minority government, not in enough numbers to depose us. Your aim has got to be more than just "deny the Tories as majority" we'll keep winning if we're the only party that can offer majority government.
Blair delivered a majority by appealing to our voters, I don't know where Starmer stands but on recent history Labour seems more interested in lecturing and hectoring our voters for having the temerity to vote Tory, that was true under Ed as well.
Yes. All this FPTP is not fair is ridiculous. If enough voters in, say, Arundel and South Down and any other Cons constituency vote Labour there will be a Labour majority government.
It's all about the policies.
Yes, if Labour can convince 3m Tory voters to switch to them they will win a majority. The trouble is that the only way to do it is to run into the centre, I don't know what Starmer stands for other than being a lawyer who loves to do detail but seems ignorant of the bigger picture.
But in significant parts of the South - London and elsewhere - former Tory voters appeared to be willing to switch to Labour even when faced with Corbyn. How else is Labour's success in places such as Putney - Battersea - Enfield Southgate - Canterbury - Bedford - Warwick & Leamington - Reading East - Portsmouth South to be explained?
I'm never sure why those who shout loudest about them seem so against politics of division - they are often the most passionate adherents of such tactics.
So that could well be never then, or at least 2 years. The education of especially disadvantaged kids will be effected for life.
The reality is more nuanced, it is to return when there is clear medical evidence that children are not spreading the virus. if you don’t know the risk, you can’t mitigate that risk. it’s one thing to tell adults that they should ignore that risk but being in loco parentis means that we are the line of defence against children being put in danger. For most parents they will also calculate that the risk is too much unknown and keep children away but any schools that open further will be called to account if they did so without clear evidence and if the virus spreads through parents, children or staff. The presumption is that, by September, the risk will be understood and clearly backed up by medical evidence.
The shameful display of the last few days from certain quarters has ensured that this is the red line. The significant ‘tell’ from the government that they were acting without clear medical advice was not making staff and students wear masks and collapsing social distancing whilst retaining it for the same people outside of school premises. That, to many, suggested that the intention was to use schools to spread the virus and it has reinforced that view, prevalent among many parents and others. Schools are now the battleground because schools were treated differently. Nothing more, nothing less.
Reports from the meeting yesterday say that it was chaotic, with questions ignored, flimsy evidence presented and a complete lack of evidence on the main concerns. This has been backed up by the BMA as well. Evidence is now awaited.
Other nations in the UK have already reached the September conclusion but England is dragging its feet. On comparisons to other nations the only ones that we can be compared to are those with similar outcomes and earlier measures. Italy, Spain, NYC, these are facing the same issue, albeit we are mostly a little later down the line. Countries like Germany and Korea, with their earlier closures, are so different as to be of no use. Denmark, Norway etc. have a far, far superior control over the virus and one that will take us some months to reach, so these countries are also pointless comparisons.
Other workplaces should be following similar pathways although, as they have not been singled out, they may not feel that they are to be the necessary sacrifice. As Williamson almost said, Dulce et Decorum Est, Pro Patria More, or something like that.
The Lib Dems need to make a deal with Keir Starmer, in return for the implementation of STV. Simple as that.
Maybe after the election and with a referendum. Labour can't do pre-election deals because it brings the unanswerable question of "would you do a deal with the SNP?"
Can’t avoid it forever. A deal with the SNP is pretty much a necessity in order for Labour to form a Government under FPTP.
If that's Labour thinking then you might as well wave goodbye to majority government forever. People just won't vote for a party that aims to be in minority government, not in enough numbers to depose us. Your aim has got to be more than just "deny the Tories as majority" we'll keep winning if we're the only party that can offer majority government.
Blair delivered a majority by appealing to our voters, I don't know where Starmer stands but on recent history Labour seems more interested in lecturing and hectoring our voters for having the temerity to vote Tory, that was true under Ed as well.
Yes. All this FPTP is not fair is ridiculous. If enough voters in, say, Arundel and South Down and any other Cons constituency vote Labour there will be a Labour majority government.
It's all about the policies.
Yes, if Labour can convince 3m Tory voters to switch to them they will win a majority. The trouble is that the only way to do it is to run into the centre, I don't know what Starmer stands for other than being a lawyer who loves to do detail but seems ignorant of the bigger picture.
But in significant parts of the South - London and elsewhere - former Tory voters appeared to be willing to switch to Labour even when faced with Corbyn. How else is Labour's success in places such as Putney - Battersea - Enfield Southgate - Canterbury - Bedford - Warwick & Leamington - Reading East - Portsmouth South to be explained?
Labour were virtually wiped out. Look at the election result.
Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.
Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.
Possible live vaccine too.
Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
So that could well be never then, or at least 2 years. The education of especially disadvantaged kids will be effected for life.
Dying affects people for life too. This whole schools business is a bit of a mess. If the schools can reopen, why did we need to cancel A-levels? Why wear masks in shops or on buses but not in more crowded classrooms? And so on. The government has issued pages and pages of guidance but a lot amounts to "work something out".
Masks, well you know my opinion on this. But Nordic countries have their teachers wear them, but not the kids. I believe a total of 2 kids with no underlying health condition have died, and there isn't much evidence that kids are proving to be some massive transport vector (in the same say going to a nightclub is).
I
Is an 18 year old doing A levels less of a risk than one in a nightclub? Probably, but not by much.
I think children do catch it, and there is some risk of onward transmission, but life is about balancing and mitigating risks. Strong ground rules. No playground games, lots of washing, etc.
Temperature taken at the schoolgate, with staggered start times. Swab all children on their first day back, and entire classes if a case occurs.
Well I hope the older kids that do go back aren't crushed together snogging all day....
I think the idea of only having a just few year groups back before summer is that they can run small classes, so even the 15 / 17 year olds can remain sufficiently socially distance.
Also, kids clearly do catch it, but the risk to healthy ones is so so small. I would have thought more 17-18 year olds end up hospitalized with drink / drugs over a normal summer, than will be admitted due to coronavirus from sitting socially distance in a classroom.
The bigger risk is with the teachers.
Restrict teachers to those aged under 45 and not living with a vulnerable person. Low risk. It would reduce the availability of teachers. I don't know by what %.
So that could well be never then, or at least 2 years. The education of especially disadvantaged kids will be effected for life.
Dying affects people for life too. This whole schools business is a bit of a mess. If the schools can reopen, why did we need to cancel A-levels? Why wear masks in shops or on buses but not in more crowded classrooms? And so on. The government has issued pages and pages of guidance but a lot amounts to "work something out".
Masks, well you know my opinion on this. But Nordic countries have their teachers wear them, but not the kids. I believe a total of 2 kids with no underlying health condition have died, and there isn't much evidence that kids are proving to be some massive transport vector (in the same say going to a nightclub is).
I
Is an 18 year old doing A levels less of a risk than one in a nightclub? Probably, but not by much.
I think children do catch it, and there is some risk of onward transmission, but life is about balancing and mitigating risks. Strong ground rules. No playground games, lots of washing, etc.
Temperature taken at the schoolgate, with staggered start times. Swab all children on their first day back, and entire classes if a case occurs.
Well I hope the older kids that do go back aren't crushed together snogging all day....
I think the idea of only having a just few year groups back before summer is that they can run small classes, so even the 15 / 17 year olds can remain sufficiently socially distance.
Also, kids clearly do catch it, but the risk to healthy ones is so so small. I would have thought more 17-18 year olds end up hospitalized with drink / drugs over a normal summer, than will be admitted due to coronavirus from sitting socially distance in a classroom.
The bigger risk is with the teachers.
Restrict teachers to those aged under 45 and not living with a vulnerable person. Low risk. It would reduce the availability of teachers. I don't know by what %.
I have a teacher friend in their 50s. When they said they were going to continue with schools for key workers, I said so I guess they will just send in the younger members of staff. They said no, everybody has to do a day a week, regardless of age. I have to say I thought that was a pretty shocking management decision.
It might not be "fair" to say only under 40/45s to go in to teach, but in terms of risk, it is a lot smarter.
I've never been more aware of the BBC as a State Broadcaster than now. It's mobile front page is essentially a cut and paste from the Ministry of Information.
Even to the point of getting it presumably intentionally wrong over the new exercise rules. It says you can now exercise outside with someone from outside your household for the first time. Which is wrong. You always could.
No you couldn't unless you reckon you can freely stand shoulder to shoulder with strangers and that there's no such thing as a 2 metre rule.
"Restrictions on gatherings
7. During the emergency period, no person may participate in a gathering in a public place of more than two people except—
(a)where all the persons in the gathering are members of the same household, (b)where the gathering is essential for work purposes, (c)to attend a funeral, etc..."
And the two metre rule is advice not the law.
Not all rules are laws.
The two metre rule is a rule. The only exercising once per day was a rule.
That was my point. You could always under the law go outside with two people. The BBC is making out that it is a recent thing.
It is if you are following the rules and not just the law.
If the government announced they were lifting the two metre rule and the BBC reported that would you say "why are they reporting that it was never the law?"
You are becoming a bit HYUFD-like.
You could always exercise outdoors with someone not in your household. As per the law.
Nothing has changed in this respect yet the BBC is reporting as though it is a new development.
So what?
You are the one being HYUFD like but where HYUFD worships opinion polls you are doing the same with the law as if only the law is relevant. There's more to life than opinion polls or the law. The media doesn't just report the law. If only law changes were reported there wouldn't be very much at all for the media to report on would there?
Being able to exercise multiple times per day IS NEW within the coronavirus guidance. The media reports a whole lot more on coronavirus as a whole than it does changes in the law so the guidance changing is newsworthy.
The BBC says this today:
"Individuals in England are now allowed to meet with one other person from outside their household if they stay outdoors"
That is simply inaccurate.
It's entirely accurate. That's what is allowed within the guidance now.
Where does it reference law? You are the one trying to make it about law ... that quote doesn't mention the law.
It is inaccurate because you could always do that.
I would have expected the BBC to put the new guidance into context.
No you couldn't always within the guidance rules. The new guidance should be put into context by being compared with the old guidance. That is like for like context.
If the quote says from "it is now legal ..." then that would be inaccurate but it doesn't say that. You are the one reading law into it where law isn't even mentioned.
If you want to discuss context then provide the link to the full article and we can discuss that.
Not to interfere in this exchange but from PT on the subject of whether "Boris" really was 17.5 stone before he got the virus -
You say you can well believe it because he is "athletic" and "all muscle".
I would like you to reflect on that comment. I know it was late, but still.
No that's not what I said. I said I can well believe it because he is both fat and muscular and muscle is denser than fat. Pure numbers don't mean much alone.
A 17.5 stone all muscle individual would look like a weightlifter not Boris. A 17.5 muscular and fat individual could well look like Boris. While a 17.5 pure fat weakling who never exercised would look much bigger while being no heavier.
We can all go back and read the post in question. You were essentially saying there was little difference to the casual eye between Boris Johnson and Vin Diesel.
I only highlight this because I thought that on reflection you would realize you'd got carried away on the 'pro Boris' front and would wish to retract.
Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.
Possible live vaccine too.
Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
Antibodies do tend to fade over time, hence boosters. It may need to have been an infection in the previous decade for example. Some immunity is lifelong.
That’s a brilliant article, thanks. Required reading for anyone who wants to understand how we managed to fritter away a strong position whilst NZ built a remarkable effort out of being ill prepared. In years to come the difference between the two will be a useful study. I suppose we are better than the US or are not deliberately lying about figures, as Russia is, but we are clearing only a very low bar.
So that could well be never then, or at least 2 years. The education of especially disadvantaged kids will be effected for life.
Dying affects people for life too. This whole schools business is a bit of a mess. If the schools can reopen, why did we need to cancel A-levels? Why wear masks in shops or on buses but not in more crowded classrooms? And so on. The government has issued pages and pages of guidance but a lot amounts to "work something out".
Masks, well you know my opinion on this. But Nordic countries have their teachers wear them, but not the kids. I believe a total of 2 kids with no underlying health condition have died, and there isn't much evidence that kids are proving to be some massive transport vector (in the same say going to a nightclub is).
I
Is an 18 year old doing A levels less of a risk than one in a nightclub? Probably, but not by much.
I think children do catch it, and there is some risk of onward transmission, but life is about balancing and mitigating risks. Strong ground rules. No playground games, lots of washing, etc.
Temperature taken at the schoolgate, with staggered start times. Swab all children on their first day back, and entire classes if a case occurs.
Well I hope the older kids that do go back aren't crushed together snogging all day....
I think the idea of only having a just few year groups back before summer is that they can run small classes, so even the 15 / 17 year olds can remain sufficiently socially distance.
Also, kids clearly do catch it, but the risk to healthy ones is so so small. I would have thought more 17-18 year olds end up hospitalized with drink / drugs over a normal summer, than will be admitted due to coronavirus from sitting socially distance in a classroom.
The bigger risk is with the teachers.
Restrict teachers to those aged under 45 and not living with a vulnerable person. Low risk. It would reduce the availability of teachers. I don't know by what %.
I have a teacher friend in their 50s. When they said they were going to continue with schools for key workers, I said so I guess they will just send in the younger members of staff. They said no, everybody has to do a day a week, regardless of age. I have to say I thought that was a pretty shocking management decision.
It might not be "fair" to say only under 40/45s to go in to teach, but in terms of risk, it is a lot smarter.
similar issues in the NHS, but we did put our older staff in less patient contact areas, telephone consultations for example.
Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.
Possible live vaccine too.
Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
The immune system has two components - the innate immune system which is non-specific to the pathogen/antigen, and the adaptive, which produces various T cells and antibodies specific to the immune challenge, and which carries with it a memory.
The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).
The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.
The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
"In Cardiff, a similar protest was attended by just two people, after posters urged demonstrators to join the UK Freedom Movement (UKFM) with a picnic.
The pair, who had travelled 40 miles from Bristol, said: "Lockdown is a breach of our civil liberties."
If your car is seen more than a specific distance from its registered address then you get a visit. Not sure people quite realise how easy it is for the police to track every movement of your car automatically.
Mmmm... So the police would hassle lots of average tax payers for a technical breach of the law that probably has little effect on virus transmission.
If Dominic Cummings is worth his money he would have immediately vetoed that suggestion (as I guess would M15 for different reasons).
DH is right that the Tory party is pretty swift to defenestrate a leader looking likely to lose an election.
I have never been a Boris fan. He has always looked the bumbling amateur public school boy who bullshits his way through life.
It got Blair three election victories, didn't it?
And being thoughtful oiks got Brown and May precisely nowhere, after some initial successes.
You could easily make a case that the country likes being led by people who make them feel more optimistic, especially when the circumstances don't justify it. For my money, we've had two leaders like that in the past two decades (Blair and Johnson), and two who clearly weren't (Brown and May). Cameron is somewhere between, hence his mediocre but not disastrous electoral record.
? Perhaps my antennae aren't as developed as those of the class obsessed English, but to me Blair always gave the impression of suppressing his public school background, appeared anything but bumbling and his adoption of estuarine tones was the opposite of Johnson's Classical pretensions.
Is that the same Tony Blair that went to public school in... Scotland?
I'm sure that would be a killer point if I could work out what it was.
He was infected by Scottishness?
There used to be a trio of stripper bars in the West Port in Edinburgh known colloquially as the pubic triangle, similarly Fettes, Edinburgh Academy and Stewart's Melville could be described as the public school triangle (though you can probably randomly chuck a triangle onto a map of Edinburgh and come up with 3 private schools). I'd venture that there was a good deal more Scottishness in the former than the latter.
So the Scots who are either posh, or class-aware aren't 'properly Scottish'. That makes more sense as a definition. I wonder what you'd do with these non-Scottish Scots in your brave new Scotland? Ship them all off to the a remote Hebridean Island maybe? Edinburgh would look funny empty.
I believe you still think of Scots as 'they' dontcha? Always good to get the anthropological view of those who deign to live among us.
Not being Scottish, I do, yes. I think the 'they' word about millionaires, women, people who can play the piano, children etc. But I think of us all as being British - which is lovely.
What I don't do is grade people on their Scottishness, which you apparently do.
Do I think of a middle aged stripper making a buck while sad old guys stare into their pints of Special as more Scottish than Tony Blair? You bet.
As others have pointed out, Tony Blair has spent large portions of his life outside Scotland and hasn't resided here since childhood, so not the best example. Is the middle-aged stripper more Scottish than Lord Hopetoun or Alexander McCall-Smith? Evidently you seem to think so. I don't.
Since Tony Blair was the point on which this exchange started, it's hardly surprising if he figures in comparisons.
Personally I think anyone who wants to call themselves a Scot can, though I reserve the right to point & laugh at the more absurd 'my granny once ate a teacake' stuff. In my book choosing to live here would be a primary qualification which would certainly make you more Scottish than Blair imho, though you appear to prefer to see Scots as 'the other' which is of course your right.
In any case you now seem to be deciding who is and isn't fit to be judged on their Scottishness so I think my work is done here.
The Lib Dems need to make a deal with Keir Starmer, in return for the implementation of STV. Simple as that.
Maybe after the election and with a referendum. Labour can't do pre-election deals because it brings the unanswerable question of "would you do a deal with the SNP?"
Can’t avoid it forever. A deal with the SNP is pretty much a necessity in order for Labour to form a Government under FPTP.
If that's Labour thinking then you might as well wave goodbye to majority government forever. People just won't vote for a party that aims to be in minority government, not in enough numbers to depose us. Your aim has got to be more than just "deny the Tories as majority" we'll keep winning if we're the only party that can offer majority government.
Blair delivered a majority by appealing to our voters, I don't know where Starmer stands but on recent history Labour seems more interested in lecturing and hectoring our voters for having the temerity to vote Tory, that was true under Ed as well.
Yes. All this FPTP is not fair is ridiculous. If enough voters in, say, Arundel and South Down and any other Cons constituency vote Labour there will be a Labour majority government.
It's all about the policies.
Yes, if Labour can convince 3m Tory voters to switch to them they will win a majority. The trouble is that the only way to do it is to run into the centre, I don't know what Starmer stands for other than being a lawyer who loves to do detail but seems ignorant of the bigger picture.
But in significant parts of the South - London and elsewhere - former Tory voters appeared to be willing to switch to Labour even when faced with Corbyn. How else is Labour's success in places such as Putney - Battersea - Enfield Southgate - Canterbury - Bedford - Warwick & Leamington - Reading East - Portsmouth South to be explained?
Labour were virtually wiped out. Look at the election result.
The Lib Dems need to make a deal with Keir Starmer, in return for the implementation of STV. Simple as that.
Maybe after the election and with a referendum. Labour can't do pre-election deals because it brings the unanswerable question of "would you do a deal with the SNP?"
Can’t avoid it forever. A deal with the SNP is pretty much a necessity in order for Labour to form a Government under FPTP.
If that's Labour thinking then you might as well wave goodbye to majority government forever. People just won't vote for a party that aims to be in minority government, not in enough numbers to depose us. Your aim has got to be more than just "deny the Tories as majority" we'll keep winning if we're the only party that can offer majority government.
Blair delivered a majority by appealing to our voters, I don't know where Starmer stands but on recent history Labour seems more interested in lecturing and hectoring our voters for having the temerity to vote Tory, that was true under Ed as well.
Yes. All this FPTP is not fair is ridiculous. If enough voters in, say, Arundel and South Down and any other Cons constituency vote Labour there will be a Labour majority government.
It's all about the policies.
Yes, if Labour can convince 3m Tory voters to switch to them they will win a majority. The trouble is that the only way to do it is to run into the centre, I don't know what Starmer stands for other than being a lawyer who loves to do detail but seems ignorant of the bigger picture.
But in significant parts of the South - London and elsewhere - former Tory voters appeared to be willing to switch to Labour even when faced with Corbyn. How else is Labour's success in places such as Putney - Battersea - Enfield Southgate - Canterbury - Bedford - Warwick & Leamington - Reading East - Portsmouth South to be explained?
Labour were virtually wiped out. Look at the election result.
Those were all Tory seats in 2015 and 2010 - some safely so. Portsmouth South went Tory in 2015 then was gained by Labour in 2017 from third place. What is the explanation? 33% is far from 'being wiped out'.
Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.
Possible live vaccine too.
Silly question...as not a medical person. What's the probability that a 40-50 years old over their lifetimes has had exposure to a cornavirus based cold? Surely it is very high? Wouldn't we then expect to lower number of people in that age range actually catching it (I can understand old people, who immune systems have become severely weakened).
Antibodies do tend to fade over time, hence boosters. It may need to have been an infection in the previous decade for example. Some immunity is lifelong.
Most human colds are not coronavirus though.
Useful from wikipedia:
"The common cold is a viral infection of the upper respiratory tract. The most commonly implicated virus is a rhinovirus (30–80%), a type of picornavirus with 99 known serotypes.[29][30] Other commonly implicated viruses include human coronaviruses (≈ 15%),[31][32] influenza viruses (10–15%),[33] adenoviruses (5%),[33] human respiratory syncytial virus (orthopneumovirus), enteroviruses other than rhinoviruses, human parainfluenza viruses, and human metapneumovirus.[34] Frequently more than one virus is present.[35] In total, more than 200 viral types are associated with colds.[3]"
NB the Oxford vaccine uses an adenovirus backbone.
DH is right that the Tory party is pretty swift to defenestrate a leader looking likely to lose an election.
I have never been a Boris fan. He has always looked the bumbling amateur public school boy who bullshits his way through life.
It got Blair three election victories, didn't it?
And being thoughtful oiks got Brown and May precisely nowhere, after some initial successes.
You could easily make a case that the country likes being led by people who make them feel more optimistic, especially when the circumstances don't justify it. For my money, we've had two leaders like that in the past two decades (Blair and Johnson), and two who clearly weren't (Brown and May). Cameron is somewhere between, hence his mediocre but not disastrous electoral record.
? Perhaps my antennae aren't as developed as those of the class obsessed English, but to me Blair always gave the impression of suppressing his public school background, appeared anything but bumbling and his adoption of estuarine tones was the opposite of Johnson's Classical pretensions.
Is that the same Tony Blair that went to public school in... Scotland?
I'm sure that would be a killer point if I could work out what it was.
He was infected by Scottishness?
There used to be a trio of stripper bars in the West Port in Edinburgh known colloquially as the pubic triangle, similarly Fettes, Edinburgh Academy and Stewart's Melville could be described as the public school triangle (though you can probably randomly chuck a triangle onto a map of Edinburgh and come up with 3 private schools). I'd venture that there was a good deal more Scottishness in the former than the latter.
So the Scots who are either posh, or class-aware aren't 'properly Scottish'. That makes more sense as a definition. I wonder what you'd do with these non-Scottish Scots in your brave new Scotland? Ship them all off to the a remote Hebridean Island maybe? Edinburgh would look funny empty.
I believe you still think of Scots as 'they' dontcha? Always good to get the anthropological view of those who deign to live among us.
Not being Scottish, I do, yes. I think the 'they' word about millionaires, women, people who can play the piano, children etc. But I think of us all as being British - which is lovely.
What I don't do is grade people on their Scottishness, which you apparently do.
Do I think of a middle aged stripper making a buck while sad old guys stare into their pints of Special as more Scottish than Tony Blair? You bet.
As others have pointed out, Tony Blair has spent large portions of his life outside Scotland and hasn't resided here since childhood, so not the best example. Is the middle-aged stripper more Scottish than Lord Hopetoun or Alexander McCall-Smith? Evidently you seem to think so. I don't.
Since Tony Blair was the point on which this exchange started, it's hardly surprising if he figures in comparisons.
Personally I think anyone who wants to call themselves a Scot can, though I reserve the right to point & laugh at the more absurd 'my granny once ate a teacake' stuff. In my book choosing to live here would be a primary qualification which would certainly make you more Scottish than Blair imho, though you appear to prefer to see Scots as 'the other' which is of course your right.
In any case you now seem to be deciding who is and isn't fit to be judged on their Scottishness so I think my work is done here.
It is an interesting question whether I will start considering myself to be Scottish if I stay here long enough. Would you consider yourself English if you stayed down there long enough? Something tells me not. I am not being antagonistic, it is something to ponder. If I have kids here, they will be Scottish.
That's one genuinely nice thing about being British. You can feel a strong sense of national identity but still feel part of the whole.
G, it confirms nothing , Wilson is a mentally deranged old labour SNP hating fcukwit. Anyone and I mean anyone who thinks a word he utters or writes is crazy as well, he makes Tories look like they tell the truth. A sad old Labour loser.
Now now, don't hold back and tell us what you really think for a change
I've not read what Wilson wrote mind, it's really just an excuse to engage: why the Young Pretender?
I actually feel sorry for the plod having to deal with these idiots. We are getting more evidence that screaming and shouting might well increase chance of transmission, and they are having to go in and deal with these tw@ts yelling about 5G, Bill Gates and global conspiracies.
Look at the US equivalent, a load of them from one protest now have it.
"In Cardiff, a similar protest was attended by just two people, after posters urged demonstrators to join the UK Freedom Movement (UKFM) with a picnic.
The pair, who had travelled 40 miles from Bristol, said: "Lockdown is a breach of our civil liberties."
'People at the event were reported as chanting “experts lie; people die”, “don’t listen to the media, listen to the people”, “Nicola Sturgeon is a traitor” and “we are not livestock”.'
Tommy Robinson's mob and Britain First seem seem to be vying with each other to avoid taking ownership.
Comments
Johnson has an impulsive personality and has never demonstrated self discipline when faced by temptation.
"No return to school until it is safe to do so". FFS doesn`t she know there`s a virus around? - it will never be safe to do so. Even if a vaccine if found it won`t be 100% effective.
The government has to go on the attack regarding these illogical Labour Party views, espoused even by Starmer at PMQs.
* genuine working class hero
A 17.5 stone all muscle individual would look like a weightlifter not Boris. A 17.5 muscular and fat individual could well look like Boris. While a 17.5 pure fat weakling who never exercised would look much bigger while being no heavier.
Now there really is someone who is self made. I have a fond spot for the firey redhead. It will be an interesting contrast of styles with Keir.
Many questions for all the leaders not just Boris
https://www.scotsman.com/news/uk-news/nicola-sturgeon-must-prove-there-was-no-covid-19-cover-brian-wilson-2855203
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1261618373823287296?s=19
A sloth who spent all day on the couch who was the same height and weight would look bigger than him while having the same weight wouldn't they?
My background is more working class than Sir K's - my father worked in a factory, he didn't own one. Unfortunately though I probably* would have got into a grammar school the local Labour council got rid of them.
* I passed the mock 11plus exam, never got to take the real thing.
"Steve Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist, had a slightly different emphasis: “Trump’s campaign will be about China, China, China,” "
https://www.ft.com/content/97dc7de6-940b-11ea-abcd-371e24b679ed
Ditto Gideonwise.
As soon as you say go as far as you like, people will then stretch the elastic and think I wonder if I can get away with a weekend away, sleeping in my car or I hide somewhere in a tent.
And now we get this mess...Pc Plod stopping people, who I imagine will be rightly pissed off.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8325777/Day-trippers-ignore-pleas-English-countryside-15-MILLION-people-visit-parks-beaches.html
I've not read what Wilson wrote mind, it's really just an excuse to engage: why the Young Pretender?
Bars that do not serve "self prepared" food are not allowed to open, but this was a pub which also does food. We had to leave at 10:30 though. There were also quite strict rules, which I won't bore you all with.
So if you stayed on the premises not sure that was legal
https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30489-X#.Xr6tLTAUN3I
... Because of its recent emergence, there is a paucity of information regarding viral behavior and host response following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Here we offer an in-depth analysis of the transcriptional response to SARS-CoV-2 compared with other respiratory viruses. Cell and animal models of SARS-CoV-2 infection, in addition to transcriptional and serum profiling of COVID-19 patients, consistently revealed a unique and inappropriate inflammatory response. This response is defined by low levels of type I and III interferons juxtaposed to elevated chemokines and high expression of IL-6. We propose that reduced innate antiviral defenses coupled with exuberant inflammatory cytokine production are the defining and driving features of COVID-19....
In recent history the only party that has benefited from being able to win the presidency despite losing the popular vote has been the GOP. It has happened twice (Trump and Bush) and may well likely happen a third time.
How likely do you think it is that the EC system would still be in place if the situation was reversed and the had won the presidency in 2000 and 2016 despite losing the popular vote?
As far as the UK is concerned both major parties have benefitted from FPTP but the Tories have benefitted most and would have the most to lose if we switched to a fair PR system. That is evidenced by the fact that the Tories remain rock solidly against PR whilst Labour have dallied with it and implemented it in the devolved parliaments.
Imagine Nike had held their conference in Carlisle and 70 guests took a trip across the Border. Then imagine one was found to have transmitted Covid-19 to another 25, providing by far the strongest intimation of the virus’s UK presence.
Let us further imagine UK ministers failed to inform the public of this outbreak of a disease, the deadliness of which was far from understood by the population at large.
When, ten weeks later, that revelation emerged through BBC television, howls of outrage would have been heard from Land’s End to John O’Groats – nowhere more feverishly than from the St Andrew’s House podium.
Masks, well you know my opinion on this. But Nordic countries have their teachers wear them, but not the kids. I believe a total of 2 kids with no underlying health condition have died, and there isn't much evidence that kids are proving to be some massive transport vector (in the same say going to a nightclub is).
I think what the government are trying to do (and aren't saying) is they are preparing us for this to be our lives for years. Not enough of us have had this, but still plenty of community transmission despite the lockdown. Just sitting out waiting for many more months won't really solve anything.
So, instead they are trying to restart the engine of society. It will take a lot of time, and probably some stop / start. We see that with jobs, and with schools they are trying to start to get some kids back into the classroom.
The reality a lot of it amount to work something out, is because the reality is nobody fully knows anything, so it is a lot of exactly that, working something out as we go through it. If we don't move, we never will. It will always be too unsafe for some.
That isn't to say they couldn't do better, but we aren't really doing much different from every other country in Europe.
Obviously he has had a major illness, and I expect lost a lot of lean body mass with that. Severe illness mobilises the metabolic rate, and muscle gets broken down first.
Besides tourism has been cancelled. How many travellers are actually arriving who don't have a very good reason as it happens anyway? Any numbers on that?
... What makes SARS-CoV-2 distinct from other viruses used in this study is the propensity to selectively induce morbidity and mortality in older populations (Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia Emergency Response Epidemiology Team, 2020). The physiological basis for this morbidity is believed to be selective death of type II pneumocytes, which results in loss of air exchange and fluid leakage into the lungs (Qian et al., 2013, Xu et al., 2020). Although it remains to be determined whether the inappropriate inflammatory response to SARS-CoV-2 is responsible for the abnormally high lethality in older populations, it does explain why the virus is generally asymptomatic in young people with healthy and robust immune systems (Lu et al., 2020). Given the results here, it is tempting to speculate that an already restricted immune response in the aging population prevents successful inhibition of viral spread at early stages of infection, further exacerbating the morbidity and mortality observed for this age group (Jing et al., 2009, Montecino-Rodriguez et al., 2013).
Taken together, the data presented here suggest that the response to SARS-CoV-2 is imbalanced with regard to controlling virus replication versus activation of the adaptive immune response. Given this dynamic, treatments for COVID-19 have less to do with the IFN response and more to do with controlling inflammation. Because our data suggest that numerous chemokines and ILs are elevated in COVID-19 patients, future efforts should focus on U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs that can be rapidly deployed and have immunomodulating properties.
In 2012 Obama had a bigger margin over Romney in terms of percentage of the Electoral College than his popular vote lead.
The Tories do not necessarily have a great deal to lose under PR and certainly not much more than Labour. Indeed the only coalition government involving the LDs since WW2 was with the Tories not Labour and in 2015 the Tories could have done a deal with UKIP under PR.
Both the Tories and Labour and the SNP too would be losers under PR, the big winners would be the LDs and to a lesser extent the Greens and the Brexit Party
We should have locked them away straight from the airport.
https://twitter.com/profshanecrotty/status/1261052353773363200
* which I am many on here appreciate.
I think children do catch it, and there is some risk of onward transmission, but life is about balancing and mitigating risks. Strong ground rules. No playground games, lots of washing, etc.
Temperature taken at the schoolgate, with staggered start times. Swab all children on their first day back, and entire classes if a case occurs.
I think the idea of only having a just few year groups back before summer is that they can run small classes, so even the 15 / 17 year olds can remain sufficiently socially distance.
Also, kids clearly do catch it, but the risk to healthy ones is so so small. I would have thought more 17-18 year olds end up hospitalized with drink / drugs over a normal summer, than will be admitted due to coronavirus from sitting socially distance in a classroom.
The bigger risk is with the teachers.
The shameful display of the last few days from certain quarters has ensured that this is the red line. The significant ‘tell’ from the government that they were acting without clear medical advice was not making staff and students wear masks and collapsing social distancing whilst retaining it for the same people outside of school premises. That, to many, suggested that the intention was to use schools to spread the virus and it has reinforced that view, prevalent among many parents and others. Schools are now the battleground because schools were treated differently. Nothing more, nothing less.
Reports from the meeting yesterday say that it was chaotic, with questions ignored, flimsy evidence presented and a complete lack of evidence on the main concerns. This has been backed up by the BMA as well. Evidence is now awaited.
Other nations in the UK have already reached the September conclusion but England is dragging its feet. On comparisons to other nations the only ones that we can be compared to are those with similar outcomes and earlier measures. Italy, Spain, NYC, these are facing the same issue, albeit we are mostly a little later down the line. Countries like Germany and Korea, with their earlier closures, are so different as to be of no use. Denmark, Norway etc. have a far, far superior control over the virus and one that will take us some months to reach, so these countries are also pointless comparisons.
Other workplaces should be following similar pathways although, as they have not been singled out, they may not feel that they are to be the necessary sacrifice. As Williamson almost said, Dulce et Decorum Est, Pro Patria More, or something like that.
Yes, this is interesting. If previous human coronavirus exposure gives partial resistance that could be very good news indeed, and might explain why only some in a household get it, despite massive viral exposure from a case.
Possible live vaccine too.
It might not be "fair" to say only under 40/45s to go in to teach, but in terms of risk, it is a lot smarter.
I only highlight this because I thought that on reflection you would realize you'd got carried away on the 'pro Boris' front and would wish to retract.
Most human colds are not coronavirus though.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11638154/scuffles-protests-london-coronavirus-lockdown/
The innate system deteriorates with age (the numbers of cells is reduced, their function is impaired, and the speed with which they are activated is reduced).
The adaptive immune system provides a strong response after a few days of exposure. This response fades with time if there is no subsequent exposure to the antigen. A second exposure often strengthens both the level of the response and the duration of the 'memory'. But it will fade with time. So if an old person was exposed to all 4 common cold coronaviruses early on in life, and they are no longer endemic because of herd immunity, their immune memory to these virus my have been lost and hence they would not have cross-reactivity. Younger people who were exposed more recently may not yet have lost their immune memory.
The adaptive immune system also deteriorates with age.
The pair, who had travelled 40 miles from Bristol, said: "Lockdown is a breach of our civil liberties."
Surely two is a permitted gathering*.
* If it wasn't in Wales.
If Dominic Cummings is worth his money he would have immediately vetoed that suggestion (as I guess would M15 for different reasons).
Personally I think anyone who wants to call themselves a Scot can, though I reserve the right to point & laugh at the more absurd 'my granny once ate a teacake' stuff. In my book choosing to live here would be a primary qualification which would certainly make you more Scottish than Blair imho, though you appear to prefer to see Scots as 'the other' which is of course your right.
In any case you now seem to be deciding who is and isn't fit to be judged on their Scottishness so I think my work is done here.
33% is far from 'being wiped out'.
"The common cold is a viral infection of the upper respiratory tract. The most commonly implicated virus is a rhinovirus (30–80%), a type of picornavirus with 99 known serotypes.[29][30] Other commonly implicated viruses include human coronaviruses (≈ 15%),[31][32] influenza viruses (10–15%),[33] adenoviruses (5%),[33] human respiratory syncytial virus (orthopneumovirus), enteroviruses other than rhinoviruses, human parainfluenza viruses, and human metapneumovirus.[34] Frequently more than one virus is present.[35] In total, more than 200 viral types are associated with colds.[3]"
NB the Oxford vaccine uses an adenovirus backbone.
* or a law if you wish
That's one genuinely nice thing about being British. You can feel a strong sense of national identity but still feel part of the whole.
Look at the US equivalent, a load of them from one protest now have it.
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/1261646834377781249?s=20
'People at the event were reported as chanting “experts lie; people die”, “don’t listen to the media, listen to the people”, “Nicola Sturgeon is a traitor” and “we are not livestock”.'
Tommy Robinson's mob and Britain First seem seem to be vying with each other to avoid taking ownership.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/rival-right-wing-groups-row-22035882