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?
I wonder if 'party supporter' needs to be divided into sub-types and the proportion in each constituency looked at?
For e.g. I can imagine younger, urban, middle-class labour voters being highly motivated to vote for Corbyn.
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.
And "telling it like it is". That's the worst one IMO.
What it means is "I like politicians who validate rather than challenge the guff that I believe."
Sorry, sounding such a weary old soul there, but it's true.
"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.
The conspiracy nuts were probably all too busy watching YouTube videos and thought that the events were actually the deep state ploy trying to find out who the resistance really is...
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 %.
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?
Independence of course
Did the Bonnie Prince not pretend to the entire throne, not just the Scottish part of it?
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?
I wonder if 'party supporter' needs to be divided into sub-types and the proportion in each constituency looked at?
For e.g. I can imagine younger, urban, middle-class labour voters being highly motivated to vote for Corbyn.
That would not explain how the Tories came to lose support in such seats.
"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.
The conspiracy nuts were probably all too busy watching YouTube videos and thought that the events were actually the deep state ploy trying to find out who the resistance really is...
My guess on the lack of back-dating now would be much easier to process the paperwork of 150-200 people than 500+, and also perhaps tad easier if your hospital is running at max with an ICU doesn't look like a war zone 24/7.
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.
Yes and the dunderheids on it are excruiating to boot. Not bright enough to be able to pass the propaganda without it being obvious it is a bunch of lies. Fair and balanced reporting is alien to them.
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
How very dare you say that of Alex Salmons!
Tut Tut Pete, misspelled the name of the greatest living politician.
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.
To your considering myself English q, dunno. I've tended to end up in places rather than making deeply thought-through decisions to relocate. The only comparison I can make is I moved to Glasgow 25+ years ago and I like to think of myself as a Glaswegian, though I know I'll never be one of the gallus lads with a razor wit and coal dust & steel splinters under my fingernails. My 100% born & bred weegie pals are very nice about conferring honorary status though.
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
You are quoting laws in England.
Well fair enough if outside the UK
Pay attention at the back , if you had read any of eristdoofs posts you would know he was not in England, in fact if you had read that one it was obvious it was not in England.
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 %.
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?
Independence of course
Did the Bonnie Prince not pretend to the entire throne, not just the Scottish part of it?
Just incidental Lucky, he really wanted the Scottish bit.
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.
That's really informative. Thank you.
Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?
If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.
They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
I assume the models and interpretation of testing data are taking this possibility into account?
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
How very dare you say that of Alex Salmons!
Tut Tut Pete, misspelled the name of the greatest living politician.
Autocorrect obviously picked up there Is something fishy about Eck.
As Andrew Bridgen lives and breathes, your analysis of Salmond butters no parsnips on PB.
Rob, trying to understand these numbers. What does the 'plot goes to zero' imply?
TimT, the headline is that following the imposition of the lockdown, deaths fell linearly but reasonably quickly (~20 day) - that rate has now slowed but they are still falling. We wouldn't necessarily expect to yet see the effect of recent measures to relax the lockdown, but it is a good place to start.
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
How very dare you say that of Alex Salmons!
Tut Tut Pete, misspelled the name of the greatest living politician.
Surely it means Nicola is safe in post until someone else named after a fish comes along
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.
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 appears to do best amongst metro left-libs, university students, black and Muslim communities and the very poor. Its pattern of surviving Parliamentary representation - urban cores, some holdouts in Lancs, W & S Yorks, university towns, the South Wales valleys and the coastal North-East - conforms very closely to this pattern.
Every seat in the list you've quoted is a Labour hold except ultra-Remain Putney, where in terms of vote share the Lib Dems improved slightly more than Labour did. The Liberal Democrats were also the main gainers in vote share in Battersea, Enfield Southgate (where Labour went backwards by about the same amount as the Tories did,) Bedford (where Labour went backwards by more than the Tories,) Warwick (ditto,) and Reading East. In the two examples where Labour did clearly improve vote share, Canterbury and Portsmouth South, the changes suggest that this represented a consolidation of the Remain vote as the Liberal Democrats were squeezed, rather than any significant movement from the Conservatives.
I would imagine that there must've been some voters who went straight from Tory to Labour in 2019, principally Remain ultras casting their ballots tactically, but the numbers must've been very modest. Otherwise, how do you explain Labour making only one gain?
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'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
How very dare you say that of Alex Salmons!
Tut Tut Pete, misspelled the name of the greatest living politician.
Surely it means Nicola is safe in post until someone else named after a fish comes along
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 %.
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?
Independence of course
Did the Bonnie Prince not pretend to the entire throne, not just the Scottish part of it?
Just incidental Lucky, he really wanted the Scottish bit.
Nah, he wanted it all. And he ended up with nothing.
You'd have been much better sticking with the Bruce.
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 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.
He thinks a vaccine is unlikely but we can live with it indefinitely.
After facing up to that, I suggest the medical and political establishment wakes up to the reality of other measures for reducing the risk, i.e. vitamin D, sunshine, better diet.
Also our 'tub of lard' PM (55) might like to consult others in public life about eating healthily ...
1) Prince Charles (71) who got better rapidly after a mild attack 2) Tom Watson ex-MP who cured diabetes by a change in diet and would probably also get well fast if he caught COVID-19.
The PM weighs nearly two times as much as me (111 versus 60 kg) and I'm the same height as him (1.75 m). Struth.
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 %.
Teaching staff under 45. Primary 75%, Secondary 68% Teaching staff under 50, Primary 86%, Secondary 82% Teaching staff under 55, Primary 95%, Secondary 92%
This is state schools, adding independents may take a percentage point or two off each.
I never realised I was in such a small group. I think I’m the oldest there, as of next year.
I imagine that premises and catering staff skew a bit older, just from observation.
Thanks. So my suggestion wouldn't reduce the availability of teachers by that much. But there might be a problem with premises and catering staff?
Maybe more difficult in some subjects. PE skews younger usually, for obvious reasons. I heard some suggestion of older staff being used for a push into virtual learning but that might just be idle chatter about the idea of a National Tutoring Service.
We have a chance to rethink things here in various areas and the tendency to want the same as before is going to hamper ways forward. The exam system, the approach to disadvantaged students, the use of technology etc., all of these areas are ready to be made anew and better. Break it down, build it up.
I went to a talk by Sir Charles Burrell about his rewilding at Knepp. I don't have many heroes, but that guy is one of the few. The turnaround in wildlife numbers is simply spectacular. And he has done it whilst also making a very solid return on the estate.
He was shortly going to be taking delivery of beavers when I heard him talk. But what he really wants are lynx....!
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.
That's really informative. Thank you.
Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?
If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.
They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
I assume the models and interpretation of testing data are taking this possibility into account?
I pondered that very hypothesis when there were early reports of recovered persons having no antibody response. In retrospect, I think those results were from faulty testing, rather than no immune response.
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
The Tories won't want Johnson out of the way unless they think it's likely they can find a leader they'll all get behind, and will think will lead them to further victory. Graham Brady, who as leader of 1922 Committee is responsible for rallying the troops, has said “arbitrary rules and limitations on freedom should be removed as quickly as possible”. He was in agreement on this with fellow Tory MPs, including the hawks of the Right, and J.R-M who thinks MPs must 'set an example'. But he was opposed to the slow easing of the Govt imagined by the Govt. And judging by opinion polling, he was also opposed to most of the electorate. My money is still on Starmer.
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.
He thinks a vaccine is unlikely but we can live with it indefinitely.
After facing up to that, I suggest the medical and political establishment wakes up to the reality of other measures for reducing the risk, i.e. vitamin D, sunshine, better diet.
Also our 'tub of lard' PM (55) might like to consult others in public life about eating healthily ...
1) Prince Charles (71) who got better rapidly after a mild attack 2) Tom Watson ex-MP who cured diabetes by a change in diet and would probably also get well fast if he caught COVID-19.
The PM weighs nearly two times as much as me (111 versus 60 kg) and I'm the same height as him (1.75 m). Struth.
I agree.
If we really want to make great strides in public health though, rather than badger people to exercise more and eat their 5 a day, we should look at the staples we eat, and improve them, so that they're all pulling toward physical and mental health. Imagine your daily pinta and your sliced loaf aiding your health and increased goodness in your veg.
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.
No that's not what I was saying at all. You completely misunderstood it if you thought I was saying that - it's totally ridiculous and not at all what I was saying!
Comments
For e.g. I can imagine younger, urban, middle-class labour voters being highly motivated to vote for Corbyn.
It is all very weird and surreal
What it means is "I like politicians who validate rather than challenge the guff that I believe."
Sorry, sounding such a weary old soul there, but it's true.
Teaching staff under 45. Primary 75%, Secondary 68%
Teaching staff under 50, Primary 86%, Secondary 82%
Teaching staff under 55, Primary 95%, Secondary 92%
This is state schools, adding independents may take a percentage point or two off each.
I never realised I was in such a small group. I think I’m the oldest there, as of next year.
I imagine that premises and catering staff skew a bit older, just from observation.
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1261650405651554304?s=20
Is it possible that those with a strong innate immune system, if lightly infected, will dispose of the virus without the adaptive immune system coming into play and therefore not displaying antibodies in serology tests?
If that is the case, then they may form a large component of "herd immunity" at least to light viral loads but not show up in the tests.
They could explain why the epidemic seems to fizzle out at apparent low levels of overall infection.
I assume the models and interpretation of testing data are taking this possibility into account?
As Andrew Bridgen lives and breathes, your analysis of Salmond butters no parsnips on PB.
Every seat in the list you've quoted is a Labour hold except ultra-Remain Putney, where in terms of vote share the Lib Dems improved slightly more than Labour did. The Liberal Democrats were also the main gainers in vote share in Battersea, Enfield Southgate (where Labour went backwards by about the same amount as the Tories did,) Bedford (where Labour went backwards by more than the Tories,) Warwick (ditto,) and Reading East. In the two examples where Labour did clearly improve vote share, Canterbury and Portsmouth South, the changes suggest that this represented a consolidation of the Remain vote as the Liberal Democrats were squeezed, rather than any significant movement from the Conservatives.
I would imagine that there must've been some voters who went straight from Tory to Labour in 2019, principally Remain ultras casting their ballots tactically, but the numbers must've been very modest. Otherwise, how do you explain Labour making only one gain?
https://twitter.com/josephmdurso/status/1261646077670961152?s=20
It represents both a caveat and an opportunity.
Teaching staff under 45. Primary 71%, Secondary 72%
Teaching staff under 50, Primary 83%, Secondary 84%
Teaching staff under 55, Primary 93%, Secondary 93%
Figures for both men and women teaching over 60, for the record, as of this point (2018) is 1.9% for primary and 2.0% for secondary
You'd have been much better sticking with the Bruce.
I go through that on here sometimes.
The fall of the Red Wall may have been at the cost of collateral damage to the Blue Wall.
https://unherd.com/thepost/german-virologist-finds-covid-fatality-rate-of-0-24-0-36/
He thinks a vaccine is unlikely but we can live with it indefinitely.
After facing up to that, I suggest the medical and political establishment wakes up to the reality of other measures for reducing the risk, i.e. vitamin D, sunshine, better diet.
Also our 'tub of lard' PM (55) might like to consult others in public life about eating healthily ...
1) Prince Charles (71) who got better rapidly after a mild attack
2) Tom Watson ex-MP who cured diabetes by a change in diet and would probably also get well fast if he caught COVID-19.
The PM weighs nearly two times as much as me (111 versus 60 kg) and I'm the same height as him (1.75 m). Struth.
We have a chance to rethink things here in various areas and the tendency to want the same as before is going to hamper ways forward. The exam system, the approach to disadvantaged students, the use of technology etc., all of these areas are ready to be made anew and better. Break it down, build it up.
He was shortly going to be taking delivery of beavers when I heard him talk. But what he really wants are lynx....!
My money is still on Starmer.
If we really want to make great strides in public health though, rather than badger people to exercise more and eat their 5 a day, we should look at the staples we eat, and improve them, so that they're all pulling toward physical and mental health. Imagine your daily pinta and your sliced loaf aiding your health and increased goodness in your veg.