My son is at private school. He is getting 3-4 online classes a day. He is set homework which is promptly marked, his teachers respond to his numerous emails, they are available for 1-1 explanations as required. It’s not quite school but for a highly motivated boy like him it’s pretty close.
His school already gets more science passes at higher than the 8 state schools in Dundee. Most of those he will be competing against for his advanced Highers next year are getting absolutely minimal educational input and are being left to their own devices. It’s frankly not close to being fair. It’s not that fair in normal times but Covid is increasing the disparities to breaking point.
Kids need to get back to school before their education is irredeemably ruined. Poor kids most of all. There is no acceptable alternative.
Same experience with my children. They are at different private schools and both are experiencing a very impressive online and zoom offering. Private emails to teachers whenever needed and telephone calls too.
So perhaps the question becomes: why are state schools not providing similar to private schools? Remember that state school teachers are on 100% of salary. Do state school teachers have a soft-touch employer? Is more demanded of private school teachers, employed by non-state actors funded by parents? He who pays the piper ....?
I thought they were supposed to be used to working 24x7 including holidays given the amount of times they used to whinge about it
She managed office, but not power. The gap between the two is astronomical in our system.
Power is not an end in itself it's what you do with it. For Boris it was far more about getting it than any driving motivation ambition of what he would do with it once he got it. I'm not even convinced he's that bothered about Brexit - it was simply the vehicle to get him where he wanted.
I actually agree with you
I am beginning to wonder if Boris may seek a short extension to brexit or even move a little to see a deal
Why? The assertion that the Government has little to gain from delay appears sound.
The trading relationship being requested is relatively loose and both sides are insisting on terms that the other finds onerous. It may actually be easier for both the UK and the EU to give up than attempt a compromise.
Besides, hyperventilating media types and some export businesses in particular may fret at the prospect of a cliff-edge Brexit, but they're not the key voter groups that helped to deliver the Government its majority. Being seen to dither and prevaricate over Brexit risks driving a lot of its new support away and resuscitating the career of Farage.
Just a thought, provoked by something in the Observer. Trump is re-elected. Picks another row with China and leaves the WTO. Maybe even without having an overt row with China. Where does that leave WTO 'rules'? And what happens to a country whose trading relationship are based on those rules?
WTO rules are not enforced against the US or China anyway, ask Antigua for example how they are getting on with their case against the US from 2003. They won, were awarded $21 million per year compensation. So far they have not been paid and were owed $315m as of 2018.
Brits hear the word rules and think they mean something. In this case they dont, with the WTO might has been right, and it will be even more so as we enter the next decade.
How we dont see this when its blatantly obvious I have no idea, WTO rules are far less enforceable than EU rules, and we didnt like EU rules as not enough countries were following them as closely as we did. The Tory rights love affair with the WTO wont last much longer than most of the PMs affairs.
Give it a rest will you, we’ve covered this. Nobody knows what “WTO rules” means and therefore this polling is irrelevant.
It isn't because the government has to deliver WTO terms Brexit by the next general election if the EU does not agree to a Canada style FTA or most of its voters will return to the Brexit Party again
Excellent thread @Foxy - I don't envy the task facing those working in the NHS. I would take issue with this:
Non surgical specialities including mental health will be similarly affected, though these get less media attention.
You can't turn on the news these days without hearing about mental health. Sure enough, the Sky News presenter Niall Paterson has just said he's starting to suffer and they'll be discussing it on (I think) the Sophy Ridge show.
Have to say the UK has turned into a bunch of wimps. Everybody seems to be ill and cannot cope with anything nowadays, why does it have top billing in every disorder known to man.
To be honest Malc we have a close family member suffering from PTSD after rescuing bodies in an earthquake zone. It is not something to dismiss so easily to be honest
G, I understand people can be really ill with these types of things but why does UK have so high a number for all these ailments and disabilities. It is the saddest , fattest , unhealthiest , most disabled country in the developed world.
See, when you put it like that you have a really good point.
That was my point , perhaps not well put the first time.
A friend of mine has been going on about this & it's really valid. How many obesity-related deaths occur each year in the UK? You don't see a lot of fuss being made about it but his argument is that we should accept coronavirus is around and focus rather on obesity and exercise.
Crisp tax anyone?
I doubt that these kinds of sin taxes have the intended effect. They simply make things that taste nice less affordable for poor people.
Positive nudge is probably cheaper, easier to implement. A Vitality type system for the general population would probably save the NHS money.
When this is finally over the Department of Health should consider paying for fat people to attend slimming clubs. If we could succeed even in getting a fifth of the obese population down into the overweight category and a tenth of the overweight population down into the healthy range then the benefits would be well worth the expenditure.
I see your point, but - hmmm - that`s a bit too big brother for me.
I don't think a gym subsidy is "big brother". However it does risk the perception that by being fat you get a bonus that other people want but have to pay for.
Go to a french town of say 20,000 people and it will have public sports and leisure facilities equivalent to an English town of 100,000.
Thats why they get to eat croissants, cheese, four course meals for lunch and still be fitter than us.
Extra sports and leisure facilities will not help if people will not use them.
A walk every evening is free and very effective for weight loss.
I am finding it a pretty close run thing. 2 hours of walking versus way too many snacks whilst at home on lockdown. Weight goes up and down but my daughter is just making blueberry pancakes. This might be an up day.
Yep. I think we can probably surmise what caused this. There was such a desperation to get rid of the elderly from hospitals, to clear capacity for new Covid patients, that they were just thrown at the care homes to get them out of the way. I seem to recall reading elsewhere that homes which initially refused to have them back were threatened (by councils?) with having funding withdrawn if they dug their heels in, so they gave in. We all know how this ended.
Looking at what's happened abroad it looks like pretty well everyone screwed up when it came to care homes, but that doesn't make the failure any more excusable.
In England and Wales, 9 039 out of 12 483 covid-related deaths, by 1st May, were in care homes and that is 72.4%.
I presume that in a bad winter flu epidemic, the bulk of deaths are also in care homes?
Still shocking numbers mind. A tacit acceptance by the NHS that if they were over 80, there really was in all likelihood nothing that could be done for victims? Outcomes were proving very poor for the elderly taken into hospital - they just didn't respond. So let them die in the place they knew as home...
Have to say it has been a shocking failure across the UK and many other countries. In the main these homes have been run like puppy farms just to make venture capitalists money. Needs to be a complete rethink of the whole social care policy.
Absolutely right
We can't afford that, though, just like we can;t afford a new normal. The evidence is we will shortly be very, very bankrupt.
People talk about innovation and new ways of working for certain industries without giving a single detail of what those ways are. That is because those alternative ways do not exist.
We either live with coronavirus or, essentially, our society disintegrates. Health education, the economy, the whole thing
And for most people its pretty liveable with.
Good post Contrarian
Why doesn’t the government ‘level with the British public’ and say we’re broke and we can’t afford to lockdown any further regardless of the ongoing risks.
Agreed. They should do. They are not leading they are weathervaning.
They won`t take us out of lockdown until opinion polls and focus groups tell them it`s OK. The polls won`t say it`s OK while: 1) Sunak keeps chucking money at people for staying at home and 2) politicians and the media are terryfying people about the virus, saying things like "don`t go back to work until it`s safe".
Of course it`s not safe FFS. Public perception of risk is appalling. I told a family member the other day that Covid has a survival rate of over 99% and she flatly disbelieved me. I asked her what she though the survival rate was and she said 50/50.
The lockdown served a number of purposes.
The primary purpose was to avoid the horror of people dying in hospital corridors. And thankfully that was achieved.
The second purpose was to buy time. Time to figure a post lockdown policy and build up capacity in services like testing. I think the goal might have been to get cases down so that track and trace was viable again. Sadly that has not been achieved.
So where are we and why can't we lockdown a bit more?
In short, the public finances have collapsed. So we are now in the invidious position of having to exit lockdown into a very muddy context, where the possibility of returning to the pre-lockdown situation has not and can not be ruled out.
The government should be focusing on delivering and communicating mitigating measures that maintain (or regain) public confidence. Arguably as we leave lockdown, the best action would have been to be more stringent on certain things. It could have insisted on masks for example.
Instead it appears to be rushing the whole thing, probably driven by the critical state of the nations finances. It's saying 'it will be fine' doesn't really wash. Especially, when it hasn't told the whole story about how the lockdown has screwed the economy. As a result it does not add up.
In short, the government has made two mistakes.
1) It has not set out the economic picture. 2) It has done nothing to mitigate the risks of exiting lockdown.
Excellent post, Jonathan.
I`m forever arguing that the economic (and liberty) aspects of this have been undervalued and have not been communicated. Most of the public do not understand the first thing about public finances (e.g. believing that the government has its own money somehow, rather than just administering ours).
Scaring the public over health is easy (and appeals to the journos). The economy is dry and difficult.
My main beef at the moment is that this government`s populism is costing the country dearly.
As Jonathan says, why doesn't the government just level with the electorate?
I think it should have done. Ideally before Sunak extended the furlough scheme from three months to four.
Piffle! Everything will be fine... (waves hand airly about) ... something will sort it out ... we are a mighty economy, we are GREAT Britain! (cue the National Anthem)
It should be interesting to watch, but probably best seen from a distance
She managed office, but not power. The gap between the two is astronomical in our system.
Power is not an end in itself it's what you do with it. For Boris it was far more about getting it than any driving motivation ambition of what he would do with it once he got it. I'm not even convinced he's that bothered about Brexit - it was simply the vehicle to get him where he wanted.
I actually agree with you
I am beginning to wonder if Boris may seek a short extension to brexit or even move a little to see a deal
Why? The assertion that the Government has little to gain from delay appears sound.
The trading relationship being requested is relatively loose and both sides are insisting on terms that the other finds onerous. It may actually be easier for both the UK and the EU to give up than attempt a compromise.
Besides, hyperventilating media types and some export businesses in particular may fret at the prospect of a cliff-edge Brexit, but they're not the key voter groups that helped to deliver the Government its majority. Being seen to dither and prevaricate over Brexit risks driving a lot of its new support away and resuscitating the career of Farage.
Just a thought, provoked by something in the Observer. Trump is re-elected. Picks another row with China and leaves the WTO. Maybe even without having an overt row with China. Where does that leave WTO 'rules'? And what happens to a country whose trading relationship are based on those rules?
Piffle! Everything will be fine... (waves hand airly about) ... something will sort it out ... we are a mighty economy, we are GREAT Britain! (cue the National Anthem)
It should be interesting to watch, but probably best seen from a distance
We look for a trade deal with Trump's US instead, our largest single export destination
She managed office, but not power. The gap between the two is astronomical in our system.
Power is not an end in itself it's what you do with it. For Boris it was far more about getting it than any driving motivation ambition of what he would do with it once he got it. I'm not even convinced he's that bothered about Brexit - it was simply the vehicle to get him where he wanted.
I actually agree with you
I am beginning to wonder if Boris may seek a short extension to brexit or even move a little to see a deal
Why? The assertion that the Government has little to gain from delay appears sound.
The trading relationship being requested is relatively loose and both sides are insisting on terms that the other finds onerous. It may actually be easier for both the UK and the EU to give up than attempt a compromise.
Besides, hyperventilating media types and some export businesses in particular may fret at the prospect of a cliff-edge Brexit, but they're not the key voter groups that helped to deliver the Government its majority. Being seen to dither and prevaricate over Brexit risks driving a lot of its new support away and resuscitating the career of Farage.
Just a thought, provoked by something in the Observer. Trump is re-elected. Picks another row with China and leaves the WTO. Maybe even without having an overt row with China. Where does that leave WTO 'rules'? And what happens to a country whose trading relationship are based on those rules?
WTO rules are not enforced against the US or China anyway, ask Antigua for example how they are getting on with their case against the US from 2003. They won, were awarded $21 million per year compensation. So far they have not been paid and were owed $315m as of 2018.
Brits hear the word rules and think they mean something. In this case they dont, with the WTO might has been right, and it will be even more so as we enter the next decade.
How we dont see this when its blatantly obvious I have no idea, WTO rules are far less enforceable than EU rules, and we didnt like EU rules as not enough countries were following them as closely as we did. The Tory rights love affair with the WTO wont last much longer than most of the PMs affairs.
Give it a rest will you, we’ve covered this. Nobody knows what “WTO rules” means and therefore this polling is irrelevant.
It isn't because the government has to deliver WTO terms Brexit by the next general election if the EU does not agree to a Canada style FTA or most of its voters will return to the Brexit Party again
Nobody, including you and I, knows what “WTO terms Brexit” means.
Read what you say before you post because its just ridiculous.
Yep. I think we can probably surmise what caused this. There was such a desperation to get rid of the elderly from hospitals, to clear capacity for new Covid patients, that they were just thrown at the care homes to get them out of the way. I seem to recall reading elsewhere that homes which initially refused to have them back were threatened (by councils?) with having funding withdrawn if they dug their heels in, so they gave in. We all know how this ended.
Looking at what's happened abroad it looks like pretty well everyone screwed up when it came to care homes, but that doesn't make the failure any more excusable.
In England and Wales, 9 039 out of 12 483 covid-related deaths, by 1st May, were in care homes and that is 72.4%.
I presume that in a bad winter flu epidemic, the bulk of deaths are also in care homes?
Still shocking numbers mind. A tacit acceptance by the NHS that if they were over 80, there really was in all likelihood nothing that could be done for victims? Outcomes were proving very poor for the elderly taken into hospital - they just didn't respond. So let them die in the place they knew as home...
Have to say it has been a shocking failure across the UK and many other countries. In the main these homes have been run like puppy farms just to make venture capitalists money. Needs to be a complete rethink of the whole social care policy.
Absolutely right
Sorry but that's crap. Running a care home is a hard job and many dont make much money at all. The big issue is staff shortages which the public sector shoudl have got a grip on years ago and spent money on training ,recruitment and better wages rather than create more non-jobs
While there's a lot in that with which I'd agree, there has been, apparently, a policy from Govt that, especially in Care, Public is bad and Private good. Consequently publicly owned homes, which often had unionised staff have been sold off and a plethora of private companies, large and small encouraged. At the same time the amount of money available from the public purse has increasingly been less than that necessary to run a decent service. And, IMHO, that's why we are where we are.
If you look at Ireland or the U.K., public sector care homes are demonstrably less good - they are usually Gen 1 vs the Gen 4 that you are now getting in the private sector.
Shared rooms vs singles Communal bathing vs en-suite or wetrooms Limited activities vs full range
Excellent thread @Foxy - I don't envy the task facing those working in the NHS. I would take issue with this:
Non surgical specialities including mental health will be similarly affected, though these get less media attention.
You can't turn on the news these days without hearing about mental health. Sure enough, the Sky News presenter Niall Paterson has just said he's starting to suffer and they'll be discussing it on (I think) the Sophy Ridge show.
Have to say the UK has turned into a bunch of wimps. Everybody seems to be ill and cannot cope with anything nowadays, why does it have top billing in every disorder known to man.
To be honest Malc we have a close family member suffering from PTSD after rescuing bodies in an earthquake zone. It is not something to dismiss so easily to be honest
G, I understand people can be really ill with these types of things but why does UK have so high a number for all these ailments and disabilities. It is the saddest , fattest , unhealthiest , most disabled country in the developed world.
See, when you put it like that you have a really good point.
That was my point , perhaps not well put the first time.
A friend of mine has been going on about this & it's really valid. How many obesity-related deaths occur each year in the UK? You don't see a lot of fuss being made about it but his argument is that we should accept coronavirus is around and focus rather on obesity and exercise.
Crisp tax anyone?
I doubt that these kinds of sin taxes have the intended effect. They simply make things that taste nice less affordable for poor people.
Positive nudge is probably cheaper, easier to implement. A Vitality type system for the general population would probably save the NHS money.
When this is finally over the Department of Health should consider paying for fat people to attend slimming clubs. If we could succeed even in getting a fifth of the obese population down into the overweight category and a tenth of the overweight population down into the healthy range then the benefits would be well worth the expenditure.
I see your point, but - hmmm - that`s a bit too big brother for me.
I don't think a gym subsidy is "big brother". However it does risk the perception that by being fat you get a bonus that other people want but have to pay for.
Go to a french town of say 20,000 people and it will have public sports and leisure facilities equivalent to an English town of 100,000.
Thats why they get to eat croissants, cheese, four course meals for lunch and still be fitter than us.
Extra sports and leisure facilities will not help if people will not use them.
A walk every evening is free and very effective for weight loss.
Well the evidence from France is that it works. Build the facilities, make them cheap and accessible and people will love to play tennis, go swimming etc. Quelle surprise!
Yep. I think we can probably surmise what caused this. There was such a desperation to get rid of the elderly from hospitals, to clear capacity for new Covid patients, that they were just thrown at the care homes to get them out of the way. I seem to recall reading elsewhere that homes which initially refused to have them back were threatened (by councils?) with having funding withdrawn if they dug their heels in, so they gave in. We all know how this ended.
Looking at what's happened abroad it looks like pretty well everyone screwed up when it came to care homes, but that doesn't make the failure any more excusable.
In England and Wales, 9 039 out of 12 483 covid-related deaths, by 1st May, were in care homes and that is 72.4%.
I presume that in a bad winter flu epidemic, the bulk of deaths are also in care homes?
Still shocking numbers mind. A tacit acceptance by the NHS that if they were over 80, there really was in all likelihood nothing that could be done for victims? Outcomes were proving very poor for the elderly taken into hospital - they just didn't respond. So let them die in the place they knew as home...
Have to say it has been a shocking failure across the UK and many other countries. In the main these homes have been run like puppy farms just to make venture capitalists money. Needs to be a complete rethink of the whole social care policy.
Absolutely right
We can't afford that, though, just like we can;t afford a new normal. The evidence is we will shortly be very, very bankrupt.
People talk about innovation and new ways of working for certain industries without giving a single detail of what those ways are. That is because those alternative ways do not exist.
We either live with coronavirus or, essentially, our society disintegrates. Health education, the economy, the whole thing
And for most people its pretty liveable with.
Good post Contrarian
Why doesn’t the government ‘level with the British public’ and say we’re broke and we can’t afford to lockdown any further regardless of the ongoing risks.
Agreed. They should do. They are not leading they are weathervaning.
They won`t take us out of lockdown until opinion polls and focus groups tell them it`s OK. The polls won`t say it`s OK while: 1) Sunak keeps chucking money at people for staying at home and 2) politicians and the media are terryfying people about the virus, saying things like "don`t go back to work until it`s safe".
Of course it`s not safe FFS. Public perception of risk is appalling. I told a family member the other day that Covid has a survival rate of over 99% and she flatly disbelieved me. I asked her what she though the survival rate was and she said 50/50.
The lockdown served a number of purposes.
The primary purpose was to avoid the horror of people dying in hospital corridors. And thankfully that was achieved.
The second purpose was to buy time. Time to figure a post lockdown policy and build up capacity in services like testing. I think the goal might have been to get cases down so that track and trace was viable again. Sadly that has not been achieved.
So where are we and why can't we lockdown a bit more?
In short, the public finances have collapsed. So we are now in the invidious position of having to exit lockdown into a very muddy context, where the possibility of returning to the pre-lockdown situation has not and can not be ruled out.
The government should be focusing on delivering and communicating mitigating measures that maintain (or regain) public confidence. Arguably as we leave lockdown, the best action would have been to be more stringent on certain things. It could have insisted on masks for example.
Instead it appears to be rushing the whole thing, probably driven by the critical state of the nations finances. It's saying 'it will be fine' doesn't really wash. Especially, when it hasn't told the whole story about how the lockdown has screwed the economy. As a result it does not add up.
In short, the government has made two mistakes.
1) It has not set out the economic picture. 2) It has done nothing to mitigate the risks of exiting lockdown.
Excellent post, Jonathan.
I`m forever arguing that the economic (and liberty) aspects of this have been undervalued and have not been communicated. Most of the public do not understand the first thing about public finances (e.g. believing that the government has its own money somehow, rather than just administering ours).
Scaring the public over health is easy (and appeals to the journos). The economy is dry and difficult.
My main beef at the moment is that this government`s populism is costing the country dearly.
As Jonathan says, why doesn't the government just level with the electorate?
I think it should have done. Ideally before Sunak extended the furlough scheme from three months to four.
One reason might be that honesty undermines their threat of a second lockdown if we are naughty and R goes up.
In reality the country simply cannot afford a second lockdown, and that is an empty threat.
Excellent thread @Foxy - I don't envy the task facing those working in the NHS. I would take issue with this:
Non surgical specialities including mental health will be similarly affected, though these get less media attention.
You can't turn on the news these days without hearing about mental health. Sure enough, the Sky News presenter Niall Paterson has just said he's starting to suffer and they'll be discussing it on (I think) the Sophy Ridge show.
Have to say the UK has turned into a bunch of wimps. Everybody seems to be ill and cannot cope with anything nowadays, why does it have top billing in every disorder known to man.
To be honest Malc we have a close family member suffering from PTSD after rescuing bodies in an earthquake zone. It is not something to dismiss so easily to be honest
G, I understand people can be really ill with these types of things but why does UK have so high a number for all these ailments and disabilities. It is the saddest , fattest , unhealthiest , most disabled country in the developed world.
See, when you put it like that you have a really good point.
That was my point , perhaps not well put the first time.
A friend of mine has been going on about this & it's really valid. How many obesity-related deaths occur each year in the UK? You don't see a lot of fuss being made about it but his argument is that we should accept coronavirus is around and focus rather on obesity and exercise.
Crisp tax anyone?
I doubt that these kinds of sin taxes have the intended effect. They simply make things that taste nice less affordable for poor people.
Positive nudge is probably cheaper, easier to implement. A Vitality type system for the general population would probably save the NHS money.
When this is finally over the Department of Health should consider paying for fat people to attend slimming clubs. If we could succeed even in getting a fifth of the obese population down into the overweight category and a tenth of the overweight population down into the healthy range then the benefits would be well worth the expenditure.
I see your point, but - hmmm - that`s a bit too big brother for me.
I don't think a gym subsidy is "big brother". However it does risk the perception that by being fat you get a bonus that other people want but have to pay for.
Go to a french town of say 20,000 people and it will have public sports and leisure facilities equivalent to an English town of 100,000.
Thats why they get to eat croissants, cheese, four course meals for lunch and still be fitter than us.
Extra sports and leisure facilities will not help if people will not use them.
A walk every evening is free and very effective for weight loss.
I am finding it a pretty close run thing. 2 hours of walking versus way too many snacks whilst at home on lockdown. Weight goes up and down but my daughter is just making blueberry pancakes. This might be an up day.
Ive switched from running to walking during lockdown as it takes longer so less time to snack.
My son is at private school. He is getting 3-4 online classes a day. He is set homework which is promptly marked, his teachers respond to his numerous emails, they are available for 1-1 explanations as required. It’s not quite school but for a highly motivated boy like him it’s pretty close.
His school already gets more science passes at higher than the 8 state schools in Dundee. Most of those he will be competing against for his advanced Highers next year are getting absolutely minimal educational input and are being left to their own devices. It’s frankly not close to being fair. It’s not that fair in normal times but Covid is increasing the disparities to breaking point.
Kids need to get back to school before their education is irredeemably ruined. Poor kids most of all. There is no acceptable alternative.
Same experience with my children. They are at different private schools and both are experiencing a very impressive online and zoom offering. Private emails to teachers whenever needed and telephone calls too.
So perhaps the question becomes: why are state schools not providing similar to private schools? Remember that state school teachers are on 100% of salary. Do state school teachers have a soft-touch employer? Is more demanded of private school teachers, employed by non-state actors funded by parents? He who pays the piper ....?
I thought they were supposed to be used to working 24x7 including holidays given the amount of times they used to whinge about it
Teachers are in danger of become a hated cohort if they are not careful. The problem is partly that they are public sector and unionised. But also teachers are particularly risk-averse by nature, I think (massive generalisation that this is).
Mr. Scott, I find the food retailers aspect pretty weird.
They've been working hard and ensured supplies remained solid even when people were panic-buying, and their staff have been some of the few to be persistently in contact with the public on a daily basis.
Not sure why they should be subject to a pernicious tax on top of that.
Not a fan of windfall taxes generally but there's more of a case for one (or less of an argument against, to be precise) when it comes to online retailers.
Don't see why people doing business should be penalised. The money they make allows them to do helpful things like provide the public with food and the state with taxes.
There is a contradiction built into reality. To be taxed in any significant way you have to be honest and successful. There is no-one else to get all that money out of. Drug dealers, bank robbers and benefits junkies are not good sources of revenue. Hard working businesses are.
Legalising drugs would raise billions in tax and save a fortune on the police and prisons.
Shame about the brain damage.
But they’re only druggies, right?
Why would it be any different from now, they buy crappy illegal ones and get brain damage now.
My son is at private school. He is getting 3-4 online classes a day. He is set homework which is promptly marked, his teachers respond to his numerous emails, they are available for 1-1 explanations as required. It’s not quite school but for a highly motivated boy like him it’s pretty close.
His school already gets more science passes at higher than the 8 state schools in Dundee. Most of those he will be competing against for his advanced Highers next year are getting absolutely minimal educational input and are being left to their own devices. It’s frankly not close to being fair. It’s not that fair in normal times but Covid is increasing the disparities to breaking point.
Kids need to get back to school before their education is irredeemably ruined. Poor kids most of all. There is no acceptable alternative.
Same experience with my children. They are at different private schools and both are experiencing a very impressive online and zoom offering. Private emails to teachers whenever needed and telephone calls too.
So perhaps the question becomes: why are state schools not providing similar to private schools? Remember that state school teachers are on 100% of salary. Do state school teachers have a soft-touch employer? Is more demanded of private school teachers, employed by non-state actors funded by parents? He who pays the piper ....?
My partner works in a primary school, around 40% of children are doing their online work. The Unions are playing political games at the expense of children's education
Does your partner agree?
Yes, all but one of the teaching staff are back at work contrary to what the union is recommending
She managed office, but not power. The gap between the two is astronomical in our system.
Power is not an end in itself it's what you do with it. For Boris it was far more about getting it than any driving motivation ambition of what he would do with it once he got it. I'm not even convinced he's that bothered about Brexit - it was simply the vehicle to get him where he wanted.
I actually agree with you
I am beginning to wonder if Boris may seek a short extension to brexit or even move a little to see a deal
Why? The assertion that the Government has little to gain from delay appears sound.
The trading relationship being requested is relatively loose and both sides are insisting on terms that the other finds onerous. It may actually be easier for both the UK and the EU to give up than attempt a compromise.
Besides, hyperventilating media types and some export businesses in particular may fret at the prospect of a cliff-edge Brexit, but they're not the key voter groups that helped to deliver the Government its majority. Being seen to dither and prevaricate over Brexit risks driving a lot of its new support away and resuscitating the career of Farage.
Just a thought, provoked by something in the Observer. Trump is re-elected. Picks another row with China and leaves the WTO. Maybe even without having an overt row with China. Where does that leave WTO 'rules'? And what happens to a country whose trading relationship are based on those rules?
WTO rules are not enforced against the US or China anyway, ask Antigua for example how they are getting on with their case against the US from 2003. They won, were awarded $21 million per year compensation. So far they have not been paid and were owed $315m as of 2018.
Brits hear the word rules and think they mean something. In this case they dont, with the WTO might has been right, and it will be even more so as we enter the next decade.
How we dont see this when its blatantly obvious I have no idea, WTO rules are far less enforceable than EU rules, and we didnt like EU rules as not enough countries were following them as closely as we did. The Tory rights love affair with the WTO wont last much longer than most of the PMs affairs.
guaranteed to be rubbish but absolutely shocking that you find this topic funny Harry. I know you have the Scottish cringe but that is bad. It is a hash of the usual no hopers saying SNPBasd, bit like my previous post on carcrash care home numbers, he mixed up Scottish and English numbers as he transferred them from his fingers. Keep trying and one day you will get your English badge.
I understand England has confirmed 17,000 tracers appointed to date and it will be up and running by the end of the month
Having a go at Scotland at zero is fair
G, you rage about anyone criticising Boris, government etc yet someone laughing at such a sensitive topic is ok in your book, have a think. PS: The Daily Record and the lying Tories in the article have no idea who has or has not been hired. Maybe you should be laughing at the 100K a day that was supposedly achieved once by Hancock booking himself 40K tests and never ever met again.
I believe a serious issue with recruiting the tracers is the background checks.
If you think about it, the tracers will have access to a lot of confidential information. Perfect fishing ground for scammers, criminals and weirdos.
This was why, until very recently, there were few who had completed the hiring process in England. Then a huge number cleared the vetting process at around the same time.
Be interesting to see if joe public or who they work for, bet it is outsourced to someone like Serco or some other Tory favourite.
Excellent thread @Foxy - I don't envy the task facing those working in the NHS. I would take issue with this:
Non surgical specialities including mental health will be similarly affected, though these get less media attention.
You can't turn on the news these days without hearing about mental health. Sure enough, the Sky News presenter Niall Paterson has just said he's starting to suffer and they'll be discussing it on (I think) the Sophy Ridge show.
Have to say the UK has turned into a bunch of wimps. Everybody seems to be ill and cannot cope with anything nowadays, why does it have top billing in every disorder known to man.
To be honest Malc we have a close family member suffering from PTSD after rescuing bodies in an earthquake zone. It is not something to dismiss so easily to be honest
G, I understand people can be really ill with these types of things but why does UK have so high a number for all these ailments and disabilities. It is the saddest , fattest , unhealthiest , most disabled country in the developed world.
See, when you put it like that you have a really good point.
That was my point , perhaps not well put the first time.
A friend of mine has been going on about this & it's really valid. How many obesity-related deaths occur each year in the UK? You don't see a lot of fuss being made about it but his argument is that we should accept coronavirus is around and focus rather on obesity and exercise.
Crisp tax anyone?
I doubt that these kinds of sin taxes have the intended effect. They simply make things that taste nice less affordable for poor people.
Positive nudge is probably cheaper, easier to implement. A Vitality type system for the general population would probably save the NHS money.
When this is finally over the Department of Health should consider paying for fat people to attend slimming clubs. If we could succeed even in getting a fifth of the obese population down into the overweight category and a tenth of the overweight population down into the healthy range then the benefits would be well worth the expenditure.
I see your point, but - hmmm - that`s a bit too big brother for me.
I don't think a gym subsidy is "big brother". However it does risk the perception that by being fat you get a bonus that other people want but have to pay for.
Go to a french town of say 20,000 people and it will have public sports and leisure facilities equivalent to an English town of 100,000.
Thats why they get to eat croissants, cheese, four course meals for lunch and still be fitter than us.
Extra sports and leisure facilities will not help if people will not use them.
A walk every evening is free and very effective for weight loss.
I am finding it a pretty close run thing. 2 hours of walking versus way too many snacks whilst at home on lockdown. Weight goes up and down but my daughter is just making blueberry pancakes. This might be an up day.
I've been surprised just how much a long walk with the dog in the evening helps with weight loss. Gym visits I found didn't help much with weight because you didn't lose much and ate like a pig when you got back.
Yep. I think we can probably surmise what caused this. There was such a desperation to get rid of the elderly from hospitals, to clear capacity for new Covid patients, that they were just thrown at the care homes to get them out of the way. I seem to recall reading elsewhere that homes which initially refused to have them back were threatened (by councils?) with having funding withdrawn if they dug their heels in, so they gave in. We all know how this ended.
Looking at what's happened abroad it looks like pretty well everyone screwed up when it came to care homes, but that doesn't make the failure any more excusable.
In England and Wales, 9 039 out of 12 483 covid-related deaths, by 1st May, were in care homes and that is 72.4%.
I presume that in a bad winter flu epidemic, the bulk of deaths are also in care homes?
Still shocking numbers mind. A tacit acceptance by the NHS that if they were over 80, there really was in all likelihood nothing that could be done for victims? Outcomes were proving very poor for the elderly taken into hospital - they just didn't respond. So let them die in the place they knew as home...
Have to say it has been a shocking failure across the UK and many other countries. In the main these homes have been run like puppy farms just to make venture capitalists money. Needs to be a complete rethink of the whole social care policy.
Absolutely right
We can't afford that, though, just like we can;t afford a new normal. The evidence is we will shortly be very, very bankrupt.
People talk about innovation and new ways of working for certain industries without giving a single detail of what those ways are. That is because those alternative ways do not exist.
We either live with coronavirus or, essentially, our society disintegrates. Health education, the economy, the whole thing
And for most people its pretty liveable with.
Good post Contrarian
Why doesn’t the government ‘level with the British public’ and say we’re broke and we can’t afford to lockdown any further regardless of the ongoing risks.
Agreed. They should do. They are not leading they are weathervaning.
They won`t take us out of lockdown until opinion polls and focus groups tell them it`s OK. The polls won`t say it`s OK while: 1) Sunak keeps chucking money at people for staying at home and 2) politicians and the media are terryfying people about the virus, saying things like "don`t go back to work until it`s safe".
Of course it`s not safe FFS. Public perception of risk is appalling. I told a family member the other day that Covid has a survival rate of over 99% and she flatly disbelieved me. I asked her what she though the survival rate was and she said 50/50.
The lockdown served a number of purposes.
The primary purpose was to avoid the horror of people dying in hospital corridors. And thankfully that was achieved.
The second purpose was to buy time. Time to figure a post lockdown policy and build up capacity in services like testing. I think the goal might have been to get cases down so that track and trace was viable again. Sadly that has not been achieved.
So where are we and why can't we lockdown a bit more?
In short, the public finances have collapsed. So we are now in the invidious position of having to exit lockdown into a very muddy context, where the possibility of returning to the pre-lockdown situation has not and can not be ruled out.
The government should be focusing on delivering and communicating mitigating measures that maintain (or regain) public confidence. Arguably as we leave lockdown, the best action would have been to be more stringent on certain things. It could have insisted on masks for example.
Instead it appears to be rushing the whole thing, probably driven by the critical state of the nations finances. It's saying 'it will be fine' doesn't really wash. Especially, when it hasn't told the whole story about how the lockdown has screwed the economy. As a result it does not add up.
In short, the government has made two mistakes.
1) It has not set out the economic picture. 2) It has done nothing to mitigate the risks of exiting lockdown.
Excellent post, Jonathan.
I`m forever arguing that the economic (and liberty) aspects of this have been undervalued and have not been communicated. Most of the public do not understand the first thing about public finances (e.g. believing that the government has its own money somehow, rather than just administering ours).
Scaring the public over health is easy (and appeals to the journos). The economy is dry and difficult.
My main beef at the moment is that this government`s populism is costing the country dearly.
As Jonathan says, why doesn't the government just level with the electorate?
I think it should have done. Ideally before Sunak extended the furlough scheme from three months to four.
One reason might be that honesty undermines their threat of a second lockdown if we are naughty and R goes up.
In reality the country simply cannot afford a second lockdown, and that is an empty threat.
There won`t be a second lockdown.The government has been bitten too hard by the first - realising how difficult it is to come out of a lockdown, especially difficult when it goes against public opinion. Basically, the government has incentivised people to do the opposite of what it wants them to do.
Excellent thread @Foxy - I don't envy the task facing those working in the NHS. I would take issue with this:
Non surgical specialities including mental health will be similarly affected, though these get less media attention.
You can't turn on the news these days without hearing about mental health. Sure enough, the Sky News presenter Niall Paterson has just said he's starting to suffer and they'll be discussing it on (I think) the Sophy Ridge show.
Have to say the UK has turned into a bunch of wimps. Everybody seems to be ill and cannot cope with anything nowadays, why does it have top billing in every disorder known to man.
To be honest Malc we have a close family member suffering from PTSD after rescuing bodies in an earthquake zone. It is not something to dismiss so easily to be honest
G, I understand people can be really ill with these types of things but why does UK have so high a number for all these ailments and disabilities. It is the saddest , fattest , unhealthiest , most disabled country in the developed world.
See, when you put it like that you have a really good point.
That was my point , perhaps not well put the first time.
A friend of mine has been going on about this & it's really valid. How many obesity-related deaths occur each year in the UK? You don't see a lot of fuss being made about it but his argument is that we should accept coronavirus is around and focus rather on obesity and exercise.
Crisp tax anyone?
I doubt that these kinds of sin taxes have the intended effect. They simply make things that taste nice less affordable for poor people.
Positive nudge is probably cheaper, easier to implement. A Vitality type system for the general population would probably save the NHS money.
When this is finally over the Department of Health should consider paying for fat people to attend slimming clubs. If we could succeed even in getting a fifth of the obese population down into the overweight category and a tenth of the overweight population down into the healthy range then the benefits would be well worth the expenditure.
I see your point, but - hmmm - that`s a bit too big brother for me.
I don't think a gym subsidy is "big brother". However it does risk the perception that by being fat you get a bonus that other people want but have to pay for.
Go to a french town of say 20,000 people and it will have public sports and leisure facilities equivalent to an English town of 100,000.
Thats why they get to eat croissants, cheese, four course meals for lunch and still be fitter than us.
Extra sports and leisure facilities will not help if people will not use them.
A walk every evening is free and very effective for weight loss.
Well the evidence from France is that it works. Build the facilities, make them cheap and accessible and people will love to play tennis, go swimming etc. Quelle surprise!
It can be more complex than that. Back from where I am originally, there are huge health issues due to poor diet, smoking, drinking etc. The local council gym chain over past 10 years have had a big push on building new facilities (and I presume a load of government funding to do so), and are much cheaper than the commercial alternatives (about half the price in fact).
However, if you go they are stuffed full of more middle class folk, who used to be members of the expensive commercial gyms. Not much sign of the people who probably need to be using them most.
So in effect all that has happened is we have subsidised richer folk to get cheaper gym membership.
Yep. I think we can probably surmise what caused this. There was such a desperation to get rid of the elderly from hospitals, to clear capacity for new Covid patients, that they were just thrown at the care homes to get them out of the way. I seem to recall reading elsewhere that homes which initially refused to have them back were threatened (by councils?) with having funding withdrawn if they dug their heels in, so they gave in. We all know how this ended.
Looking at what's happened abroad it looks like pretty well everyone screwed up when it came to care homes, but that doesn't make the failure any more excusable.
In England and Wales, 9 039 out of 12 483 covid-related deaths, by 1st May, were in care homes and that is 72.4%.
I presume that in a bad winter flu epidemic, the bulk of deaths are also in care homes?
Still shocking numbers mind. A tacit acceptance by the NHS that if they were over 80, there really was in all likelihood nothing that could be done for victims? Outcomes were proving very poor for the elderly taken into hospital - they just didn't respond. So let them die in the place they knew as home...
Have to say it has been a shocking failure across the UK and many other countries. In the main these homes have been run like puppy farms just to make venture capitalists money. Needs to be a complete rethink of the whole social care policy.
Absolutely right
We can't afford that, though, just like we can;t afford a new normal. The evidence is we will shortly be very, very bankrupt.
People talk about innovation and new ways of working for certain industries without giving a single detail of what those ways are. That is because those alternative ways do not exist.
We either live with coronavirus or, essentially, our society disintegrates. Health education, the economy, the whole thing
And for most people its pretty liveable with.
Good post Contrarian
Why doesn’t the government ‘level with the British public’ and say we’re broke and we can’t afford to lockdown any further regardless of the ongoing risks.
Agreed. They should do. They are not leading they are weathervaning.
They won`t take us out of lockdown until opinion polls and focus groups tell them it`s OK. The polls won`t say it`s OK while: 1) Sunak keeps chucking money at people for staying at home and 2) politicians and the media are terryfying people about the virus, saying things like "don`t go back to work until it`s safe".
Of course it`s not safe FFS. Public perception of risk is appalling. I told a family member the other day that Covid has a survival rate of over 99% and she flatly disbelieved me. I asked her what she though the survival rate was and she said 50/50.
The lockdown served a number of purposes.
The primary purpose was to avoid the horror of people dying in hospital corridors. And thankfully that was achieved.
The second purpose was to buy time. Time to figure a post lockdown policy and build up capacity in services like testing. I think the goal might have been to get cases down so that track and trace was viable again. Sadly that has not been achieved.
So where are we and why can't we lockdown a bit more?
In short, the public finances have collapsed. So we are now in the invidious position of having to exit lockdown into a very muddy context, where the possibility of returning to the pre-lockdown situation has not and can not be ruled out.
The government should be focusing on delivering and communicating mitigating measures that maintain (or regain) public confidence. Arguably as we leave lockdown, the best action would have been to be more stringent on certain things. It could have insisted on masks for example.
Instead it appears to be rushing the whole thing, probably driven by the critical state of the nations finances. It's saying 'it will be fine' doesn't really wash. Especially, when it hasn't told the whole story about how the lockdown has screwed the economy. As a result it does not add up.
In short, the government has made two mistakes.
1) It has not set out the economic picture. 2) It has done nothing to mitigate the risks of exiting lockdown.
True, they just had them die in care homes instead.
Excellent thread @Foxy - I don't envy the task facing those working in the NHS. I would take issue with this:
Non surgical specialities including mental health will be similarly affected, though these get less media attention.
You can't turn on the news these days without hearing about mental health. Sure enough, the Sky News presenter Niall Paterson has just said he's starting to suffer and they'll be discussing it on (I think) the Sophy Ridge show.
Have to say the UK has turned into a bunch of wimps. Everybody seems to be ill and cannot cope with anything nowadays, why does it have top billing in every disorder known to man.
To be honest Malc we have a close family member suffering from PTSD after rescuing bodies in an earthquake zone. It is not something to dismiss so easily to be honest
G, I understand people can be really ill with these types of things but why does UK have so high a number for all these ailments and disabilities. It is the saddest , fattest , unhealthiest , most disabled country in the developed world.
See, when you put it like that you have a really good point.
That was my point , perhaps not well put the first time.
A friend of mine has been going on about this & it's really valid. How many obesity-related deaths occur each year in the UK? You don't see a lot of fuss being made about it but his argument is that we should accept coronavirus is around and focus rather on obesity and exercise.
Crisp tax anyone?
I doubt that these kinds of sin taxes have the intended effect. They simply make things that taste nice less affordable for poor people.
Positive nudge is probably cheaper, easier to implement. A Vitality type system for the general population would probably save the NHS money.
When this is finally over the Department of Health should consider paying for fat people to attend slimming clubs. If we could succeed even in getting a fifth of the obese population down into the overweight category and a tenth of the overweight population down into the healthy range then the benefits would be well worth the expenditure.
I see your point, but - hmmm - that`s a bit too big brother for me.
I don't think a gym subsidy is "big brother". However it does risk the perception that by being fat you get a bonus that other people want but have to pay for.
Go to a french town of say 20,000 people and it will have public sports and leisure facilities equivalent to an English town of 100,000.
Thats why they get to eat croissants, cheese, four course meals for lunch and still be fitter than us.
Extra sports and leisure facilities will not help if people will not use them.
A walk every evening is free and very effective for weight loss.
I am finding it a pretty close run thing. 2 hours of walking versus way too many snacks whilst at home on lockdown. Weight goes up and down but my daughter is just making blueberry pancakes. This might be an up day.
I've gone the other way and am snacking, and drinking, less.
But the evening walks are something I am determined to continue.
Which will mean my gym membership becomes unnecessary.
My son is at private school. He is getting 3-4 online classes a day. He is set homework which is promptly marked, his teachers respond to his numerous emails, they are available for 1-1 explanations as required. It’s not quite school but for a highly motivated boy like him it’s pretty close.
His school already gets more science passes at higher than the 8 state schools in Dundee. Most of those he will be competing against for his advanced Highers next year are getting absolutely minimal educational input and are being left to their own devices. It’s frankly not close to being fair. It’s not that fair in normal times but Covid is increasing the disparities to breaking point.
Kids need to get back to school before their education is irredeemably ruined. Poor kids most of all. There is no acceptable alternative.
Same experience with my children. They are at different private schools and both are experiencing a very impressive online and zoom offering. Private emails to teachers whenever needed and telephone calls too.
So perhaps the question becomes: why are state schools not providing similar to private schools? Remember that state school teachers are on 100% of salary. Do state school teachers have a soft-touch employer? Is more demanded of private school teachers, employed by non-state actors funded by parents? He who pays the piper ....?
My partner works in a primary school, around 40% of children are doing their online work. The Unions are playing political games at the expense of children's education
Does your partner agree?
Yes, all but one of the teaching staff are back at work contrary to what the union is recommending
Oh, that`s good to hear. What`s motivated that given they would be paid the same for not going in. Peer pressure?
Excellent thread @Foxy - I don't envy the task facing those working in the NHS. I would take issue with this:
Non surgical specialities including mental health will be similarly affected, though these get less media attention.
You can't turn on the news these days without hearing about mental health. Sure enough, the Sky News presenter Niall Paterson has just said he's starting to suffer and they'll be discussing it on (I think) the Sophy Ridge show.
Have to say the UK has turned into a bunch of wimps. Everybody seems to be ill and cannot cope with anything nowadays, why does it have top billing in every disorder known to man.
To be honest Malc we have a close family member suffering from PTSD after rescuing bodies in an earthquake zone. It is not something to dismiss so easily to be honest
G, I understand people can be really ill with these types of things but why does UK have so high a number for all these ailments and disabilities. It is the saddest , fattest , unhealthiest , most disabled country in the developed world.
See, when you put it like that you have a really good point.
That was my point , perhaps not well put the first time.
A friend of mine has been going on about this & it's really valid. How many obesity-related deaths occur each year in the UK? You don't see a lot of fuss being made about it but his argument is that we should accept coronavirus is around and focus rather on obesity and exercise.
Crisp tax anyone?
I doubt that these kinds of sin taxes have the intended effect. They simply make things that taste nice less affordable for poor people.
Positive nudge is probably cheaper, easier to implement. A Vitality type system for the general population would probably save the NHS money.
When this is finally over the Department of Health should consider paying for fat people to attend slimming clubs. If we could succeed even in getting a fifth of the obese population down into the overweight category and a tenth of the overweight population down into the healthy range then the benefits would be well worth the expenditure.
I see your point, but - hmmm - that`s a bit too big brother for me.
I don't think a gym subsidy is "big brother". However it does risk the perception that by being fat you get a bonus that other people want but have to pay for.
Go to a french town of say 20,000 people and it will have public sports and leisure facilities equivalent to an English town of 100,000.
Thats why they get to eat croissants, cheese, four course meals for lunch and still be fitter than us.
Extra sports and leisure facilities will not help if people will not use them.
A walk every evening is free and very effective for weight loss.
Well the evidence from France is that it works. Build the facilities, make them cheap and accessible and people will love to play tennis, go swimming etc. Quelle surprise!
It can be more complex than that. Back from where I am originally, there are huge health issues due to poor diet, smoking, drinking etc. The local council gym chain over past 10 years have had a big push on building new facilities (and I presume a load of government funding to do so), and are much cheaper than the commercial alternatives (about half the price in fact).
However, if you go they are stuffed full of more middle class folk, who used to be members of the expensive commercial gyms. Not much sign of the people who probably need to be using them most.
So in effect all that has happened is we have subsidised richer folk to get cheaper gym membership.
It needs to start in schools and be ingrained as a vital and fun part of life from an early age as per my original post.
Excellent thread @Foxy - I don't envy the task facing those working in the NHS. I would take issue with this:
Non surgical specialities including mental health will be similarly affected, though these get less media attention.
You can't turn on the news these days without hearing about mental health. Sure enough, the Sky News presenter Niall Paterson has just said he's starting to suffer and they'll be discussing it on (I think) the Sophy Ridge show.
Have to say the UK has turned into a bunch of wimps. Everybody seems to be ill and cannot cope with anything nowadays, why does it have top billing in every disorder known to man.
To be honest Malc we have a close family member suffering from PTSD after rescuing bodies in an earthquake zone. It is not something to dismiss so easily to be honest
G, I understand people can be really ill with these types of things but why does UK have so high a number for all these ailments and disabilities. It is the saddest , fattest , unhealthiest , most disabled country in the developed world.
See, when you put it like that you have a really good point.
That was my point , perhaps not well put the first time.
A friend of mine has been going on about this & it's really valid. How many obesity-related deaths occur each year in the UK? You don't see a lot of fuss being made about it but his argument is that we should accept coronavirus is around and focus rather on obesity and exercise.
Crisp tax anyone?
I doubt that these kinds of sin taxes have the intended effect. They simply make things that taste nice less affordable for poor people.
That is the intended effect.
That's not fully true. What we've seen with the sugar tax so far is that manufacturers change their ingredients accordingly, thus benefiting everyone. The only price difference I ever see is 5p saved on my can of cola.
well they put in artificial crap that in 5 years will prove to be multiple times worse than sugar and killing far more people, but manufacturers will have coined it in and donated to the Tories so all will be well.
Yep. I think we can probably surmise what caused this. There was such a desperation to get rid of the elderly from hospitals, to clear capacity for new Covid patients, that they were just thrown at the care homes to get them out of the way. I seem to recall reading elsewhere that homes which initially refused to have them back were threatened (by councils?) with having funding withdrawn if they dug their heels in, so they gave in. We all know how this ended.
Looking at what's happened abroad it looks like pretty well everyone screwed up when it came to care homes, but that doesn't make the failure any more excusable.
In England and Wales, 9 039 out of 12 483 covid-related deaths, by 1st May, were in care homes and that is 72.4%. In Scotland, by 10th May: More than four in 10 coronavirus deaths have now been in care homes (44.8%). Jackson Carlaw ( TORY ) has been lying about Scottish figures
Up to 1 May, there had been 8,312 deaths in care homes in England and Wales where coronavirus was written on the death certificate, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). This represents a quarter of all deaths associated with the virus to that date.
The number increases to 12,526 when care home residents who died outside care homes - such as in hospital - are included.
In Scotland, 1,438 people had died in care homes - or 45% of all deaths.
We don't have the COVID Care Home resident deaths in hospitals for Scotland.
This isn't a competition - but denying or minimising the problem is not the way to find a solution. (Like the NIKE cluster in Edinburgh that was hushed up).
My son is at private school. He is getting 3-4 online classes a day. He is set homework which is promptly marked, his teachers respond to his numerous emails, they are available for 1-1 explanations as required. It’s not quite school but for a highly motivated boy like him it’s pretty close.
His school already gets more science passes at higher than the 8 state schools in Dundee. Most of those he will be competing against for his advanced Highers next year are getting absolutely minimal educational input and are being left to their own devices. It’s frankly not close to being fair. It’s not that fair in normal times but Covid is increasing the disparities to breaking point.
Kids need to get back to school before their education is irredeemably ruined. Poor kids most of all. There is no acceptable alternative.
Same experience with my children. They are at different private schools and both are experiencing a very impressive online and zoom offering. Private emails to teachers whenever needed and telephone calls too.
So perhaps the question becomes: why are state schools not providing similar to private schools? Remember that state school teachers are on 100% of salary. Do state school teachers have a soft-touch employer? Is more demanded of private school teachers, employed by non-state actors funded by parents? He who pays the piper ....?
My partner works in a primary school, around 40% of children are doing their online work. The Unions are playing political games at the expense of children's education
Does your partner agree?
Yes, all but one of the teaching staff are back at work contrary to what the union is recommending
Oh, that`s good to hear. What`s motivated that given they would be paid the same for not going in. Peer pressure?
Good question and I think that's right, at a neighbouring school the opposite is happening.
My son is at private school. He is getting 3-4 online classes a day. He is set homework which is promptly marked, his teachers respond to his numerous emails, they are available for 1-1 explanations as required. It’s not quite school but for a highly motivated boy like him it’s pretty close.
His school already gets more science passes at higher than the 8 state schools in Dundee. Most of those he will be competing against for his advanced Highers next year are getting absolutely minimal educational input and are being left to their own devices. It’s frankly not close to being fair. It’s not that fair in normal times but Covid is increasing the disparities to breaking point.
Kids need to get back to school before their education is irredeemably ruined. Poor kids most of all. There is no acceptable alternative.
Same experience with my children. They are at different private schools and both are experiencing a very impressive online and zoom offering. Private emails to teachers whenever needed and telephone calls too.
So perhaps the question becomes: why are state schools not providing similar to private schools? Remember that state school teachers are on 100% of salary. Do state school teachers have a soft-touch employer? Is more demanded of private school teachers, employed by non-state actors funded by parents? He who pays the piper ....?
In which case pensioners will have to be bled for National Insurance. There is no way around this problem. Oldies must cough up if they can. There aren't enough workers left to support them.
The "if they can" bit touches on the problem.
Most proposals for financing care assume that you can some how get away with stealing the wealth of those who have worked hard, paid their taxes, and accumulated some savings. The "feckless, reckless, and lazy", will of course get their care for free.
Apart from the unfairness factor, this strikes me as electoral suicide (ask Mrs May).
I suggest that the only politically viable solution is to make long term care an NHS responsibility. There are also likely some savings from making treatment more joined up; useful PR if nothing else.
Mistake by Gove - he should have said no to the first question , nobody can be guaranteed to be safe - its a stupid question and condition . Teachers (you would hope) are able to weigh up the small risk as against the wider social need (you hope they value educating kids highly) and against their duty as paid employees to help get the country back
It was a ridiculous answer; Gove is not so stupid as to be mistaken on the point. I would guess that the likely risks to teachers of infection (particularly in primary schools) are quite significant - and probably greater than that of many occupations who are going through phased return to work.
There is an argument for the policy, nonetheless, but government is being dishonest as usual. At the very least they ought to be ensuring that older teachers are not going back into school (and given the age profile of teachers that wouldn’t even be particularly disruptive).
Somebody should tell these middle class media types who think it is is trendy to not get kids back to school that that's fine , we will open schools but if you dont want to send your kids (they do really) then sign this and they cannot come until the virus is eliminated in say 3 years. Not many would sign. Middle class parents can generally home school , other kids dont get that privilege. Education is supposed to be a leveller of opportunity so it needs to start again for ALL and start now
The same sort of people who bang on about unfairness in education, how we shouldn't have selection in schools, widen access to unis, then send their kids to private school & pay for tutoring for Oxford interviews.
This argument is utter hogwash.
Say the movie industry operates a casting couch policy such that an unknown actress has to sleep with the producer to get a break.
So she does, goes on to establish herself, thus no longer has to do it, then she comes out one day and condemns the system which benefited her.
"Oh yeah, listen to that one. Did it when it suited her and now she pipes up. What a hypocrite."
Excellent thread @Foxy - I don't envy the task facing those working in the NHS. I would take issue with this:
Non surgical specialities including mental health will be similarly affected, though these get less media attention.
You can't turn on the news these days without hearing about mental health. Sure enough, the Sky News presenter Niall Paterson has just said he's starting to suffer and they'll be discussing it on (I think) the Sophy Ridge show.
Have to say the UK has turned into a bunch of wimps. Everybody seems to be ill and cannot cope with anything nowadays, why does it have top billing in every disorder known to man.
To be honest Malc we have a close family member suffering from PTSD after rescuing bodies in an earthquake zone. It is not something to dismiss so easily to be honest
G, I understand people can be really ill with these types of things but why does UK have so high a number for all these ailments and disabilities. It is the saddest , fattest , unhealthiest , most disabled country in the developed world.
See, when you put it like that you have a really good point.
That was my point , perhaps not well put the first time.
A friend of mine has been going on about this & it's really valid. How many obesity-related deaths occur each year in the UK? You don't see a lot of fuss being made about it but his argument is that we should accept coronavirus is around and focus rather on obesity and exercise.
Crisp tax anyone?
I doubt that these kinds of sin taxes have the intended effect. They simply make things that taste nice less affordable for poor people.
Positive nudge is probably cheaper, easier to implement. A Vitality type system for the general population would probably save the NHS money.
When this is finally over the Department of Health should consider paying for fat people to attend slimming clubs. If we could succeed even in getting a fifth of the obese population down into the overweight category and a tenth of the overweight population down into the healthy range then the benefits would be well worth the expenditure.
I see your point, but - hmmm - that`s a bit too big brother for me.
I don't think a gym subsidy is "big brother". However it does risk the perception that by being fat you get a bonus that other people want but have to pay for.
Go to a french town of say 20,000 people and it will have public sports and leisure facilities equivalent to an English town of 100,000.
Thats why they get to eat croissants, cheese, four course meals for lunch and still be fitter than us.
Extra sports and leisure facilities will not help if people will not use them.
A walk every evening is free and very effective for weight loss.
I am finding it a pretty close run thing. 2 hours of walking versus way too many snacks whilst at home on lockdown. Weight goes up and down but my daughter is just making blueberry pancakes. This might be an up day.
I've been surprised just how much a long walk with the dog in the evening helps with weight loss. Gym visits I found didn't help much with weight because you didn't lose much and ate like a pig when you got back.
Walking doesn’t have the cardio workout. I have tried running but my knees and ankles remind me why I liked the non impact cross trainer in the gym. I am looking forward to getting back.
My son is at private school. He is getting 3-4 online classes a day. He is set homework which is promptly marked, his teachers respond to his numerous emails, they are available for 1-1 explanations as required. It’s not quite school but for a highly motivated boy like him it’s pretty close.
His school already gets more science passes at higher than the 8 state schools in Dundee. Most of those he will be competing against for his advanced Highers next year are getting absolutely minimal educational input and are being left to their own devices. It’s frankly not close to being fair. It’s not that fair in normal times but Covid is increasing the disparities to breaking point.
Kids need to get back to school before their education is irredeemably ruined. Poor kids most of all. There is no acceptable alternative.
Same experience with my children. They are at different private schools and both are experiencing a very impressive online and zoom offering. Private emails to teachers whenever needed and telephone calls too.
So perhaps the question becomes: why are state schools not providing similar to private schools? Remember that state school teachers are on 100% of salary. Do state school teachers have a soft-touch employer? Is more demanded of private school teachers, employed by non-state actors funded by parents? He who pays the piper ....?
My sons are both at a local state comp.
My eldest has started A level work since the GCSEs were cancelled. He might be able to fit in an extra one.
My youngest has a special timetable. The whole thing is run though Google Docs. It’s excellent. He starts work at 830 and stops a 1400. Communal assemblies each week. We get emails if homework is not done on time.
As good as the best in the private sector. I imagine experiences vary by school across the country regardless of sector.
That`s impressive. Fair play. This doesn`t chime with what I`m hearing from parents with children in state schiools round here. They are reporting posted assigments (not even emailed), little or no marking/feedback. When they manage to get a teacher`s email address, it bounces back "mailbox not attended". That`s what I`m hearing.
My grandson - who is sharing our lockdown house with us and his Mum and Dad - is set work each day by his teacher. She marks it, sends comments, organises class assemblies and is also avaialble to talk to carers, etc. It's hugely impressive.
Clealry, we need the schools back as as soon as possible. There are so many reasons why it is important. But it will not happen unless the government takes both parents and teachers with them. That means being transparent with plans and risk assessments. It is striking how many kids who could be going to school now are not attending.
At my own gym, it has a younger demographic that are fairly well off. I am always struck how important diet is for many, and that means they meal prep the weeks food and eat of things like cheap healthy foods like oats, and of course they they save their boozing for the two weeks in Aiya Naya they spend all year working hard to get the perfect body for.
I would hazard a guess that not only is their diet very healthy, but the amount they spend each week is probably a lot less than those going round Asda picking up frozen pizza, pies and chips.
"Stay Alert" and "Follow your common sense" are appropriate messages for a Level 2 risk status, where the epidemic is largely eliminated but risks coming back. They are inappropriate messages for Level 4, where we are at the moment, where the infection and death rates are high and where there is a risk of it going critical. The governments need to get this epidemic down to Level 2. There are no shortcuts.
On what seems to be a conflated issue of what the government does about Brexit. My impressions are that David Frost, the supposed negotiator, spends more effort pandering the the Tory Party base than he does in actually negotiating with the EU; the government won't shift on No Extension. The question is whether it accepts stringent EU conditions on Level Playing Field or really will go No Deal in December. 50/50, as far as I can tell. There's a deal to be had on fishing: a bit less EU access dressed up as a lot less. Maybe the EU will concede a bit on fishing if the UK accepts LPF as is. The EU won't shift on LPF IMO.
She managed office, but not power. The gap between the two is astronomical in our system.
Power is not an end in itself it's what you do with it. For Boris it was far more about getting it than any driving motivation ambition of what he would do with it once he got it. I'm not even convinced he's that bothered about Brexit - it was simply the vehicle to get him where he wanted.
I actually agree with you
I am beginning to wonder if Boris may seek a short extension to brexit or even move a little to see a deal
Why? The assertion that the Government has little to gain from delay appears sound.
The trading relationship being requested is relatively loose and both sides are insisting on terms that the other finds onerous. It may actually be easier for both the UK and the EU to give up than attempt a compromise.
Besides, hyperventilating media types and some export businesses in particular may fret at the prospect of a cliff-edge Brexit, but they're not the key voter groups that helped to deliver the Government its majority. Being seen to dither and prevaricate over Brexit risks driving a lot of its new support away and resuscitating the career of Farage.
Just a thought, provoked by something in the Observer. Trump is re-elected. Picks another row with China and leaves the WTO. Maybe even without having an overt row with China. Where does that leave WTO 'rules'? And what happens to a country whose trading relationship are based on those rules?
WTO rules are not enforced against the US or China anyway, ask Antigua for example how they are getting on with their case against the US from 2003. They won, were awarded $21 million per year compensation. So far they have not been paid and were owed $315m as of 2018.
Brits hear the word rules and think they mean something. In this case they dont, with the WTO might has been right, and it will be even more so as we enter the next decade.
How we dont see this when its blatantly obvious I have no idea, WTO rules are far less enforceable than EU rules, and we didnt like EU rules as not enough countries were following them as closely as we did. The Tory rights love affair with the WTO wont last much longer than most of the PMs affairs.
You dont understand what WTO rules mean and you are more informed than most of them so it should be meaningless what you or they should prefer.
I think it's pretty certain that 'Tory and Leave Voters' will be as shocked as any at the consequences if a No Deal Brexit ever came to pass. Bit of me hopes it does, so the fuckwits get what they deserve, but that's petty and childish because a lot of people who didn't deserve it would share the same fate.
If I were close to Labour's leadership (which I'm not - things have simply movede on and I don't know most of the fronmt bench), I'd be giving serious thought to an integrated NHS+social care model which offered real benefits in the latter part. I think that would meet the "We want a better future" post-45 spirit and would fill a gap which we all see. The Tories have really blown the "we can't afford it" line (current deficit spending makes McDonnell look positively Thatcherite), and focusing on that rather than stuff like free broadband would go with the flow of Labour thinking. Couple that with "And we'll fix the renewed NHS waiting list problem" (as per Foxy's piece) and you've got a pretty fpcused core element to the programme.
And how will you pay for that?
Not that any journalists are asking that question at the moment, so perhaps Labour should just go for it.
No one has cared how anything is paid for since 2016.
I'd argue since 1997!
2010 and 2015 were all about being holier than thou. Then Conservatives opened the fridge door, saw their favourite hooch and have been bingeing on it ever since.
That's actually harsh on Theresa May in my opinion.
Mr. Scott, I find the food retailers aspect pretty weird.
They've been working hard and ensured supplies remained solid even when people were panic-buying, and their staff have been some of the few to be persistently in contact with the public on a daily basis.
Not sure why they should be subject to a pernicious tax on top of that.
Not a fan of windfall taxes generally but there's more of a case for one (or less of an argument against, to be precise) when it comes to online retailers.
Don't see why people doing business should be penalised. The money they make allows them to do helpful things like provide the public with food and the state with taxes.
There is a contradiction built into reality. To be taxed in any significant way you have to be honest and successful. There is no-one else to get all that money out of. Drug dealers, bank robbers and benefits junkies are not good sources of revenue. Hard working businesses are.
Legalising drugs would raise billions in tax and save a fortune on the police and prisons.
Shame about the brain damage.
But they’re only druggies, right?
Why would it be any different from now, they buy crappy illegal ones and get brain damage now.
As with alcohol it is indeed a shame about the brain damage; the question however is about damage limitation. With alcohol we decide on legalisation + a well known set of controls, though it still damages some brains quite a bit; with other drugs we apply radically different ones involving large scale criminalisation. It is unlikely and implausible that the very best outcome possible is achieved by such different techniques.
Yep. I think we can probably surmise what caused this. There was such a desperation to get rid of the elderly from hospitals, to clear capacity for new Covid patients, that they were just thrown at the care homes to get them out of the way. I seem to recall reading elsewhere that homes which initially refused to have them back were threatened (by councils?) with having funding withdrawn if they dug their heels in, so they gave in. We all know how this ended.
Looking at what's happened abroad it looks like pretty well everyone screwed up when it came to care homes, but that doesn't make the failure any more excusable.
In England and Wales, 9 039 out of 12 483 covid-related deaths, by 1st May, were in care homes and that is 72.4%.
I presume that in a bad winter flu epidemic, the bulk of deaths are also in care homes?
Still shocking numbers mind. A tacit acceptance by the NHS that if they were over 80, there really was in all likelihood nothing that could be done for victims? Outcomes were proving very poor for the elderly taken into hospital - they just didn't respond. So let them die in the place they knew as home...
Have to say it has been a shocking failure across the UK and many other countries. In the main these homes have been run like puppy farms just to make venture capitalists money. Needs to be a complete rethink of the whole social care policy.
Absolutely right
We can't afford that, though, just like we can;t afford a new normal. The evidence is we will shortly be very, very bankrupt.
People talk about innovation and new ways of working for certain industries without giving a single detail of what those ways are. That is because those alternative ways do not exist.
We either live with coronavirus or, essentially, our society disintegrates. Health education, the economy, the whole thing
And for most people its pretty liveable with.
Good post Contrarian
Why doesn’t the government ‘level with the British public’ and say we’re broke and we can’t afford to lockdown any further regardless of the ongoing risks.
Agreed. They should do. They are not leading they are weathervaning.
They won`t take us out of lockdown until opinion polls and focus groups tell them it`s OK. The polls won`t say it`s OK while: 1) Sunak keeps chucking money at people for staying at home and 2) politicians and the media are terryfying people about the virus, saying things like "don`t go back to work until it`s safe".
Of course it`s not safe FFS. Public perception of risk is appalling. I told a family member the other day that Covid has a survival rate of over 99% and she flatly disbelieved me. I asked her what she though the survival rate was and she said 50/50.
The lockdown served a number of purposes.
The primary purpose was to avoid the horror of people dying in hospital corridors. And thankfully that was achieved.
The second purpose was to buy time. Time to figure a post lockdown policy and build up capacity in services like testing. I think the goal might have been to get cases down so that track and trace was viable again. Sadly that has not been achieved.
So where are we and why can't we lockdown a bit more?
In short, the public finances have collapsed. So we are now in the invidious position of having to exit lockdown into a very muddy context, where the possibility of returning to the pre-lockdown situation has not and can not be ruled out.
The government should be focusing on delivering and communicating mitigating measures that maintain (or regain) public confidence. Arguably as we leave lockdown, the best action would have been to be more stringent on certain things. It could have insisted on masks for example.
Instead it appears to be rushing the whole thing, probably driven by the critical state of the nations finances. It's saying 'it will be fine' doesn't really wash. Especially, when it hasn't told the whole story about how the lockdown has screwed the economy. As a result it does not add up.
In short, the government has made two mistakes.
1) It has not set out the economic picture. 2) It has done nothing to mitigate the risks of exiting lockdown.
Excellent post, Jonathan.
I`m forever arguing that the economic (and liberty) aspects of this have been undervalued and have not been communicated. Most of the public do not understand the first thing about public finances (e.g. believing that the government has its own money somehow, rather than just administering ours).
Scaring the public over health is easy (and appeals to the journos). The economy is dry and difficult.
My main beef at the moment is that this government`s populism is costing the country dearly.
As Jonathan says, why doesn't the government just level with the electorate?
I think it should have done. Ideally before Sunak extended the furlough scheme from three months to four.
One reason might be that honesty undermines their threat of a second lockdown if we are naughty and R goes up.
In reality the country simply cannot afford a second lockdown, and that is an empty threat.
I don't think most people will put up with a second lockdown.
As far as I can tell people have more or less divided into two camps, the pearl clutchers who will not accept a single covid 19 death as inevitable, despite the fact that life entails risk and for the vast majority of healthy people under 60 there is a greater risk of being run over by a bus tomorrow than of dying of covid 19.
The other camp is full of people who have realised this and are barely paying lip service to lockdown any more. Without truly draconian measures it will be impossible to lock this second camp up for round II, rendering a second lockdown pointless and ineffective.
There will be no second lockdown. Not only will it cost too much, it simply won't work. That means only one thing: we need to shield the elderly and the vulnerable, but find a way to get everyone else back into work.
Stay at home and save lives was a simple message, work and pay tax is equally as simple. It's the latter that we need now to save the NHS.
She managed office, but not power. The gap between the two is astronomical in our system.
Power is not an end in itself it's what you do with it. For Boris it was far more about getting it than any driving motivation ambition of what he would do with it once he got it. I'm not even convinced he's that bothered about Brexit - it was simply the vehicle to get him where he wanted.
I actually agree with you
I am beginning to wonder if Boris may seek a short extension to brexit or even move a little to see a deal
Why? The assertion that the Government has little to gain from delay appears sound.
The trading relationship being requested is relatively loose and both sides are insisting on terms that the other finds onerous. It may actually be easier for both the UK and the EU to give up than attempt a compromise.
Besides, hyperventilating media types and some export businesses in particular may fret at the prospect of a cliff-edge Brexit, but they're not the key voter groups that helped to deliver the Government its majority. Being seen to dither and prevaricate over Brexit risks driving a lot of its new support away and resuscitating the career of Farage.
Just a thought, provoked by something in the Observer. Trump is re-elected. Picks another row with China and leaves the WTO. Maybe even without having an overt row with China. Where does that leave WTO 'rules'? And what happens to a country whose trading relationship are based on those rules?
Piffle! Everything will be fine... (waves hand airly about) ... something will sort it out ... we are a mighty economy, we are GREAT Britain! (cue the National Anthem)
It should be interesting to watch, but probably best seen from a distance
We look for a trade deal with Trump's US instead, our largest single export destination
Why? The current deal works in OUR favour rather than the USA's.
Do you really believe that Donald "America First" Trump will heap more riches upon us?
Excellent thread @Foxy - I don't envy the task facing those working in the NHS. I would take issue with this:
Non surgical specialities including mental health will be similarly affected, though these get less media attention.
You can't turn on the news these days without hearing about mental health. Sure enough, the Sky News presenter Niall Paterson has just said he's starting to suffer and they'll be discussing it on (I think) the Sophy Ridge show.
Have to say the UK has turned into a bunch of wimps. Everybody seems to be ill and cannot cope with anything nowadays, why does it have top billing in every disorder known to man.
To be honest Malc we have a close family member suffering from PTSD after rescuing bodies in an earthquake zone. It is not something to dismiss so easily to be honest
G, I understand people can be really ill with these types of things but why does UK have so high a number for all these ailments and disabilities. It is the saddest , fattest , unhealthiest , most disabled country in the developed world.
See, when you put it like that you have a really good point.
That was my point , perhaps not well put the first time.
A friend of mine has been going on about this & it's really valid. How many obesity-related deaths occur each year in the UK? You don't see a lot of fuss being made about it but his argument is that we should accept coronavirus is around and focus rather on obesity and exercise.
Crisp tax anyone?
I doubt that these kinds of sin taxes have the intended effect. They simply make things that taste nice less affordable for poor people.
Positive nudge is probably cheaper, easier to implement. A Vitality type system for the general population would probably save the NHS money.
When this is finally over the Department of Health should consider paying for fat people to attend slimming clubs. If we could succeed even in getting a fifth of the obese population down into the overweight category and a tenth of the overweight population down into the healthy range then the benefits would be well worth the expenditure.
I see your point, but - hmmm - that`s a bit too big brother for me.
I don't think a gym subsidy is "big brother". However it does risk the perception that by being fat you get a bonus that other people want but have to pay for.
Go to a french town of say 20,000 people and it will have public sports and leisure facilities equivalent to an English town of 100,000.
Thats why they get to eat croissants, cheese, four course meals for lunch and still be fitter than us.
Extra sports and leisure facilities will not help if people will not use them.
A walk every evening is free and very effective for weight loss.
I am finding it a pretty close run thing. 2 hours of walking versus way too many snacks whilst at home on lockdown. Weight goes up and down but my daughter is just making blueberry pancakes. This might be an up day.
I've been surprised just how much a long walk with the dog in the evening helps with weight loss. Gym visits I found didn't help much with weight because you didn't lose much and ate like a pig when you got back.
Walking doesn’t have the cardio workout. I have tried running but my knees and ankles remind me why I liked the non impact cross trainer in the gym. I am looking forward to getting back.
I am doing circuits of press-ups, sit-ups, squats and lunges every other day. Five sets of 13, 15, 18 and 18, pus another 10 press-ups on top. It takes about 25 minutes and is deeply unpleasant, but it has stopped me putting on even more weight than I have. Chocolate is a killer currently.
The fact is that societies up until ours never had to deal with substantial numbers of people over the age of 80.
Its great for many to enjoy their family being around for much longer, but the costs are enormous. The burden of the young was already heavy before Corona virus. After it, the burden will be crushing. Its getting to the point where this is destabilising society.
Are you proposing a Logan's Run solution? What age should the cut-off be set at?
Not fair. Not fair.
When a solution is suggested, as in the May election manifesto, it is labelled the 'death tax'
What will not work is to impose more burdens on young people. That will result in far worse care for older folk in the long run.
Quite. What this doesn't mean is compulsory euthanasia for the aged. What it does mean is that the well-off and their heirs are going to have to give up on the notion of young people paying through the nose in order that inheritances may pass largely unimpeded.
You can argue about whether or not Theresa May came up with the correct model in 2017, but the principle itself - that society is so full of old people that making those with means contribute more to their care needs is essential - was sound. Basically she paid the price for underestimating the greed of the comfortable middle classes.
Those in residential care already have to sell their home to pay for it, it was selling the family home to pay for at home care that was so unpopular. No party will touch that again after May's suicidal dementia tax.
National Insurance will have to pay for it instead
In which case pensioners will have to be bled for National Insurance. There is no way around this problem. Oldies must cough up if they can. There aren't enough workers left to support them.
Making pensioners pay NI is all very well, but lets look at the numbers first. Employed people don't pay anything if they earn less than £183 per week. Pensioners on state pension are lucky to get £160 per week. Part of the NI is for the pension fund, yet pensioners already have their pension. A better idea would be to have a medical fee as well as a pension fee, and pensioners would then pay the medical fee. I would prefer a pension cost, and roll up medical fees in the income tax rate where it belongs.
Excellent thread @Foxy - I don't envy the task facing those working in the NHS. I would take issue with this:
Non surgical specialities including mental health will be similarly affected, though these get less media attention.
You can't turn on the news these days without hearing about mental health. Sure enough, the Sky News presenter Niall Paterson has just said he's starting to suffer and they'll be discussing it on (I think) the Sophy Ridge show.
Have to say the UK has turned into a bunch of wimps. Everybody seems to be ill and cannot cope with anything nowadays, why does it have top billing in every disorder known to man.
To be honest Malc we have a close family member suffering from PTSD after rescuing bodies in an earthquake zone. It is not something to dismiss so easily to be honest
G, I understand people can be really ill with these types of things but why does UK have so high a number for all these ailments and disabilities. It is the saddest , fattest , unhealthiest , most disabled country in the developed world.
See, when you put it like that you have a really good point.
That was my point , perhaps not well put the first time.
A friend of mine has been going on about this & it's really valid. How many obesity-related deaths occur each year in the UK? You don't see a lot of fuss being made about it but his argument is that we should accept coronavirus is around and focus rather on obesity and exercise.
Crisp tax anyone?
I doubt that these kinds of sin taxes have the intended effect. They simply make things that taste nice less affordable for poor people.
Positive nudge is probably cheaper, easier to implement. A Vitality type system for the general population would probably save the NHS money.
When this is finally over the Department of Health should consider paying for fat people to attend slimming clubs. If we could succeed even in getting a fifth of the obese population down into the overweight category and a tenth of the overweight population down into the healthy range then the benefits would be well worth the expenditure.
I see your point, but - hmmm - that`s a bit too big brother for me.
I don't think a gym subsidy is "big brother". However it does risk the perception that by being fat you get a bonus that other people want but have to pay for.
Go to a french town of say 20,000 people and it will have public sports and leisure facilities equivalent to an English town of 100,000.
Thats why they get to eat croissants, cheese, four course meals for lunch and still be fitter than us.
Extra sports and leisure facilities will not help if people will not use them.
A walk every evening is free and very effective for weight loss.
I am finding it a pretty close run thing. 2 hours of walking versus way too many snacks whilst at home on lockdown. Weight goes up and down but my daughter is just making blueberry pancakes. This might be an up day.
I've been surprised just how much a long walk with the dog in the evening helps with weight loss. Gym visits I found didn't help much with weight because you didn't lose much and ate like a pig when you got back.
The fundamental issue with maintaining a healthy weight is getting diet right. Exercise really needs to be regarded as something that's worthwhile in and of itself, but no substitute for eating well.
Exercise does make it easier both to lose excess weight and to maintain a healthy weight than addressing diet alone, basically because burning the additional energy means that you have to be less strict with treats. But it doesn't do anything to address the problems of people with entrenched bad eating habits.
If you stuff yourself with rubbish then working out like mad might still help you shed a bit of weight for a while, but eventually the progress stops, you get fed up with it, you stop and the weight goes back on. Result: disillusionment and being fatter than you were before you started. Been there, done that, got the XXL t-shirt.
That's why I suggested the State paying for fat people to go to slimming clubs (by which I meant Weight Watchers or Slimming World, not gym subsidies) a bit earlier. If we can gently persuade even a modest fraction of the majority of the populace that is overweight or obese to adopt healthier habits - and I am talking about a sensitive approach aimed at people who are ready to try, not compulsion here - then the potential improvement to quality of life and economic savings could be considerable.
... That's why I suggested the State paying for fat people to go to slimming clubs (by which I meant Weight Watchers or Slimming World, not gym subsidies) a bit earlier. ...
When you wrote this, I had this vision of a Marjorie Dawes meeting in every town....
She managed office, but not power. The gap between the two is astronomical in our system.
Power is not an end in itself it's what you do with it. For Boris it was far more about getting it than any driving motivation ambition of what he would do with it once he got it. I'm not even convinced he's that bothered about Brexit - it was simply the vehicle to get him where he wanted.
I actually agree with you
I am beginning to wonder if Boris may seek a short extension to brexit or even move a little to see a deal
Why? The assertion that the Government has little to gain from delay appears sound.
The trading relationship being requested is relatively loose and both sides are insisting on terms that the other finds onerous. It may actually be easier for both the UK and the EU to give up than attempt a compromise.
Besides, hyperventilating media types and some export businesses in particular may fret at the prospect of a cliff-edge Brexit, but they're not the key voter groups that helped to deliver the Government its majority. Being seen to dither and prevaricate over Brexit risks driving a lot of its new support away and resuscitating the career of Farage.
Just a thought, provoked by something in the Observer. Trump is re-elected. Picks another row with China and leaves the WTO. Maybe even without having an overt row with China. Where does that leave WTO 'rules'? And what happens to a country whose trading relationship are based on those rules?
Piffle! Everything will be fine... (waves hand airly about) ... something will sort it out ... we are a mighty economy, we are GREAT Britain! (cue the National Anthem)
It should be interesting to watch, but probably best seen from a distance
We look for a trade deal with Trump's US instead, our largest single export destination
Could we please not say "Trump's US". That has a grisly ring to it.
My son is at private school. He is getting 3-4 online classes a day. He is set homework which is promptly marked, his teachers respond to his numerous emails, they are available for 1-1 explanations as required. It’s not quite school but for a highly motivated boy like him it’s pretty close.
His school already gets more science passes at higher than the 8 state schools in Dundee. Most of those he will be competing against for his advanced Highers next year are getting absolutely minimal educational input and are being left to their own devices. It’s frankly not close to being fair. It’s not that fair in normal times but Covid is increasing the disparities to breaking point.
Kids need to get back to school before their education is irredeemably ruined. Poor kids most of all. There is no acceptable alternative.
Same experience with my children. They are at different private schools and both are experiencing a very impressive online and zoom offering. Private emails to teachers whenever needed and telephone calls too.
So perhaps the question becomes: why are state schools not providing similar to private schools? Remember that state school teachers are on 100% of salary. Do state school teachers have a soft-touch employer? Is more demanded of private school teachers, employed by non-state actors funded by parents? He who pays the piper ....?
My sons are both at a local state comp.
My eldest has started A level work since the GCSEs were cancelled. He might be able to fit in an extra one.
My youngest has a special timetable. The whole thing is run though Google Docs. It’s excellent. He starts work at 830 and stops a 1400. Communal assemblies each week. We get emails if homework is not done on time.
As good as the best in the private sector. I imagine experiences vary by school across the country regardless of sector.
That`s impressive. Fair play. This doesn`t chime with what I`m hearing from parents with children in state schiools round here. They are reporting posted assigments (not even emailed), little or no marking/feedback. When they manage to get a teacher`s email address, it bounces back "mailbox not attended". That`s what I`m hearing.
Given such things (the issues of GPs we discussed the other day) - can we finally get rid of the idea that all of X in a public service are delivering Y levels of service?
Exactly. When the schools are functioning normally we hear regular bleats about the terror of Ofsted inspections, but the plain fact is that some schools are brilliant, some are average and some are total shite. Presumably it is not unreasonable to suppose that a mechanism should exist to differentiate between them.
Likewise with GPs. I have to say that the experiences I and my relatives have had recently with ours have been excellent. OTOH we heard downthread from another PBer who couldn't even get a repeat prescription sorted because his surgery had simply shut up shop and everyone had buggered off home.
What we absolutely must not allow to happen as a result of all of this is for a culture to become embedded within the public sector that regards the population as being there to serve it rather than the other way around. The treatment of the NHS as a deity to be worshipped is especially unhealthy and really ought to stop, although whether it will is another matter.
But GPs are semi-private already and patients are free to switch between practices. This is the paradox. If the free marketeers are right, general practice should be near perfect because of this consumer choice but in fact this is where we hear most complaints.
"Stay Alert" and "Follow your common sense" are appropriate messages for a Level 2 risk status, where the epidemic is largely eliminated but risks coming back. They are inappropriate messages for Level 4, where we are at the moment, where the infection and death rates are high and where there is a risk of it going critical. The governments need to get this epidemic down to Level 2. There are no shortcuts.
On what seems to be a conflated issue of what the government does about Brexit. My impressions are that David Frost, the supposed negotiator, spends more effort pandering the the Tory Party base than he does in actually negotiating with the EU; the government won't shift on No Extension. The question is whether it accepts stringent EU conditions on Level Playing Field or really will go No Deal in December. 50/50, as far as I can tell. There's a deal to be had on fishing: a bit less EU access dressed up as a lot less. Maybe the EU will concede a bit on fishing if the UK accepts LPF as is. The EU won't shift on LPF IMO.
The FT's economics correspondent speaking on R4 recently also reckoned it's 50/50.
Btw, may I put in a plea for a list of approved acronyms for PB purposes. I had to look up LPF. I guess it's not Lothian Pension Fund.
Edit: FT: Financial Times R4: Radio 4 PB: Politicalbetting.com
She managed office, but not power. The gap between the two is astronomical in our system.
Power is not an end in itself it's what you do with it. For Boris it was far more about getting it than any driving motivation ambition of what he would do with it once he got it. I'm not even convinced he's that bothered about Brexit - it was simply the vehicle to get him where he wanted.
I actually agree with you
I am beginning to wonder if Boris may seek a short extension to brexit or even move a little to see a deal
Why? The assertion that the Government has little to gain from delay appears sound.
The trading relationship being requested is relatively loose and both sides are insisting on terms that the other finds onerous. It may actually be easier for both the UK and the EU to give up than attempt a compromise.
Besides, hyperventilating media types and some export businesses in particular may fret at the prospect of a cliff-edge Brexit, but they're not the key voter groups that helped to deliver the Government its majority. Being seen to dither and prevaricate over Brexit risks driving a lot of its new support away and resuscitating the career of Farage.
Just a thought, provoked by something in the Observer. Trump is re-elected. Picks another row with China and leaves the WTO. Maybe even without having an overt row with China. Where does that leave WTO 'rules'? And what happens to a country whose trading relationship are based on those rules?
WTO rules are not enforced against the US or China anyway, ask Antigua for example how they are getting on with their case against the US from 2003. They won, were awarded $21 million per year compensation. So far they have not been paid and were owed $315m as of 2018.
Brits hear the word rules and think they mean something. In this case they dont, with the WTO might has been right, and it will be even more so as we enter the next decade.
How we dont see this when its blatantly obvious I have no idea, WTO rules are far less enforceable than EU rules, and we didnt like EU rules as not enough countries were following them as closely as we did. The Tory rights love affair with the WTO wont last much longer than most of the PMs affairs.
You dont understand what WTO rules mean and you are more informed than most of them so it should be meaningless what you or they should prefer.
I think it's pretty certain that 'Tory and Leave Voters' will be as shocked as any at the consequences if a No Deal Brexit ever came to pass. Bit of me hopes it does, so the fuckwits get what they deserve, but that's petty and childish because a lot of people who didn't deserve it would share the same fate.
I disagree in the sense that most people's ordinary lives wont be so impacted. They will probably be about 3-5% worse off than they could have been, but that will now get mixed in with covid19.
There will be a much smaller group who suffer more because they have lost their job or something else significant, but that group is <<10% of the country, and not all will blame Brexit even it if were the cause.
It is at the national aggregate level where the hit will be felt. As a nation we will be poorer, have less influence and fewer good paths to success.
My son is at private school. He is getting 3-4 online classes a day. He is set homework which is promptly marked, his teachers respond to his numerous emails, they are available for 1-1 explanations as required. It’s not quite school but for a highly motivated boy like him it’s pretty close.
His school already gets more science passes at higher than the 8 state schools in Dundee. Most of those he will be competing against for his advanced Highers next year are getting absolutely minimal educational input and are being left to their own devices. It’s frankly not close to being fair. It’s not that fair in normal times but Covid is increasing the disparities to breaking point.
Kids need to get back to school before their education is irredeemably ruined. Poor kids most of all. There is no acceptable alternative.
Same experience with my children. They are at different private schools and both are experiencing a very impressive online and zoom offering. Private emails to teachers whenever needed and telephone calls too.
So perhaps the question becomes: why are state schools not providing similar to private schools? Remember that state school teachers are on 100% of salary. Do state school teachers have a soft-touch employer? Is more demanded of private school teachers, employed by non-state actors funded by parents? He who pays the piper ....?
Our private school has proven absolutely useless
Its almost as if different organisations have different quality, value for money.
I remember a couple of people having a go at my wife for shopping around the NHS for the right consultant. I pointed out that they had told us about 10 minutes before about their travails in finding the right vet they could trust to look after their cat.
Given the prospect of a long-term (possibly endless) health and safety panic over Covid, it looks like the full-time, non-earning, stay-at-home Mummy may be about to make a major comeback. This is going to take a sledgehammer to the living standards of a substantial proportion of all the country's households. Many of them will simply end up broke.
The extra salary per family has probably been sucked into higher house prices.
Perhaps, given the many benefits, we should encourage staying at home using the tax system?
She managed office, but not power. The gap between the two is astronomical in our system.
Power is not an end in itself it's what you do with it. For Boris it was far more about getting it than any driving motivation ambition of what he would do with it once he got it. I'm not even convinced he's that bothered about Brexit - it was simply the vehicle to get him where he wanted.
I actually agree with you
I am beginning to wonder if Boris may seek a short extension to brexit or even move a little to see a deal
Why? The assertion that the Government has little to gain from delay appears sound.
The trading relationship being requested is relatively loose and both sides are insisting on terms that the other finds onerous. It may actually be easier for both the UK and the EU to give up than attempt a compromise.
Besides, hyperventilating media types and some export businesses in particular may fret at the prospect of a cliff-edge Brexit, but they're not the key voter groups that helped to deliver the Government its majority. Being seen to dither and prevaricate over Brexit risks driving a lot of its new support away and resuscitating the career of Farage.
Just a thought, provoked by something in the Observer. Trump is re-elected. Picks another row with China and leaves the WTO. Maybe even without having an overt row with China. Where does that leave WTO 'rules'? And what happens to a country whose trading relationship are based on those rules?
Piffle! Everything will be fine... (waves hand airly about) ... something will sort it out ... we are a mighty economy, we are GREAT Britain! (cue the National Anthem)
It should be interesting to watch, but probably best seen from a distance
We look for a trade deal with Trump's US instead, our largest single export destination
Yes we really need substandard food supplies like chlorinated chicken and hormone filled beef.
Yep. I think we can probably surmise what caused this. There was such a desperation to get rid of the elderly from hospitals, to clear capacity for new Covid patients, that they were just thrown at the care homes to get them out of the way. I seem to recall reading elsewhere that homes which initially refused to have them back were threatened (by councils?) with having funding withdrawn if they dug their heels in, so they gave in. We all know how this ended.
Looking at what's happened abroad it looks like pretty well everyone screwed up when it came to care homes, but that doesn't make the failure any more excusable.
In England and Wales, 9 039 out of 12 483 covid-related deaths, by 1st May, were in care homes and that is 72.4%.
I presume that in a bad winter flu epidemic, the bulk of deaths are also in care homes?
Still shocking numbers mind. A tacit acceptance by the NHS that if they were over 80, there really was in all likelihood nothing that could be done for victims? Outcomes were proving very poor for the elderly taken into hospital - they just didn't respond. So let them die in the place they knew as home...
Have to say it has been a shocking failure across the UK and many other countries. In the main these homes have been run like puppy farms just to make venture capitalists money. Needs to be a complete rethink of the whole social care policy.
Absolutely right
Sorry but that's crap. Running a care home is a hard job and many dont make much money at all. The big issue is staff shortages which the public sector shoudl have got a grip on years ago and spent money on training ,recruitment and better wages rather than create more non-jobs
While there's a lot in that with which I'd agree, there has been, apparently, a policy from Govt that, especially in Care, Public is bad and Private good. Consequently publicly owned homes, which often had unionised staff have been sold off and a plethora of private companies, large and small encouraged. At the same time the amount of money available from the public purse has increasingly been less than that necessary to run a decent service. And, IMHO, that's why we are where we are.
If you look at Ireland or the U.K., public sector care homes are demonstrably less good - they are usually Gen 1 vs the Gen 4 that you are now getting in the private sector.
Shared rooms vs singles Communal bathing vs en-suite or wetrooms Limited activities vs full range
etc etc
About 10 years ago, as part of my plan to work part-time for a few years after retirement from the NHS I worked with a not-for-profit organisation which had been set up to run what had been the County's wholly owned care homes. This was in one of the Home Counties.
They weren't like that.
Nor were the ones in the County where I'd assisted the Inspection team before retirement.
I've no idea about Ireland, so I'll take your word for it.
How are schools meant to move from classes of 31 to classes of 15 in a few weeks? As far as I know most of them don't operate with a full set of empty classrooms and teacher cloning technology is still in its infancy. This can only work if kids only attend school every other day. Is that the plan? Is there a plan?
Excellent thread @Foxy - I don't envy the task facing those working in the NHS. I would take issue with this:
Non surgical specialities including mental health will be similarly affected, though these get less media attention.
You can't turn on the news these days without hearing about mental health. Sure enough, the Sky News presenter Niall Paterson has just said he's starting to suffer and they'll be discussing it on (I think) the Sophy Ridge show.
Have to say the UK has turned into a bunch of wimps. Everybody seems to be ill and cannot cope with anything nowadays, why does it have top billing in every disorder known to man.
To be honest Malc we have a close family member suffering from PTSD after rescuing bodies in an earthquake zone. It is not something to dismiss so easily to be honest
G, I understand people can be really ill with these types of things but why does UK have so high a number for all these ailments and disabilities. It is the saddest , fattest , unhealthiest , most disabled country in the developed world.
See, when you put it like that you have a really good point.
That was my point , perhaps not well put the first time.
A friend of mine has been going on about this & it's really valid. How many obesity-related deaths occur each year in the UK? You don't see a lot of fuss being made about it but his argument is that we should accept coronavirus is around and focus rather on obesity and exercise.
Crisp tax anyone?
I doubt that these kinds of sin taxes have the intended effect. They simply make things that taste nice less affordable for poor people.
Positive nudge is probably cheaper, easier to implement. A Vitality type system for the general population would probably save the NHS money.
When this is finally over the Department of Health should consider paying for fat people to attend slimming clubs. If we could succeed even in getting a fifth of the obese population down into the overweight category and a tenth of the overweight population down into the healthy range then the benefits would be well worth the expenditure.
I see your point, but - hmmm - that`s a bit too big brother for me.
I don't think a gym subsidy is "big brother". However it does risk the perception that by being fat you get a bonus that other people want but have to pay for.
Go to a french town of say 20,000 people and it will have public sports and leisure facilities equivalent to an English town of 100,000.
Thats why they get to eat croissants, cheese, four course meals for lunch and still be fitter than us.
Extra sports and leisure facilities will not help if people will not use them.
A walk every evening is free and very effective for weight loss.
I am finding it a pretty close run thing. 2 hours of walking versus way too many snacks whilst at home on lockdown. Weight goes up and down but my daughter is just making blueberry pancakes. This might be an up day.
I've been surprised just how much a long walk with the dog in the evening helps with weight loss. Gym visits I found didn't help much with weight because you didn't lose much and ate like a pig when you got back.
Walking doesn’t have the cardio workout. I have tried running but my knees and ankles remind me why I liked the non impact cross trainer in the gym. I am looking forward to getting back.
I am doing circuits of press-ups, sit-ups, squats and lunges every other day. Five sets of 13, 15, 18 and 18, pus another 10 press-ups on top. It takes about 25 minutes and is deeply unpleasant, but it has stopped me putting on even more weight than I have. Chocolate is a killer currently.
I do 10 press ups every time I go for a pee. Meaning with a weak bladder I have developed quite some biceps. Almost popeye standard.
See, when you put it like that you have a really good point.
That was my point , perhaps not well put the first time.
A friend of mine has been going on about this & it's really valid. How many obesity-related deaths occur each year in the UK? You don't see a lot of fuss being made about it but his argument is that we should accept coronavirus is around and focus rather on obesity and exercise.
Crisp tax anyone?
I doubt that these kinds of sin taxes have the intended effect. They simply make things that taste nice less affordable for poor people.
Positive nudge is probably cheaper, easier to implement. A Vitality type system for the general population would probably save the NHS money.
When this is finally over the Department of Health should consider paying for fat people to attend slimming clubs. If we could succeed even in getting a fifth of the obese population down into the overweight category and a tenth of the overweight population down into the healthy range then the benefits would be well worth the expenditure.
I see your point, but - hmmm - that`s a bit too big brother for me.
I don't think a gym subsidy is "big brother". However it does risk the perception that by being fat you get a bonus that other people want but have to pay for.
Go to a french town of say 20,000 people and it will have public sports and leisure facilities equivalent to an English town of 100,000.
Thats why they get to eat croissants, cheese, four course meals for lunch and still be fitter than us.
Extra sports and leisure facilities will not help if people will not use them.
A walk every evening is free and very effective for weight loss.
I've been surprised just how much a long walk with the dog in the evening helps with weight loss. Gym visits I found didn't help much with weight because you didn't lose much and ate like a pig when you got back.
Walking doesn’t have the cardio workout. I have tried running but my knees and ankles remind me why I liked the non impact cross trainer in the gym. I am looking forward to getting back.
I am doing circuits of press-ups, sit-ups, squats and lunges every other day. Five sets of 13, 15, 18 and 18, pus another 10 press-ups on top. It takes about 25 minutes and is deeply unpleasant, but it has stopped me putting on even more weight than I have. Chocolate is a killer currently.
Not sure my knees could cope with that. Cutting out alcohol has helped but I end up drinking more smoothies/ fruit juices.
How are schools meant to move from classes of 31 to classes of 15 in a few weeks? As far as I know most of them don't operate with a full set of empty classrooms and teacher cloning technology is still in its infancy. This can only work if kids only attend school every other day. Is that the plan? Is there a plan?
Erhhhh, because you know that only a select number of year groups are going back right?
Mr. Scott, I find the food retailers aspect pretty weird.
They've been working hard and ensured supplies remained solid even when people were panic-buying, and their staff have been some of the few to be persistently in contact with the public on a daily basis.
Not sure why they should be subject to a pernicious tax on top of that.
Not a fan of windfall taxes generally but there's more of a case for one (or less of an argument against, to be precise) when it comes to online retailers.
Don't see why people doing business should be penalised. The money they make allows them to do helpful things like provide the public with food and the state with taxes.
There is a contradiction built into reality. To be taxed in any significant way you have to be honest and successful. There is no-one else to get all that money out of. Drug dealers, bank robbers and benefits junkies are not good sources of revenue. Hard working businesses are.
Legalising drugs would raise billions in tax and save a fortune on the police and prisons.
Shame about the brain damage.
But they’re only druggies, right?
Why would it be any different from now, they buy crappy illegal ones and get brain damage now.
Before drugs were illegal, the collateral damage levels were much less, IIRC.
Many illegal drug problems relate to -
- purity - strength (nuclear grade canabis etc) - horrible compounds, such as crystal meth, that were created to get round supply/transport issues
She managed office, but not power. The gap between the two is astronomical in our system.
Power is not an end in itself it's what you do with it. For Boris it was far more about getting it than any driving motivation ambition of what he would do with it once he got it. I'm not even convinced he's that bothered about Brexit - it was simply the vehicle to get him where he wanted.
I actually agree with you
I am beginning to wonder if Boris may seek a short extension to brexit or even move a little to see a deal
Why? The assertion that the Government has little to gain from delay appears sound.
The trading relationship being requested is relatively loose and both sides are insisting on terms that the other finds onerous. It may actually be easier for both the UK and the EU to give up than attempt a compromise.
Besides, hyperventilating media types and some export businesses in particular may fret at the prospect of a cliff-edge Brexit, but they're not the key voter groups that helped to deliver the Government its majority. Being seen to dither and prevaricate over Brexit risks driving a lot of its new support away and resuscitating the career of Farage.
Just a thought, provoked by something in the Observer. Trump is re-elected. Picks another row with China and leaves the WTO. Maybe even without having an overt row with China. Where does that leave WTO 'rules'? And what happens to a country whose trading relationship are based on those rules?
WTO rules are not enforced against the US or China anyway, ask Antigua for example how they are getting on with their case against the US from 2003. They won, were awarded $21 million per year compensation. So far they have not been paid and were owed $315m as of 2018.
Brits hear the word rules and think they mean something. In this case they dont, with the WTO might has been right, and it will be even more so as we enter the next decade.
How we dont see this when its blatantly obvious I have no idea, WTO rules are far less enforceable than EU rules, and we didnt like EU rules as not enough countries were following them as closely as we did. The Tory rights love affair with the WTO wont last much longer than most of the PMs affairs.
You dont understand what WTO rules mean and you are more informed than most of them so it should be meaningless what you or they should prefer.
I think it's pretty certain that 'Tory and Leave Voters' will be as shocked as any at the consequences if a No Deal Brexit ever came to pass. Bit of me hopes it does, so the fuckwits get what they deserve, but that's petty and childish because a lot of people who didn't deserve it would share the same fate.
I disagree in the sense that most people's ordinary lives wont be so impacted. They will probably be about 3-5% worse off than they could have been, but that will now get mixed in with covid19.
There will be a much smaller group who suffer more because they have lost their job or something else significant, but that group is
Yes, I agree in many respects. One of a rather long list of compensating benefits that come with C-19 (birdsong, blue skies, elbow-room in Tescos etc) is the opportunity to disguise the pain of Brexit by blaming the adverse consequences on the Virus.
I don't think the Oldies are going to be too pleased though when the attack on Pensions begins, and I'm not sure they will entirely buy the 'blame the Virus' line.
Excellent thread @Foxy - I don't envy the task facing those working in the NHS. I would take issue with this:
Non surgical specialities including mental health will be similarly affected, though these get less media attention.
You can't turn on the news these days without hearing about mental health. Sure enough, the Sky News presenter Niall Paterson has just said he's starting to suffer and they'll be discussing it on (I think) the Sophy Ridge show.
Have to say the UK has turned into a bunch of wimps. Everybody seems to be ill and cannot cope with anything nowadays, why does it have top billing in every disorder known to man.
To be honest Malc we have a close family member suffering from PTSD after rescuing bodies in an earthquake zone. It is not something to dismiss so easily to be honest
G, I understand people can be really ill with these types of things but why does UK have so high a number for all these ailments and disabilities. It is the saddest , fattest , unhealthiest , most disabled country in the developed world.
See, when you put it like that you have a really good point.
That was my point , perhaps not well put the first time.
A friend of mine has been going on about this & it's really valid. How many obesity-related deaths occur each year in the UK? You don't see a lot of fuss being made about it but his argument is that we should accept coronavirus is around and focus rather on obesity and exercise.
Crisp tax anyone?
I doubt that these kinds of sin taxes have the intended effect. They simply make things that taste nice less affordable for poor people.
Positive nudge is probably cheaper, easier to implement. A Vitality type system for the general population would probably save the NHS money.
When this is finally over the Department of Health should consider paying for fat people to attend slimming clubs. If we could succeed even in getting a fifth of the obese population down into the overweight category and a tenth of the overweight population down into the healthy range then the benefits would be well worth the expenditure.
I see your point, but - hmmm - that`s a bit too big brother for me.
I don't think a gym subsidy is "big brother". However it does risk the perception that by being fat you get a bonus that other people want but have to pay for.
Go to a french town of say 20,000 people and it will have public sports and leisure facilities equivalent to an English town of 100,000.
Thats why they get to eat croissants, cheese, four course meals for lunch and still be fitter than us.
Extra sports and leisure facilities will not help if people will not use them.
A walk every evening is free and very effective for weight loss.
I am finding it a pretty close run thing. 2 hours of walking versus way too many snacks whilst at home on lockdown. Weight goes up and down but my daughter is just making blueberry pancakes. This might be an up day.
I've been surprised just how much a long walk with the dog in the evening helps with weight loss. Gym visits I found didn't help much with weight because you didn't lose much and ate like a pig when you got back.
Walking doesn’t have the cardio workout. I have tried running but my knees and ankles remind me why I liked the non impact cross trainer in the gym. I am looking forward to getting back.
I am doing circuits of press-ups, sit-ups, squats and lunges every other day. Five sets of 13, 15, 18 and 18, pus another 10 press-ups on top. It takes about 25 minutes and is deeply unpleasant, but it has stopped me putting on even more weight than I have. Chocolate is a killer currently.
I do 10 press ups every time I go for a pee. Meaning with a weak bladder I have developed quite some biceps. Almost popeye standard.
I would have thought it would have developed a much stronger bladder first :-)
How are schools meant to move from classes of 31 to classes of 15 in a few weeks? As far as I know most of them don't operate with a full set of empty classrooms and teacher cloning technology is still in its infancy. This can only work if kids only attend school every other day. Is that the plan? Is there a plan?
Erhhhh, because you know that only a select number of year groups are going back right?
I rather get the impression that there are as many plans as schools!
My son is at private school. He is getting 3-4 online classes a day. He is set homework which is promptly marked, his teachers respond to his numerous emails, they are available for 1-1 explanations as required. It’s not quite school but for a highly motivated boy like him it’s pretty close.
His school already gets more science passes at higher than the 8 state schools in Dundee. Most of those he will be competing against for his advanced Highers next year are getting absolutely minimal educational input and are being left to their own devices. It’s frankly not close to being fair. It’s not that fair in normal times but Covid is increasing the disparities to breaking point.
Kids need to get back to school before their education is irredeemably ruined. Poor kids most of all. There is no acceptable alternative.
Same experience with my children. They are at different private schools and both are experiencing a very impressive online and zoom offering. Private emails to teachers whenever needed and telephone calls too.
So perhaps the question becomes: why are state schools not providing similar to private schools? Remember that state school teachers are on 100% of salary. Do state school teachers have a soft-touch employer? Is more demanded of private school teachers, employed by non-state actors funded by parents? He who pays the piper ....?
Our private school has proven absolutely useless
Which one? I used to teach at a private school in oxfordshire.
Excellent thread @Foxy - I don't envy the task facing those working in the NHS. I would take issue with this:
Non surgical specialities including mental health will be similarly affected, though these get less media attention.
You can't turn on the news these days without hearing about mental health. Sure enough, the Sky News presenter Niall Paterson has just said he's starting to suffer and they'll be discussing it on (I think) the Sophy Ridge show.
Have to say the UK has turned into a bunch of wimps. Everybody seems to be ill and cannot cope with anything nowadays, why does it have top billing in every disorder known to man.
To be honest Malc we have a close family member suffering from PTSD after rescuing bodies in an earthquake zone. It is not something to dismiss so easily to be honest
G, I understand people can be really ill with these types of things but why does UK have so high a number for all these ailments and disabilities. It is the saddest , fattest , unhealthiest , most disabled country in the developed world.
See, when you put it like that you have a really good point.
That was my point , perhaps not well put the first time.
A friend of mine has been going on about this & it's really valid. How many obesity-related deaths occur each year in the UK? You don't see a lot of fuss being made about it but his argument is that we should accept coronavirus is around and focus rather on obesity and exercise.
Crisp tax anyone?
I doubt that these kinds of sin taxes have the intended effect. They simply make things that taste nice less affordable for poor people.
Positive nudge is probably cheaper, easier to implement. A Vitality type system for the general population would probably save the NHS money.
When this is finally over the Department of Health should consider paying for fat people to attend slimming clubs. If we could succeed even in getting a fifth of the obese population down into the overweight category and a tenth of the overweight population down into the healthy range then the benefits would be well worth the expenditure.
I see your point, but - hmmm - that`s a bit too big brother for me.
I don't think a gym subsidy is "big brother". However it does risk the perception that by being fat you get a bonus that other people want but have to pay for.
Go to a french town of say 20,000 people and it will have public sports and leisure facilities equivalent to an English town of 100,000.
Thats why they get to eat croissants, cheese, four course meals for lunch and still be fitter than us.
Extra sports and leisure facilities will not help if people will not use them.
A walk every evening is free and very effective for weight loss.
I am finding it a pretty close run thing. 2 hours of walking versus way too many snacks whilst at home on lockdown. Weight goes up and down but my daughter is just making blueberry pancakes. This might be an up day.
I've been surprised just how much a long walk with the dog in the evening helps with weight loss. Gym visits I found didn't help much with weight because you didn't lose much and ate like a pig when you got back.
The fundamental issue with maintaining a healthy weight is getting diet right. Exercise really needs to be regarded as something that's worthwhile in and of itself, but no substitute for eating well.
Exercise does make it easier both to lose excess weight and to maintain a healthy weight than addressing diet alone, basically because burning the additional energy means that you have to be less strict with treats. But it doesn't do anything to address the problems of people with entrenched bad eating habits.
If you stuff yourself with rubbish then working out like mad might still help you shed a bit of weight for a while, but eventually the progress stops, you get fed up with it, you stop and the weight goes back on. Result: disillusionment and being fatter than you were before you started. Been there, done that, got the XXL t-shirt.
That's why I suggested the State paying for fat people to go to slimming clubs (by which I meant Weight Watchers or Slimming World, not gym subsidies) a bit earlier. If we can gently persuade even a modest fraction of the majority of the populace that is overweight or obese to adopt healthier habits - and I am talking about a sensitive approach aimed at people who are ready to try, not compulsion here - then the potential improvement to quality of life and economic savings could be considerable.
I have never been to one but reviews of those clubs are that they are generally pretty poor and focus on reaching x weight by y date rather than a change in lifestyle. Surely more can be done with nutrition and cooking classes?
Out of necessity I have learnt more about nutrition and cooking in my forties than the rest of my life put together, with hindsight I wish I had done so earlier.
My son is at private school. He is getting 3-4 online classes a day. He is set homework which is promptly marked, his teachers respond to his numerous emails, they are available for 1-1 explanations as required. It’s not quite school but for a highly motivated boy like him it’s pretty close.
His school already gets more science passes at higher than the 8 state schools in Dundee. Most of those he will be competing against for his advanced Highers next year are getting absolutely minimal educational input and are being left to their own devices. It’s frankly not close to being fair. It’s not that fair in normal times but Covid is increasing the disparities to breaking point.
Kids need to get back to school before their education is irredeemably ruined. Poor kids most of all. There is no acceptable alternative.
Same experience with my children. They are at different private schools and both are experiencing a very impressive online and zoom offering. Private emails to teachers whenever needed and telephone calls too.
So perhaps the question becomes: why are state schools not providing similar to private schools? Remember that state school teachers are on 100% of salary. Do state school teachers have a soft-touch employer? Is more demanded of private school teachers, employed by non-state actors funded by parents? He who pays the piper ....?
Excellent thread @Foxy - I don't envy the task facing those working in the NHS. I would take issue with this:
Non surgical specialities including mental health will be similarly affected, though these get less media attention.
You can't turn on the news these days without hearing about mental health. Sure enough, the Sky News presenter Niall Paterson has just said he's starting to suffer and they'll be discussing it on (I think) the Sophy Ridge show.
Have to say the UK has turned into a bunch of wimps. Everybody seems to be ill and cannot cope with anything nowadays, why does it have top billing in every disorder known to man.
To be honest Malc we have a close family member suffering from PTSD after rescuing bodies in an earthquake zone. It is not something to dismiss so easily to be honest
G, I understand people can be really ill with these types of things but why does UK have so high a number for all these ailments and disabilities. It is the saddest , fattest , unhealthiest , most disabled country in the developed world.
See, when you put it like that you have a really good point.
That was my point , perhaps not well put the first time.
A friend of mine has been going on about this & it's really valid. How many obesity-related deaths occur each year in the UK? You don't see a lot of fuss being made about it but his argument is that we should accept coronavirus is around and focus rather on obesity and exercise.
Crisp tax anyone?
I doubt that these kinds of sin taxes have the intended effect. They simply make things that taste nice less affordable for poor people.
Positive nudge is probably cheaper, easier to implement. A Vitality type system for the general population would probably save the NHS money.
When this is finally over the Department of Health should consider paying for fat people to attend slimming clubs. If we could succeed even in getting a fifth of the obese population down into the overweight category and a tenth of the overweight population down into the healthy range then the benefits would be well worth the expenditure.
I see your point, but - hmmm - that`s a bit too big brother for me.
I don't think a gym subsidy is "big brother". However it does risk the perception that by being fat you get a bonus that other people want but have to pay for.
Go to a french town of say 20,000 people and it will have public sports and leisure facilities equivalent to an English town of 100,000.
Thats why they get to eat croissants, cheese, four course meals for lunch and still be fitter than us.
Extra sports and leisure facilities will not help if people will not use them.
A walk every evening is free and very effective for weight loss.
Well the evidence from France is that it works. Build the facilities, make them cheap and accessible and people will love to play tennis, go swimming etc. Quelle surprise!
It can be more complex than that. Back from where I am originally, there are huge health issues due to poor diet, smoking, drinking etc. The local council gym chain over past 10 years have had a big push on building new facilities (and I presume a load of government funding to do so), and are much cheaper than the commercial alternatives (about half the price in fact).
However, if you go they are stuffed full of more middle class folk, who used to be members of the expensive commercial gyms. Not much sign of the people who probably need to be using them most.
So in effect all that has happened is we have subsidised richer folk to get cheaper gym membership.
It needs to start in schools and be ingrained as a vital and fun part of life from an early age as per my original post.
If we used a positive nudge system, taking exercise would have literal, non-health benefits.
Subsidise activity. Not gym membership - not alone.
Excellent thread @Foxy - I don't envy the task facing those working in the NHS. I would take issue with this:
Non surgical specialities including mental health will be similarly affected, though these get less media attention.
You can't turn on the news these days without hearing about mental health. Sure enough, the Sky News presenter Niall Paterson has just said he's starting to suffer and they'll be discussing it on (I think) the Sophy Ridge show.
Have to say the UK has turned into a bunch of wimps. Everybody seems to be ill and cannot cope with anything nowadays, why does it have top billing in every disorder known to man.
To be honest Malc we have a close family member suffering from PTSD after rescuing bodies in an earthquake zone. It is not something to dismiss so easily to be honest
G, I understand people can be really ill with these types of things but why does UK have so high a number for all these ailments and disabilities. It is the saddest , fattest , unhealthiest , most disabled country in the developed world.
See, when you put it like that you have a really good point.
That was my point , perhaps not well put the first time.
A friend of mine has been going on about this & it's really valid. How many obesity-related deaths occur each year in the UK? You don't see a lot of fuss being made about it but his argument is that we should accept coronavirus is around and focus rather on obesity and exercise.
Crisp tax anyone?
I doubt that these kinds of sin taxes have the intended effect. They simply make things that taste nice less affordable for poor people.
Positive nudge is probably cheaper, easier to implement. A Vitality type system for the general population would probably save the NHS money.
When this is finally over the Department of Health should consider paying for fat people to attend slimming clubs. If we could succeed even in getting a fifth of the obese population down into the overweight category and a tenth of the overweight population down into the healthy range then the benefits would be well worth the expenditure.
I see your point, but - hmmm - that`s a bit too big brother for me.
I don't think a gym subsidy is "big brother". However it does risk the perception that by being fat you get a bonus that other people want but have to pay for.
Go to a french town of say 20,000 people and it will have public sports and leisure facilities equivalent to an English town of 100,000.
Thats why they get to eat croissants, cheese, four course meals for lunch and still be fitter than us.
Extra sports and leisure facilities will not help if people will not use them.
A walk every evening is free and very effective for weight loss.
I am finding it a pretty close run thing. 2 hours of walking versus way too many snacks whilst at home on lockdown. Weight goes up and down but my daughter is just making blueberry pancakes. This might be an up day.
I've been surprised just how much a long walk with the dog in the evening helps with weight loss. Gym visits I found didn't help much with weight because you didn't lose much and ate like a pig when you got back.
Walking doesn’t have the cardio workout. I have tried running but my knees and ankles remind me why I liked the non impact cross trainer in the gym. I am looking forward to getting back.
I am doing circuits of press-ups, sit-ups, squats and lunges every other day. Five sets of 13, 15, 18 and 18, pus another 10 press-ups on top. It takes about 25 minutes and is deeply unpleasant, but it has stopped me putting on even more weight than I have. Chocolate is a killer currently.
I do 10 press ups every time I go for a pee. Meaning with a weak bladder I have developed quite some biceps. Almost popeye standard.
I would have thought it would have developed a much stronger bladder first :-)
She managed office, but not power. The gap between the two is astronomical in our system.
Power is not an end in itself it's what you do with it. For Boris it was far more about getting it than any driving motivation ambition of what he would do with it once he got it. I'm not even convinced he's that bothered about Brexit - it was simply the vehicle to get him where he wanted.
I actually agree with you
I am beginning to wonder if Boris may seek a short extension to brexit or even move a little to see a deal
She managed office, but not power. The gap between the two is astronomical in our system.
Power is not an end in itself it's what you do with it. For Boris it was far more about getting it than any driving motivation ambition of what he would do with it once he got it. I'm not even convinced he's that bothered about Brexit - it was simply the vehicle to get him where he wanted.
I actually agree with you
I am beginning to wonder if Boris may seek a short extension to brexit or even move a little to see a deal
Why? The assertion that the Government has little to gain from delay appears sound.
The trading relationship being requested is relatively loose and both sides are insisting on terms that the other finds onerous. It may actually be easier for both the UK and the EU to give up than attempt a compromise.
Besides, hyperventilating media types and some export businesses in particular may fret at the prospect of a cliff-edge Brexit, but they're not the key voter groups that helped to deliver the Government its majority. Being seen to dither and prevaricate over Brexit risks driving a lot of its new support away and resuscitating the career of Farage.
Yes let's ignore the export businesses and go with what Bert from Barnsley thinks instead. What could possibly go wrong.
Sixteen actually.....and with a bit of luck, today will be 17. And the politicians are on record that the quarantine will be the last restriction to be lifted.
She managed office, but not power. The gap between the two is astronomical in our system.
Power is not an end in itself it's what you do with it. For Boris it was far more about getting it than any driving motivation ambition of what he would do with it once he got it. I'm not even convinced he's that bothered about Brexit - it was simply the vehicle to get him where he wanted.
I actually agree with you
I am beginning to wonder if Boris may seek a short extension to brexit or even move a little to see a deal
Why? The assertion that the Government has little to gain from delay appears sound.
The trading relationship being requested is relatively loose and both sides are insisting on terms that the other finds onerous. It may actually be easier for both the UK and the EU to give up than attempt a compromise.
Besides, hyperventilating media types and some export businesses in particular may fret at the prospect of a cliff-edge Brexit, but they're not the key voter groups that helped to deliver the Government its majority. Being seen to dither and prevaricate over Brexit risks driving a lot of its new support away and resuscitating the career of Farage.
Just a thought, provoked by something in the Observer. Trump is re-elected. Picks another row with China and leaves the WTO. Maybe even without having an overt row with China. Where does that leave WTO 'rules'? And what happens to a country whose trading relationship are based on those rules?
WTO rules are not enforced against the US or China anyway, ask Antigua for example how they are getting on with their case against the US from 2003. They won, were awarded $21 million per year compensation. So far they have not been paid and were owed $315m as of 2018.
Brits hear the word rules and think they mean something. In this case they dont, with the WTO might has been right, and it will be even more so as we enter the next decade.
How we dont see this when its blatantly obvious I have no idea, WTO rules are far less enforceable than EU rules, and we didnt like EU rules as not enough countries were following them as closely as we did. The Tory rights love affair with the WTO wont last much longer than most of the PMs affairs.
You dont understand what WTO rules mean and you are more informed than most of them so it should be meaningless what you or they should prefer.
I think it's pretty certain that 'Tory and Leave Voters' will be as shocked as any at the consequences if a No Deal Brexit ever came to pass. Bit of me hopes it does, so the fuckwits get what they deserve, but that's petty and childish because a lot of people who didn't deserve it would share the same fate.
I disagree in the sense that most people's ordinary lives wont be so impacted. They will probably be about 3-5% worse off than they could have been, but that will now get mixed in with covid19.
There will be a much smaller group who suffer more because they have lost their job or something else significant, but that group is
Yes, I agree in many respects. One of a rather long list of compensating benefits that come with C-19 (birdsong, blue skies, elbow-room in Tescos etc) is the opportunity to disguise the pain of Brexit by blaming the adverse consequences on the Virus.
I don't think the Oldies are going to be too pleased though when the attack on Pensions begins, and I'm not sure they will entirely buy the 'blame the Virus' line.
That would probably have happened sooner or later whether we were in the EU, left the EU with a deal or no deal because of demographics and the status quo being palpably unfair.
I have just been introduced to this site by a friend. I have to say that the name is quite mis-leading and I would not have given it a second thought if I had not been told to look! Although I am a non-betting man, I do understand what is meant by e.g. Odds of 10 to 1. However I have no idea what is meant by the three figures in the last paragraph: 1.9, 2.92 against and 2.62. Could someone please explain? Thanks.
guaranteed to be rubbish but absolutely shocking that you find this topic funny Harry. I know you have the Scottish cringe but that is bad. It is a hash of the usual no hopers saying SNPBasd, bit like my previous post on carcrash care home numbers, he mixed up Scottish and English numbers as he transferred them from his fingers. Keep trying and one day you will get your English badge.
I understand England has confirmed 17,000 tracers appointed to date and it will be up and running by the end of the month
Having a go at Scotland at zero is fair
G, you rage about anyone criticising Boris, government etc yet someone laughing at such a sensitive topic is ok in your book, have a think. PS: The Daily Record and the lying Tories in the article have no idea who has or has not been hired. Maybe you should be laughing at the 100K a day that was supposedly achieved once by Hancock booking himself 40K tests and never ever met again.
Malc, these lads are still raging' that Nicola is thought of more highly in England than their buffoonish hero. Be gentle with them.
Half the working population is WFH, pretty much. 8% are unemployed. 26% are furloughed. So the number of people working before the recent call for a return to work, was somewhere in the high 60s.
But GPs are semi-private already and patients are free to switch between practices. This is the paradox. If the free marketeers are right, general practice should be near perfect because of this consumer choice but in fact this is where we hear most complaints.
Can a GP just set up a practice anywhere and tout for customers? (genuine question).
Excellent thread @Foxy - I don't envy the task facing those working in the NHS. I would take issue with this:
Non surgical specialities including mental health will be similarly affected, though these get less media attention.
You can't turn on the news these days without hearing about mental health. Sure enough, the Sky News presenter Niall Paterson has just said he's starting to suffer and they'll be discussing it on (I think) the Sophy Ridge show.
Have to say the UK has turned into a bunch of wimps. Everybody seems to be ill and cannot cope with anything nowadays, why does it have top billing in every disorder known to man.
To be honest Malc we have a close family member suffering from PTSD after rescuing bodies in an earthquake zone. It is not something to dismiss so easily to be honest
G, I understand people can be really ill with these types of things but why does UK have so high a number for all these ailments and disabilities. It is the saddest , fattest , unhealthiest , most disabled country in the developed world.
See, when you put it like that you have a really good point.
That was my point , perhaps not well put the first time.
A friend of mine has been going on about this & it's really valid. How many obesity-related deaths occur each year in the UK? You don't see a lot of fuss being made about it but his argument is that we should accept coronavirus is around and focus rather on obesity and exercise.
Crisp tax anyone?
I doubt that these kinds of sin taxes have the intended effect. They simply make things that taste nice less affordable for poor people.
Positive nudge is probably cheaper, easier to implement. A Vitality type system for the general population would probably save the NHS money.
When this is finally over the Department of Health should consider paying for fat people to attend slimming clubs. If we could succeed even in getting a fifth of the obese population down into the overweight category and a tenth of the overweight population down into the healthy range then the benefits would be well worth the expenditure.
I see your point, but - hmmm - that`s a bit too big brother for me.
I don't think a gym subsidy is "big brother". However it does risk the perception that by being fat you get a bonus that other people want but have to pay for.
Go to a french town of say 20,000 people and it will have public sports and leisure facilities equivalent to an English town of 100,000.
Thats why they get to eat croissants, cheese, four course meals for lunch and still be fitter than us.
Extra sports and leisure facilities will not help if people will not use them.
A walk every evening is free and very effective for weight loss.
I am finding it a pretty close run thing. 2 hours of walking versus way too many snacks whilst at home on lockdown. Weight goes up and down but my daughter is just making blueberry pancakes. This might be an up day.
I've been surprised just how much a long walk with the dog in the evening helps with weight loss. Gym visits I found didn't help much with weight because you didn't lose much and ate like a pig when you got back.
The fundamental issue with maintaining a healthy weight is getting diet right. Exercise really needs to be regarded as something that's worthwhile in and of itself, but no substitute for eating well.
Exercise does make it easier both to lose excess weight and to maintain a healthy weight than addressing diet alone, basically because burning the additional energy means that you have to be less strict with treats. But it doesn't do anything to address the problems of people with entrenched bad eating habits.
If you stuff yourself with rubbish then working out like mad might still help you shed a bit of weight for a while, but eventually the progress stops, you get fed up with it, you stop and the weight goes back on. Result: disillusionment and being fatter than you were before you started. Been there, done that, got the XXL t-shirt.
That's why I suggested the State paying for fat people to go to slimming clubs (by which I meant Weight Watchers or Slimming World, not gym subsidies) a bit earlier. If we can gently persuade even a modest fraction of the majority of the populace that is overweight or obese to adopt healthier habits - and I am talking about a sensitive approach aimed at people who are ready to try, not compulsion here - then the potential improvement to quality of life and economic savings could be considerable.
I have never been to one but reviews of those clubs are that they are generally pretty poor and focus on reaching x weight by y date rather than a change in lifestyle. Surely more can be done with nutrition and cooking classes?
Out of necessity I have learnt more about nutrition and cooking in my forties than the rest of my life put together, with hindsight I wish I had done so earlier.
Do they not still teach Home Economics in schools? Or is that one of the useless areas that Gove and Cummings got rid of?
My son is at private school. He is getting 3-4 online classes a day. He is set homework which is promptly marked, his teachers respond to his numerous emails, they are available for 1-1 explanations as required. It’s not quite school but for a highly motivated boy like him it’s pretty close.
His school already gets more science passes at higher than the 8 state schools in Dundee. Most of those he will be competing against for his advanced Highers next year are getting absolutely minimal educational input and are being left to their own devices. It’s frankly not close to being fair. It’s not that fair in normal times but Covid is increasing the disparities to breaking point.
Kids need to get back to school before their education is irredeemably ruined. Poor kids most of all. There is no acceptable alternative.
Same experience with my children. They are at different private schools and both are experiencing a very impressive online and zoom offering. Private emails to teachers whenever needed and telephone calls too.
So perhaps the question becomes: why are state schools not providing similar to private schools? Remember that state school teachers are on 100% of salary. Do state school teachers have a soft-touch employer? Is more demanded of private school teachers, employed by non-state actors funded by parents? He who pays the piper ....?
Our private school has proven absolutely useless
Its almost as if different organisations have different quality, value for money.
I remember a couple of people having a go at my wife for shopping around the NHS for the right consultant. I pointed out that they had told us about 10 minutes before about their travails in finding the right vet they could trust to look after their cat.
There is a lot of heterogeneity across all sectors of the UK economy - in fact one of the defining weaknesses of our economy is a long tail of poorly performing firms and organisations in every sector. For what it's worth I think our kids' schools have done an amazing job in organising a decent flow of work and feedback in the last few weeks, especially when you consider they have more pupils to deal with, a more mixed intake with more complex needs, and less resources than their private sector colleagues. In general I would imagine this lockdown is exacerbating differences between state and private, good and bad schools within both sectors, and kids with time-rich and well resources parents versus poorer kids in chaotic homes, and so the sooner kids go back the better, but not if that puts people's health at risk. The problem is we can't trust the government - how can we believe a word they say when we've seen the whole Cabinet being led in that absurd call and response about the 40 new hospitals and the 50,000 new nurses? A government that makes a virtue of dishonesty can't suddenly expect to be trusted.
I have just been introduced to this site by a friend. I have to say that the name is quite mis-leading and I would not have given it a second thought if I had not been told to look! Although I am a non-betting man, I do understand what is meant by e.g. Odds of 10 to 1. However I have no idea what is meant by the three figures in the last paragraph: 1.9, 2.92 against and 2.62. Could someone please explain? Thanks.
She managed office, but not power. The gap between the two is astronomical in our system.
Power is not an end in itself it's what you do with it. For Boris it was far more about getting it than any driving motivation ambition of what he would do with it once he got it. I'm not even convinced he's that bothered about Brexit - it was simply the vehicle to get him where he wanted.
I actually agree with you
I am beginning to wonder if Boris may seek a short extension to brexit or even move a little to see a deal
Why? The assertion that the Government has little to gain from delay appears sound.
The trading relationship being requested is relatively loose and both sides are insisting on terms that the other finds onerous. It may actually be easier for both the UK and the EU to give up than attempt a compromise.
Besides, hyperventilating media types and some export businesses in particular may fret at the prospect of a cliff-edge Brexit, but they're not the key voter groups that helped to deliver the Government its majority. Being seen to dither and prevaricate over Brexit risks driving a lot of its new support away and resuscitating the career of Farage.
Just a thought, provoked by something in the Observer. Trump is re-elected. Picks another row with China and leaves the WTO. Maybe even without having an overt row with China. Where does that leave WTO 'rules'? And what happens to a country whose trading relationship are based on those rules?
Piffle! Everything will be fine... (waves hand airly about) ... something will sort it out ... we are a mighty economy, we are GREAT Britain! (cue the National Anthem)
It should be interesting to watch, but probably best seen from a distance
We look for a trade deal with Trump's US instead, our largest single export destination
Yes we really need substandard food supplies like chlorinated chicken and hormone filled beef.
When you look at pictures of those attending anti-Lockdown rallies in the US you cannot help thinking that there is something in their diet that makes them the way they are.
I have just been introduced to this site by a friend. I have to say that the name is quite mis-leading and I would not have given it a second thought if I had not been told to look! Although I am a non-betting man, I do understand what is meant by e.g. Odds of 10 to 1. However I have no idea what is meant by the three figures in the last paragraph: 1.9, 2.92 against and 2.62. Could someone please explain? Thanks.
When I first found the site, it was continuously being blocked by my school server because of the word "betting". I had to keep begging the Headteacher to unblock it as I was/am only ever interested in the political chat.
But GPs are semi-private already and patients are free to switch between practices. This is the paradox. If the free marketeers are right, general practice should be near perfect because of this consumer choice but in fact this is where we hear most complaints.
Can a GP just set up a practice anywhere and tout for customers? (genuine question).
You'd start a riot - "poaching patients". All the GPs in the area would gang up to stop you...
Yep. I think we can probably surmise what caused this. There was such a desperation to get rid of the elderly from hospitals, to clear capacity for new Covid patients, that they were just thrown at the care homes to get them out of the way. I seem to recall reading elsewhere that homes which initially refused to have them back were threatened (by councils?) with having funding withdrawn if they dug their heels in, so they gave in. We all know how this ended.
Looking at what's happened abroad it looks like pretty well everyone screwed up when it came to care homes, but that doesn't make the failure any more excusable.
In England and Wales, 9 039 out of 12 483 covid-related deaths, by 1st May, were in care homes and that is 72.4%. In Scotland, by 10th May: More than four in 10 coronavirus deaths have now been in care homes (44.8%). Jackson Carlaw ( TORY ) has been lying about Scottish figures
Up to 1 May, there had been 8,312 deaths in care homes in England and Wales where coronavirus was written on the death certificate, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). This represents a quarter of all deaths associated with the virus to that date.
The number increases to 12,526 when care home residents who died outside care homes - such as in hospital - are included.
In Scotland, 1,438 people had died in care homes - or 45% of all deaths.
We don't have the COVID Care Home resident deaths in hospitals for Scotland.
This isn't a competition - but denying or minimising the problem is not the way to find a solution. (Like the NIKE cluster in Edinburgh that was hushed up).
Nothing was hushed up in Edinburgh. My original point was the fact that the clown Carlaw whilst trying to make political gain could not even get the numbers right and lied through his teeth or did not even bother to check the numbers, just assuming twitter crap was right. In the end I imagine deaths in care homes in Scotland will mirror the other death numbers, they are much lower than England at present but who knows by the end. Both governments have made errors for sure but the petty jealousy around the fact that Sturgeon will not kowtow to Boris is pathetic. You can jerrymander numbers however you like to try and pretend things are better in England and that the Tories are doing a good job and those uppity Scots better watch their manners or else , we know the reality.
Yep. I think we can probably surmise what caused this. There was such a desperation to get rid of the elderly from hospitals, to clear capacity for new Covid patients, that they were just thrown at the care homes to get them out of the way. I seem to recall reading elsewhere that homes which initially refused to have them back were threatened (by councils?) with having funding withdrawn if they dug their heels in, so they gave in. We all know how this ended.
Looking at what's happened abroad it looks like pretty well everyone screwed up when it came to care homes, but that doesn't make the failure any more excusable.
In England and Wales, 9 039 out of 12 483 covid-related deaths, by 1st May, were in care homes and that is 72.4%. In Scotland, by 10th May: More than four in 10 coronavirus deaths have now been in care homes (44.8%). Jackson Carlaw ( TORY ) has been lying about Scottish figures
Up to 1 May, there had been 8,312 deaths in care homes in England and Wales where coronavirus was written on the death certificate, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). This represents a quarter of all deaths associated with the virus to that date.
The number increases to 12,526 when care home residents who died outside care homes - such as in hospital - are included.
In Scotland, 1,438 people had died in care homes - or 45% of all deaths.
We don't have the COVID Care Home resident deaths in hospitals for Scotland.
This isn't a competition - but denying or minimising the problem is not the way to find a solution. (Like the NIKE cluster in Edinburgh that was hushed up).
Yep. I think we can probably surmise what caused this. There was such a desperation to get rid of the elderly from hospitals, to clear capacity for new Covid patients, that they were just thrown at the care homes to get them out of the way. I seem to recall reading elsewhere that homes which initially refused to have them back were threatened (by councils?) with having funding withdrawn if they dug their heels in, so they gave in. We all know how this ended.
Looking at what's happened abroad it looks like pretty well everyone screwed up when it came to care homes, but that doesn't make the failure any more excusable.
In England and Wales, 9 039 out of 12 483 covid-related deaths, by 1st May, were in care homes and that is 72.4%.
I presume that in a bad winter flu epidemic, the bulk of deaths are also in care homes?
Still shocking numbers mind. A tacit acceptance by the NHS that if they were over 80, there really was in all likelihood nothing that could be done for victims? Outcomes were proving very poor for the elderly taken into hospital - they just didn't respond. So let them die in the place they knew as home...
Have to say it has been a shocking failure across the UK and many other countries. In the main these homes have been run like puppy farms just to make venture capitalists money. Needs to be a complete rethink of the whole social care policy.
Absolutely right
We can't afford that, though, just like we can;t afford a new normal. The evidence is we will shortly be very, very bankrupt.
People talk about innovation and new ways of working for certain industries without giving a single detail of what those ways are. That is because those alternative ways do not exist.
We either live with coronavirus or, essentially, our society disintegrates. Health education, the economy, the whole thing
And for most people its pretty liveable with.
Good post Contrarian
Why doesn’t the government ‘level with the British public’ and say we’re broke and we can’t afford to lockdown any further regardless of the ongoing risks.
Agreed. They should do. They are not leading they are weathervaning.
They won`t take us out of lockdown until opinion polls and focus groups tell them it`s OK. The polls won`t say it`s OK while: 1) Sunak keeps chucking money at people for staying at home and 2) politicians and the media are terryfying people about the virus, saying things like "don`t go back to work until it`s safe".
Of course it`s not safe FFS. Public perception of risk is appalling. I told a family member the other day that Covid has a survival rate of over 99% and she flatly disbelieved me. I asked her what she though the survival rate was and she said 50/50.
The lockdown served a number of purposes.
The primary purpose was to avoid the horror of people dying in hospital corridors. And thankfully that was achieved.
The second purpose was to buy time. Time to figure a post lockdown policy and build up capacity in services like testing. I think the goal might have been to get cases down so that track and trace was viable again. Sadly that has not been achieved.
So where are we and why can't we lockdown a bit more?
In short, the public finances have collapsed. So we are now in the invidious position of having to exit lockdown into a very muddy context, where the possibility of returning to the pre-lockdown situation has not and can not be ruled out.
The government should be focusing on delivering and communicating mitigating measures that maintain (or regain) public confidence. Arguably as we leave lockdown, the best action would have been to be more stringent on certain things. It could have insisted on masks for example.
Instead it appears to be rushing the whole thing, probably driven by the critical state of the nations finances. It's saying 'it will be fine' doesn't really wash. Especially, when it hasn't told the whole story about how the lockdown has screwed the economy. As a result it does not add up.
In short, the government has made two mistakes.
1) It has not set out the economic picture. 2) It has done nothing to mitigate the risks of exiting lockdown.
Excellent post, Jonathan.
I`m forever arguing that the economic (and liberty) aspects of this have been undervalued and have not been communicated. Most of the public do not understand the first thing about public finances (e.g. believing that the government has its own money somehow, rather than just administering ours).
Scaring the public over health is easy (and appeals to the journos). The economy is dry and difficult.
My main beef at the moment is that this government`s populism is costing the country dearly.
As Jonathan says, why doesn't the government just level with the electorate?
I think it should have done. Ideally before Sunak extended the furlough scheme from three months to four.
One reason might be that honesty undermines their threat of a second lockdown if we are naughty and R goes up.
In reality the country simply cannot afford a second lockdown, and that is an empty threat.
I don't think most people will put up with a second lockdown.
As far as I can tell people have more or less divided into two camps, the pearl clutchers who will not accept a single covid 19 death as inevitable, despite the fact that life entails risk and for the vast majority of healthy people under 60 there is a greater risk of being run over by a bus tomorrow than of dying of covid 19.
The other camp is full of people who have realised this and are barely paying lip service to lockdown any more. Without truly draconian measures it will be impossible to lock this second camp up for round II, rendering a second lockdown pointless and ineffective.
There will be no second lockdown. Not only will it cost too much, it simply won't work. That means only one thing: we need to shield the elderly and the vulnerable, but find a way to get everyone else back into work.
Stay at home and save lives was a simple message, work and pay tax is equally as simple. It's the latter that we need now to save the NHS.
Very good post - though I would oppose "shielding" anyone if by that you mean by compulsory means.
Excellent thread @Foxy - I don't envy the task facing those working in the NHS. I would take issue with this:
Non surgical specialities including mental health will be similarly affected, though these get less media attention.
You can't turn on the news these days without hearing about mental health. Sure enough, the Sky News presenter Niall Paterson has just said he's starting to suffer and they'll be discussing it on (I think) the Sophy Ridge show.
Have to say the UK has turned into a bunch of wimps. Everybody seems to be ill and cannot cope with anything nowadays, why does it have top billing in every disorder known to man.
To be honest Malc we have a close family member suffering from PTSD after rescuing bodies in an earthquake zone. It is not something to dismiss so easily to be honest
G, I understand people can be really ill with these types of things but why does UK have so high a number for all these ailments and disabilities. It is the saddest , fattest , unhealthiest , most disabled country in the developed world.
See, when you put it like that you have a really good point.
That was my point , perhaps not well put the first time.
A friend of mine has been going on about this & it's really valid. How many obesity-related deaths occur each year in the UK? You don't see a lot of fuss being made about it but his argument is that we should accept coronavirus is around and focus rather on obesity and exercise.
Crisp tax anyone?
I doubt that these kinds of sin taxes have the intended effect. They simply make things that taste nice less affordable for poor people.
Positive nudge is probably cheaper, easier to implement. A Vitality type system for the general population would probably save the NHS money.
When this is finally over the Department of Health should consider paying for fat people to attend slimming clubs. If we could succeed even in getting a fifth of the obese population down into the overweight category and a tenth of the overweight population down into the healthy range then the benefits would be well worth the expenditure.
I see your point, but - hmmm - that`s a bit too big brother for me.
I don't think a gym subsidy is "big brother". However it does risk the perception that by being fat you get a bonus that other people want but have to pay for.
Go to a french town of say 20,000 people and it will have public sports and leisure facilities equivalent to an English town of 100,000.
Thats why they get to eat croissants, cheese, four course meals for lunch and still be fitter than us.
Extra sports and leisure facilities will not help if people will not use them.
A walk every evening is free and very effective for weight loss.
I am finding it a pretty close run thing. 2 hours of walking versus way too many snacks whilst at home on lockdown. Weight goes up and down but my daughter is just making blueberry pancakes. This might be an up day.
I've been surprised just how much a long walk with the dog in the evening helps with weight loss. Gym visits I found didn't help much with weight because you didn't lose much and ate like a pig when you got back.
The fundamental issue with maintaining a healthy weight is getting diet right. Exercise really needs to be regarded as something that's worthwhile in and of itself, but no substitute for eating well.
Exercise does make it easier both to lose excess weight and to maintain a healthy weight than addressing diet alone, basically because burning the additional energy means that you have to be less strict with treats. But it doesn't do anything to address the problems of people with entrenched bad eating habits.
If you stuff yourself with rubbish then working out like mad might still help you shed a bit of weight for a while, but eventually the progress stops, you get fed up with it, you stop and the weight goes back on. Result: disillusionment and being fatter than you were before you started. Been there, done that, got the XXL t-shirt.
That's why I suggested the State paying for fat people to go to slimming clubs (by which I meant Weight Watchers or Slimming World, not gym subsidies) a bit earlier. If we can gently persuade even a modest fraction of the majority of the populace that is overweight or obese to adopt healthier habits - and I am talking about a sensitive approach aimed at people who are ready to try, not compulsion here - then the potential improvement to quality of life and economic savings could be considerable.
I have never been to one but reviews of those clubs are that they are generally pretty poor and focus on reaching x weight by y date rather than a change in lifestyle. Surely more can be done with nutrition and cooking classes?
Out of necessity I have learnt more about nutrition and cooking in my forties than the rest of my life put together, with hindsight I wish I had done so earlier.
Do they not still teach Home Economics in schools? Or is that one of the useless areas that Gove and Cummings got rid of?
Being in my forties I was in school well before Gove was in charge! Home economics I got taught how to make a shepherds pie and some sort of cake. I think that was it. Certainly nothing on nutrition.
I have just been introduced to this site by a friend. I have to say that the name is quite mis-leading and I would not have given it a second thought if I had not been told to look! Although I am a non-betting man, I do understand what is meant by e.g. Odds of 10 to 1. However I have no idea what is meant by the three figures in the last paragraph: 1.9, 2.92 against and 2.62. Could someone please explain? Thanks.
How are schools meant to move from classes of 31 to classes of 15 in a few weeks? As far as I know most of them don't operate with a full set of empty classrooms and teacher cloning technology is still in its infancy. This can only work if kids only attend school every other day. Is that the plan? Is there a plan?
That is the plan. This is what is happening in other countries that are reopening schools.
You can't do social distancing for 30 kids in the current classrooms. So they are being set out for 15 students.
So the teaching assistants will take half the kids into the classroom next door, etc.
Not all the students are returning, remember - only certain years. So you have less children that way.
How are schools meant to move from classes of 31 to classes of 15 in a few weeks? As far as I know most of them don't operate with a full set of empty classrooms and teacher cloning technology is still in its infancy. This can only work if kids only attend school every other day. Is that the plan? Is there a plan?
Erhhhh, because you know that only a select number of year groups are going back right?
Er, I know that (I have two kids at primary including one in year 6 and one at secondary). But Gove says he wants all kids back and the government has said they want all kids back by July. I was wondering what happens then in terms of classrooms. The shortage of teachers is of course a problem immediately as the year 2-5 teachers are meant to be organising work for their classes who are at home, and they can't do that effectively if they are also teaching the years who have returned to school.
I have just been introduced to this site by a friend. I have to say that the name is quite mis-leading and I would not have given it a second thought if I had not been told to look! Although I am a non-betting man, I do understand what is meant by e.g. Odds of 10 to 1. However I have no idea what is meant by the three figures in the last paragraph: 1.9, 2.92 against and 2.62. Could someone please explain? Thanks.
Welcome, and don't be shy to ask. Not everyone here is a Punter and if those of that are use confusing terminolgy it's only because it saves times communicationg with other punters.
Try to think in percentage terms too. So, a 9/1 shot has exactly a 10% chance of winning (unless I've backed it, of course!)
But GPs are semi-private already and patients are free to switch between practices. This is the paradox. If the free marketeers are right, general practice should be near perfect because of this consumer choice but in fact this is where we hear most complaints.
Can a GP just set up a practice anywhere and tout for customers? (genuine question).
The serious answer is that GP Practices provide services to the NHS under contracts arranged by the local CCG, for which they receive remuneration based on a number of factors, but most significantly the so-called patient list, i.e. the patients enrolled (as it were) at a Practice.
Where there is particular pressure on patient lists, owing to a growing population, or retiring GPs, a CCG would certainly consider services being provided by a new entrant. However it is worth noting that GP practices with only a single GP are, for several reasons, uncommon. So a single GP moving to a new area is likely to join an existing practice rather than start a new one.
My son is at private school. He is getting 3-4 online classes a day. He is set homework which is promptly marked, his teachers respond to his numerous emails, they are available for 1-1 explanations as required. It’s not quite school but for a highly motivated boy like him it’s pretty close.
His school already gets more science passes at higher than the 8 state schools in Dundee. Most of those he will be competing against for his advanced Highers next year are getting absolutely minimal educational input and are being left to their own devices. It’s frankly not close to being fair. It’s not that fair in normal times but Covid is increasing the disparities to breaking point.
Kids need to get back to school before their education is irredeemably ruined. Poor kids most of all. There is no acceptable alternative.
Same experience with my children. They are at different private schools and both are experiencing a very impressive online and zoom offering. Private emails to teachers whenever needed and telephone calls too.
So perhaps the question becomes: why are state schools not providing similar to private schools? Remember that state school teachers are on 100% of salary. Do state school teachers have a soft-touch employer? Is more demanded of private school teachers, employed by non-state actors funded by parents? He who pays the piper ....?
My sons are both at a local state comp.
My eldest has started A level work since the GCSEs were cancelled. He might be able to fit in an extra one.
My youngest has a special timetable. The whole thing is run though Google Docs. It’s excellent. He starts work at 830 and stops a 1400. Communal assemblies each week. We get emails if homework is not done on time.
As good as the best in the private sector. I imagine experiences vary by school across the country regardless of sector.
That`s impressive. Fair play. This doesn`t chime with what I`m hearing from parents with children in state schiools round here. They are reporting posted assigments (not even emailed), little or no marking/feedback. When they manage to get a teacher`s email address, it bounces back "mailbox not attended". That`s what I`m hearing.
My grandson - who is sharing our lockdown house with us and his Mum and Dad - is set work each day by his teacher. She marks it, sends comments, organises class assemblies and is also avaialble to talk to carers, etc. It's hugely impressive.
Clealry, we need the schools back as as soon as possible. There are so many reasons why it is important. But it will not happen unless the government takes both parents and teachers with them. That means being transparent with plans and risk assessments. It is striking how many kids who could be going to school now are not attending.
Re: last sentence - I don`t think that is surprising. Most will have a partner or older sibling to look after the child - and try getting a child to school when he/she doesn`t have to go! There is no way my children would have attended.
Comments
On what grounds would you deny an MP access to the PM?
Read what you say before you post because its just ridiculous.
Shared rooms vs singles
Communal bathing vs en-suite or wetrooms
Limited activities vs full range
etc etc
In reality the country simply cannot afford a second lockdown, and that is an empty threat.
However, if you go they are stuffed full of more middle class folk, who used to be members of the expensive commercial gyms. Not much sign of the people who probably need to be using them most.
So in effect all that has happened is we have subsidised richer folk to get cheaper gym membership.
But the evening walks are something I am determined to continue.
Which will mean my gym membership becomes unnecessary.
This represents a quarter of all deaths associated with the virus to that date.
The number increases to 12,526 when care home residents who died outside care homes - such as in hospital - are included.
In Scotland, 1,438 people had died in care homes - or 45% of all deaths.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52284281
So on an "apples to apples" basis its 25% vs 45%.
We don't have the COVID Care Home resident deaths in hospitals for Scotland.
This isn't a competition - but denying or minimising the problem is not the way to find a solution. (Like the NIKE cluster in Edinburgh that was hushed up).
Most proposals for financing care assume that you can some how get away with stealing the wealth of those who have worked hard, paid their taxes, and accumulated some savings. The "feckless, reckless, and lazy", will of course get their care for free.
Apart from the unfairness factor, this strikes me as electoral suicide (ask Mrs May).
I suggest that the only politically viable solution is to make long term care an NHS responsibility. There are also likely some savings from making treatment more joined up; useful PR if nothing else.
Say the movie industry operates a casting couch policy such that an unknown actress has to sleep with the producer to get a break.
So she does, goes on to establish herself, thus no longer has to do it, then she comes out one day and condemns the system which benefited her.
"Oh yeah, listen to that one. Did it when it suited her and now she pipes up. What a hypocrite."
Clealry, we need the schools back as as soon as possible. There are so many reasons why it is important. But it will not happen unless the government takes both parents and teachers with them. That means being transparent with plans and risk assessments. It is striking how many kids who could be going to school now are not attending.
At my own gym, it has a younger demographic that are fairly well off. I am always struck how important diet is for many, and that means they meal prep the weeks food and eat of things like cheap healthy foods like oats, and of course they they save their boozing for the two weeks in Aiya Naya they spend all year working hard to get the perfect body for.
I would hazard a guess that not only is their diet very healthy, but the amount they spend each week is probably a lot less than those going round Asda picking up frozen pizza, pies and chips.
On what seems to be a conflated issue of what the government does about Brexit. My impressions are that David Frost, the supposed negotiator, spends more effort pandering the the Tory Party base than he does in actually negotiating with the EU; the government won't shift on No Extension. The question is whether it accepts stringent EU conditions on Level Playing Field or really will go No Deal in December. 50/50, as far as I can tell. There's a deal to be had on fishing: a bit less EU access dressed up as a lot less. Maybe the EU will concede a bit on fishing if the UK accepts LPF as is. The EU won't shift on LPF IMO.
As far as I can tell people have more or less divided into two camps, the pearl clutchers who will not accept a single covid 19 death as inevitable, despite the fact that life entails risk and for the vast majority of healthy people under 60 there is a greater risk of being run over by a bus tomorrow than of dying of covid 19.
The other camp is full of people who have realised this and are barely paying lip service to lockdown any more. Without truly draconian measures it will be impossible to lock this second camp up for round II, rendering a second lockdown pointless and ineffective.
There will be no second lockdown. Not only will it cost too much, it simply won't work. That means only one thing: we need to shield the elderly and the vulnerable, but find a way to get everyone else back into work.
Stay at home and save lives was a simple message, work and pay tax is equally as simple. It's the latter that we need now to save the NHS.
Do you really believe that Donald "America First" Trump will heap more riches upon us?
Exercise does make it easier both to lose excess weight and to maintain a healthy weight than addressing diet alone, basically because burning the additional energy means that you have to be less strict with treats. But it doesn't do anything to address the problems of people with entrenched bad eating habits.
If you stuff yourself with rubbish then working out like mad might still help you shed a bit of weight for a while, but eventually the progress stops, you get fed up with it, you stop and the weight goes back on. Result: disillusionment and being fatter than you were before you started. Been there, done that, got the XXL t-shirt.
That's why I suggested the State paying for fat people to go to slimming clubs (by which I meant Weight Watchers or Slimming World, not gym subsidies) a bit earlier. If we can gently persuade even a modest fraction of the majority of the populace that is overweight or obese to adopt healthier habits - and I am talking about a sensitive approach aimed at people who are ready to try, not compulsion here - then the potential improvement to quality of life and economic savings could be considerable.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-furlough-pay-ends-if-scots-lockdown-longer-jgmfn3kpd
Btw, may I put in a plea for a list of approved acronyms for PB purposes. I had to look up LPF. I guess it's not Lothian Pension Fund.
Edit:
FT: Financial Times
R4: Radio 4
PB: Politicalbetting.com
There will be a much smaller group who suffer more because they have lost their job or something else significant, but that group is <<10% of the country, and not all will blame Brexit even it if were the cause.
It is at the national aggregate level where the hit will be felt. As a nation we will be poorer, have less influence and fewer good paths to success.
I remember a couple of people having a go at my wife for shopping around the NHS for the right consultant. I pointed out that they had told us about 10 minutes before about their travails in finding the right vet they could trust to look after their cat.
Perhaps, given the many benefits, we should encourage staying at home using the tax system?
They weren't like that.
Nor were the ones in the County where I'd assisted the Inspection team before retirement.
I've no idea about Ireland, so I'll take your word for it.
Many illegal drug problems relate to -
- purity
- strength (nuclear grade canabis etc)
- horrible compounds, such as crystal meth, that were created to get round supply/transport issues
I don't think the Oldies are going to be too pleased though when the attack on Pensions begins, and I'm not sure they will entirely buy the 'blame the Virus' line.
Out of necessity I have learnt more about nutrition and cooking in my forties than the rest of my life put together, with hindsight I wish I had done so earlier.
Subsidise activity. Not gym membership - not alone.
https://twitter.com/ianjamesparsley/status/1261974021786292224?s=20
Although I am a non-betting man, I do understand what is meant by e.g. Odds of 10 to 1. However I have no idea what is meant by the three figures in the last paragraph: 1.9, 2.92 against and 2.62. Could someone please explain?
Thanks.
This is from the YouGov survey the other day.
Half the working population is WFH, pretty much. 8% are unemployed. 26% are furloughed. So the number of people working before the recent call for a return to work, was somewhere in the high 60s.
So even money is 2
2/1 is 3
7/2 is 4.5
etc -
i.e. it is total return inc stake.
Another example of The System.
You can jerrymander numbers however you like to try and pretend things are better in England and that the Tories are doing a good job and those uppity Scots better watch their manners or else , we know the reality.
You can't do social distancing for 30 kids in the current classrooms. So they are being set out for 15 students.
So the teaching assistants will take half the kids into the classroom next door, etc.
Not all the students are returning, remember - only certain years. So you have less children that way.
Try to think in percentage terms too. So, a 9/1 shot has exactly a 10% chance of winning (unless I've backed it, of course!)
I also believe is that it will have remarkably little relevance to anything.
I further believe that some people will think it the most important thing in the world.
These people will be wasting oxygen.
Where there is particular pressure on patient lists, owing to a growing population, or retiring GPs, a CCG would certainly consider services being provided by a new entrant. However it is worth noting that GP practices with only a single GP are, for several reasons, uncommon. So a single GP moving to a new area is likely to join an existing practice rather than start a new one.
What will be interesting, is if Starmer ever leads preferred PM.