You've got to give Johnson credit for caving in quickly and not letting this become a bigger issue.
Yep. Theresa May would not have done this. Johnson has done the right thing.
Starmer has developed quite an interesting tactic at PMQs. Its not just Punch and Judy, or even a QC forensically questioning a hapless suspect.
Starmer is using PMQs in a way that I cannot recall in recent times. He is using it to lead the agenda. First this reverse on policy, but also the heffalump trap set for 1 June if we do not have an effective Tracing system in place.
You can just close your eyes and see the advisors trying to get some pretence of that in place for that deadline. Meanwhile the heffalump will blunder into another one.
Its like watching my cat play with a mouse. Gripping and appalling at the same time.
I think Starmer is seeking to build a narrative for the time when the really tough decsions have to be made. It's all about framing Johnson as out of touch, reactive and not on top of his brief. He happens to be winning the bouts each week as well, but that is by the by. The hope, I suspect, is that when lockdown does end, when the furlough is wound down and when no deal with the EU gets closer, people will see the calls the government makes in a very different light because they do not trust the government to make the right calls.
One of the long term implications of corona is how people fed up with the terrible mainstream news coverage have turned to alternative news sources.
This is the most interesting thing I've read on the crisis for a while, even though I suppose I am a lockdown sceptic.
Its also interesting that prof Gupta chose Unherd to do this interview. But her analysis is persuasive.
It is a good video, addressing head on the issue I raised here this morning.
The irony is that, if she is right, the government’s initial ‘shield the elderly whilst everyone else carries on’ policy, which lasted only days until the Imperial model blew it out of the water, would have been the correct one.
Imperial are crap. The last time they actually got something correct we probably still had the Empire.
I see my comparison of Boris Johnson's performance as PMQs yesterday to Crassus at Carrhae has stood the test of time.
Not a lot of people know this but the emperor Caracalla was murdered by a pissed off soldier while taking a shit behind a bush at Carrhae (modern Harran) in 217AD.
Just thought I would give you that for your stock of Carrhae similes in case it becomes relevant at a future point in Boris's career.
Thanks.
I do wonder if the Brexiteers will end up making Boris Johnson into their Emperor Valerian. Boris Johnson the human footstool eh?
You've got to give Johnson credit for caving in quickly and not letting this become a bigger issue.
Yep. Theresa May would not have done this. Johnson has done the right thing.
Starmer has developed quite an interesting tactic at PMQs. Its not just Punch and Judy, or even a QC forensically questioning a hapless suspect.
Starmer is using PMQs in a way that I cannot recall in recent times. He is using it to lead the agenda. First this reverse on policy, but also the heffalump trap set for 1 June if we do not have an effective Tracing system in place.
You can just close your eyes and see the advisors trying to get some pretence of that in place for that deadline. Meanwhile the heffalump will blunder into another one.
Its like watching my cat play with a mouse. Gripping and appalling at the same time.
I think Starmer is seeking to build a narrative for the time when the really tough decsions have to be made. It's all about framing Johnson as out of touch, reactive and not on top of his brief. He happens to be winning the bouts each week as well, but that is by the by. The hope, I suspect, is that when lockdown does end, when the furlough is wound down and when no deal with the EU gets closer, people will see the calls the government makes in a very different light because they do not trust the government to make the right calls.
The key word here might be "reactive". If we take the theory that Boris isn't too bothered what happens, as long as he gets to be PM, and that Dom sees the role of government as Delivering The WIll Of The People, the last couple of days make sense. Flip and flop in response to changing public moods. It's textbook good populism.
There are two ways it might go wrong. One is if the GBP decide they don't want a government that reflects their own sentimental flips and flops. The other is if a pattern establishes where BoJo is in office, but policy-wise is continually responding to SKS's questions. What's the point of that?
London = 17% with antibodies with lockdown. Stockholm = 7% with antibodies with no lockdown.
Our lockdown was pretty lax and a lot of people got it early on.
Not necessarily.
The Oxford analysis asks why such low and uneven rates of antibodies are showing up in all populations regardless of lockdown, considering how infectious the disease is.
Their conclusion is that for many, many people Corona is simply a non event. They have immunity genetically or from colds/flu, the disease passes them by and they do not show antibodies.
Oxford estimates this could be up to 50% of a given population. Which makes a 17% antibody reading extraordinarily high. Its more like 35% of the remaining population.
Why are Gupta and co going public today? because thy are convinced their model is right.
I'm curious how many people objecting to double taxation in this thread have the same view with inheritance taxes?
Personally I've never cared about such arguments because I know HMRC finds a dozen ways to tax us by breakfast so two is neither here nor there.
Indeed. I've never heard them complain even once about double, triple, quadruple, or quintuple taxation when it comes to all their favoured envy taxes - stamp duty, capital gains, IHT, mansion tax, land value tax etc etc...
Trump essentially won the Whitehouse by winning these 3 states. If the election follows these polls, it means Trump would have to gain a non trivial state to remain president.
If Trump holds Pennsylvania but loses Wisconsin and Michigan he narrowly wins the Electoral College if he holds the other Trump voting states from 2016
Trump may have a chance of taking New Hampshire, Maine, Minnesota from the Democrats. The demographics suit him in all those states, whereas Arizona is moving in the other direction.
Arizona always gets mentioned as moving to the Democrats because of the demographics but here is the thing. If you look at vote share, the Democrat share of the vote has been remarkably stable for every election since 2000 in a 44-45% range despite the changing composition of the state. What happened last time was that Trump lost over 5% of vote share. Over 4% went to the Libertarian candidate. I would imagine there is a good chance Trump can claw some of that back in 2020.
I don't understand the justification for a surcharge anyway. Don't immigrants pay for the NHS through their taxes, the same as the rest of us?
Lots of things are unjustified. But if people are willing to pay...
Most immigrants will also pay for the NHS at the point of use, as overseas visitors...
Not if they're paying the surcharge they don't, do they?
If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS.
Apart from being immigrants, they should pay more why again?
No, most people are not paying for the NHS, not really. Very few actually pay for the NHS. 30% of all income tax is paid by just 1% of the country.
If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS, as I said.
So why should immigrants pay more just because they're immigrants, again?
No you are wrong. Most people do not pay for the NHS, the rich paying lots of tax pays for the NHS and we all get to enjoy it whether we're rich or not. Just because you're not paying much in taxes doesn't stop you getting treated.
Immigrants should pay more because they're choosing to come here so should make a contribution, just as if I went overseas I would need to make a contribution or buy insurance.
But earlier you were mentioning about discrimination. Now you support discrimination on the basis somebody is an immigrant.
Your argument is ridiculous. You pay to come here, you work full time and pay taxes as every other citizen, yet you ask them to pay again.
If you become a British citizen you're no longer charged, so apart from a bit of paper, what difference is there? Why does one pay twice and the other not?
On insurance, it's not really a valid comparison. You don't pay for healthcare twice abroad, you pay once as every person does.
Its not discrimination its free CHOICE and I believe in choice.
Everyone in this country who is a citizen is treated the same universally.
Anyone who CHOOSES to come here is welcome. There is a fee to be paid to contribute to society to buy in to our universal healthcare system.
How can you possibly believe that? Very few people from outside this country are able to choose to come here. A number that will become even smaller from next year. Only the very rich or a small number of people who work in the shortage occupations list.
Seems strange London should see one quarter of the deaths of New York City while having nearly twice the infection rate.
Someone's not measuring this right.
That's not necessarily true.
First, viral load matters. It may be that New York has some particular features, say high rise blocks with crowded lifts where people all press the same buttons, and where received viral loads could be very high.
Secondly, demographics matter. London has a median age of 33.8 (apparently), Queens is 39.2. And older Londoners don't tend to live in high rises.
Thirdly, the UK has better public health provision and better social services. Sick people will have tried to go out to work in New York in a way that won't have happened in London.
Now, do all these things add up to a 3x difference? Seems unlikely. But it's certainly possible.
One of the long term implications of corona is how people fed up with the terrible mainstream news coverage have turned to alternative news sources.
This is the most interesting thing I've read on the crisis for a while, even though I suppose I am a lockdown sceptic.
Its also interesting that prof Gupta chose Unherd to do this interview. But her analysis is persuasive.
It is a good video, addressing head on the issue I raised here this morning.
The irony is that, if she is right, the government’s initial ‘shield the elderly whilst everyone else carries on’ policy, which lasted only days until the Imperial model blew it out of the water, would have been the correct one.
Absolutely. And why are Oxford going public today? because they are more convinced than ever their analysis is right. They have followed the patterns in every case and they are the same.
The illness runs out of steam very quickly but leaves few with antibodies.
Why? because enormous amounts of people have a natural immunity.
I don't understand the justification for a surcharge anyway. Don't immigrants pay for the NHS through their taxes, the same as the rest of us?
Lots of things are unjustified. But if people are willing to pay...
Most immigrants will also pay for the NHS at the point of use, as overseas visitors...
Not if they're paying the surcharge they don't, do they?
If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS.
Apart from being immigrants, they should pay more why again?
No, most people are not paying for the NHS, not really. Very few actually pay for the NHS. 30% of all income tax is paid by just 1% of the country.
If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS, as I said.
So why should immigrants pay more just because they're immigrants, again?
No you are wrong. Most people do not pay for the NHS, the rich paying lots of tax pays for the NHS and we all get to enjoy it whether we're rich or not. Just because you're not paying much in taxes doesn't stop you getting treated.
Immigrants should pay more because they're choosing to come here so should make a contribution, just as if I went overseas I would need to make a contribution or buy insurance.
But earlier you were mentioning about discrimination. Now you support discrimination on the basis somebody is an immigrant.
Your argument is ridiculous. You pay to come here, you work full time and pay taxes as every other citizen, yet you ask them to pay again.
If you become a British citizen you're no longer charged, so apart from a bit of paper, what difference is there? Why does one pay twice and the other not?
On insurance, it's not really a valid comparison. You don't pay for healthcare twice abroad, you pay once as every person does.
Its not discrimination its free CHOICE and I believe in choice.
Everyone in this country who is a citizen is treated the same universally.
Anyone who CHOOSES to come here is welcome. There is a fee to be paid to contribute to society to buy in to our universal healthcare system.
How can you possibly believe that? Very few people from outside this country are able to choose to come here. A number that will become even smaller from next year. Only the very rich or a small number of people who work in the shortage occupations list.
A quarter of a million more people who chose to come here than chose to leave last year. Rather consistently with previous years.
Every single one chose to be here. Barring criminal underground slave trafficking they weren't pressganged and made to come here.
You've got to give Johnson credit for caving in quickly and not letting this become a bigger issue.
Yep. Theresa May would not have done this. Johnson has done the right thing.
Starmer has developed quite an interesting tactic at PMQs. Its not just Punch and Judy, or even a QC forensically questioning a hapless suspect.
Starmer is using PMQs in a way that I cannot recall in recent times. He is using it to lead the agenda. First this reverse on policy, but also the heffalump trap set for 1 June if we do not have an effective Tracing system in place.
You can just close your eyes and see the advisors trying to get some pretence of that in place for that deadline. Meanwhile the heffalump will blunder into another one.
Its like watching my cat play with a mouse. Gripping and appalling at the same time.
I think Starmer is seeking to build a narrative for the time when the really tough decsions have to be made. It's all about framing Johnson as out of touch, reactive and not on top of his brief. He happens to be winning the bouts each week as well, but that is by the by. The hope, I suspect, is that when lockdown does end, when the furlough is wound down and when no deal with the EU gets closer, people will see the calls the government makes in a very different light because they do not trust the government to make the right calls.
The key word here might be "reactive". If we take the theory that Boris isn't too bothered what happens, as long as he gets to be PM, and that Dom sees the role of government as Delivering The WIll Of The People, the last couple of days make sense. Flip and flop in response to changing public moods. It's textbook good populism.
There are two ways it might go wrong. One is if the GBP decide they don't want a government that reflects their own sentimental flips and flops. The other is if a pattern establishes where BoJo is in office, but policy-wise is continually responding to SKS's questions. What's the point of that?
The government is going to have to make some very tough decisions at the back end of this year around the economy and spending, as well as the no deal with the EU we are heading towards. There is a level of populism you can employ - blame the foreigners, the liberal elites and the BBC, etc - but that only gets you so far. You also have to manage the consequences. Starmer is laying the ground for all that, not least because he is bound to be vulnerable on the populist stuff.
You've got to give Johnson credit for caving in quickly and not letting this become a bigger issue.
Yep. Theresa May would not have done this. Johnson has done the right thing.
Starmer has developed quite an interesting tactic at PMQs. Its not just Punch and Judy, or even a QC forensically questioning a hapless suspect.
Starmer is using PMQs in a way that I cannot recall in recent times. He is using it to lead the agenda. First this reverse on policy, but also the heffalump trap set for 1 June if we do not have an effective Tracing system in place.
You can just close your eyes and see the advisors trying to get some pretence of that in place for that deadline. Meanwhile the heffalump will blunder into another one.
Its like watching my cat play with a mouse. Gripping and appalling at the same time.
Starmer has an effective PMQs technique where he analyses Johnson's answer to the previous question before moving onto the next. This gives him apparent control over the discussion. If you don't listen carefully you might think. Starmer, not Johnson, was PM
One of the long term implications of corona is how people fed up with the terrible mainstream news coverage have turned to alternative news sources.
This is the most interesting thing I've read on the crisis for a while, even though I suppose I am a lockdown sceptic.
Its also interesting that prof Gupta chose Unherd to do this interview. But her analysis is persuasive.
It is a good video, addressing head on the issue I raised here this morning.
The irony is that, if she is right, the government’s initial ‘shield the elderly whilst everyone else carries on’ policy, which lasted only days until the Imperial model blew it out of the water, would have been the correct one.
Absolutely. And why are Oxford going public today? because they are more convinced than ever their analysis is right. They have followed the patterns in every case and they are the same.
The illness runs out of steam very quickly but leaves few with antibodies.
Why? because enormous amounts of people have a natural immunity.
If right, its astonishing stuff.
Isn't it obvious why the infection runs out of steam (hint: millions of people don't leave their home anymore). Don't the rates of illness and death in closed systems like cruise ships tell us that it's unlikely that we've all had it without noticing?
Sunetra Gupta, Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at Oxford University:
"Asked what her updated estimate for the Infection Fatality Rate is, Professor Gupta says, “I think that the epidemic has largely come and is on its way out in this country so I think it would be definitely less than 1 in 1000 and probably closer to 1 in 10,000.” That would be somewhere between 0.1% and 0.01%."
We have a population of 67 million and 36 000 confirmed Covid deaths (plus excess deaths) so we already have lost 0.05% of the population, assuming 100% of the population infected.
As we are nowhere near 100% infected, then surely 0.01% is impossible, or have I slipped a decimal place somewhere?
Your maths is fine, so 0.01% is gone. However 0.1% is up for grabs and strictly speaking we are currently between 0.1 and 0.01 %.
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
On the U-turn, I suspect the reality is that Boris was advised by the Whips today that more than 40 Tory backbenchers may support Starmer's amendment to the immigration bill removing the surcharge. I don't believe he really changed his mind just because of Starmer's questioning at PMQs; yesterday, Boris was not inclined to change. Still a victory for Starmer, though.
One of the long term implications of corona is how people fed up with the terrible mainstream news coverage have turned to alternative news sources.
This is the most interesting thing I've read on the crisis for a while, even though I suppose I am a lockdown sceptic.
Its also interesting that prof Gupta chose Unherd to do this interview. But her analysis is persuasive.
It is a good video, addressing head on the issue I raised here this morning.
The irony is that, if she is right, the government’s initial ‘shield the elderly whilst everyone else carries on’ policy, which lasted only days until the Imperial model blew it out of the water, would have been the correct one.
Absolutely. And why are Oxford going public today? because they are more convinced than ever their analysis is right. They have followed the patterns in every case and they are the same.
The illness runs out of steam very quickly but leaves few with antibodies.
Why? because enormous amounts of people have a natural immunity.
If right, its astonishing stuff.
Isn't it obvious why the infection runs out of steam (hint: millions of people don't leave their home anymore). Don't the rates of illness and death in closed systems like cruise ships tell us that it's unlikely that we've all had it without noticing?
Not really - a lot of people on the diamond princess didn't get ill. No idea if they have antibodies now, but I am very hopeful for the latent immunity idea, and the data that is coming out suggests something is odd. London with virtually no new cases at 17% having had the virus? The lockdown's not that good.
And everyone I infect, and everyone they infect, and everyone they infect, is just going to have to accept that. Everyone has the right to judge how much their conscience can take. My freedom trumps their health and even their life. It’s a fundamental principle.
PBers may be interested to know that tomorrow is likely to see the first political casualty of COVID-19
At the last NZ election, National won most seats but 2nd place Labour formed a coalition with the Greens and NZ First. Simon Bridges became new leader of National.
Prior to the pandemic there was a clear pattern in the polls with National still ahead on party share, but Jacinda Ardern having a clear lead on preferred PM.
Post-pandemic there has been a clear shift with Labour shooting up to the mid 50s (and potentially winning outright) and National down to about 30%.
Bridges has now been challenged by former businessman Todd Muller and the caucus will decide tomorrow. With the next election due in September, I think Bridges is toast. What will give National a bit of encouragement is that Ardern was herself a late switch in before the last election.
I don't understand the justification for a surcharge anyway. Don't immigrants pay for the NHS through their taxes, the same as the rest of us?
Lots of things are unjustified. But if people are willing to pay...
Most immigrants will also pay for the NHS at the point of use, as overseas visitors...
Not if they're paying the surcharge they don't, do they?
If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS.
Apart from being immigrants, they should pay more why again?
No, most people are not paying for the NHS, not really. Very few actually pay for the NHS. 30% of all income tax is paid by just 1% of the country.
If you pay taxes, you're paying for the NHS, as I said.
So why should immigrants pay more just because they're immigrants, again?
No you are wrong. Most people do not pay for the NHS, the rich paying lots of tax pays for the NHS and we all get to enjoy it whether we're rich or not. Just because you're not paying much in taxes doesn't stop you getting treated.
Immigrants should pay more because they're choosing to come here so should make a contribution, just as if I went overseas I would need to make a contribution or buy insurance.
But earlier you were mentioning about discrimination. Now you support discrimination on the basis somebody is an immigrant.
Your argument is ridiculous. You pay to come here, you work full time and pay taxes as every other citizen, yet you ask them to pay again.
If you become a British citizen you're no longer charged, so apart from a bit of paper, what difference is there? Why does one pay twice and the other not?
On insurance, it's not really a valid comparison. You don't pay for healthcare twice abroad, you pay once as every person does.
Its not discrimination its free CHOICE and I believe in choice.
Everyone in this country who is a citizen is treated the same universally.
Anyone who CHOOSES to come here is welcome. There is a fee to be paid to contribute to society to buy in to our universal healthcare system.
How can you possibly believe that? Very few people from outside this country are able to choose to come here. A number that will become even smaller from next year. Only the very rich or a small number of people who work in the shortage occupations list.
A quarter of a million more people who chose to come here than chose to leave last year. Rather consistently with previous years.
Every single one chose to be here. Barring criminal underground slave trafficking they weren't pressganged and made to come here.
There were 194,746 visas and permits granted for family reasons in the year ending March 2020. So for the largest part they were people who were lucky enough to have family here or were family members of those coming here. A large proportion of those were children.
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
I do not expext an election before the first half of 2024 but their poll ratings are already in the 46% - 49% range.
I'm curious how many people objecting to double taxation in this thread have the same view with inheritance taxes?
Personally I've never cared about such arguments because I know HMRC finds a dozen ways to tax us by breakfast so two is neither here nor there.
Indeed. I've never heard them complain even once about double, triple, quadruple, or quintuple taxation when it comes to all their favoured envy taxes - stamp duty, capital gains, IHT, mansion tax, land value tax etc etc...
Has little to do with multiple taxation. The principle is that citizenship carries monetary value. If you do not possess it you must pay for services that are free to those who do. If you accept the principle there is no particular logic to exempting health workers.
17% Londoners have had the Rona, according to antibodies tests. More than Stockholm?
Can’t be true. We’ve just been told that almost everyone has had it in the entire country, and thus the 50,000-odd deaths reflect a one-in-a-thousand death rate.
If only one in six of the worst hit place in the country have had it, that estimate would be total bollocks, and as so many of us don’t want to believe it, that must be wrong.
One of the long term implications of corona is how people fed up with the terrible mainstream news coverage have turned to alternative news sources.
This is the most interesting thing I've read on the crisis for a while, even though I suppose I am a lockdown sceptic.
Its also interesting that prof Gupta chose Unherd to do this interview. But her analysis is persuasive.
It is a good video, addressing head on the issue I raised here this morning.
The irony is that, if she is right, the government’s initial ‘shield the elderly whilst everyone else carries on’ policy, which lasted only days until the Imperial model blew it out of the water, would have been the correct one.
Absolutely. And why are Oxford going public today? because they are more convinced than ever their analysis is right. They have followed the patterns in every case and they are the same.
The illness runs out of steam very quickly but leaves few with antibodies.
Why? because enormous amounts of people have a natural immunity.
If right, its astonishing stuff.
Isn't it obvious why the infection runs out of steam (hint: millions of people don't leave their home anymore).
Don't the rates of illness and death in closed systems like cruise ships tell us that it's unlikely that we've all had it without noticing?
Maybe, but lets face it cruise ships are far from a proper cross section of the community.
That for me is quite a good number. Don't know if others feel the same?
No it's not good at all. Across the UK herd immunity would need about ten times as many cases as there have been according to that data. So you are looking at half a million dead to reach that goal if you were so inclined.
We have surpressed the number of infections, but COVID-19 is as deadly as we feared it was.
Taking this data the iceberg in the UK is around 17:1, better than the 10:1 rule of thumb from other surveys, but still nowhere near the 100:1 scenario needed to save our bacon.
One of the long term implications of corona is how people fed up with the terrible mainstream news coverage have turned to alternative news sources.
This is the most interesting thing I've read on the crisis for a while, even though I suppose I am a lockdown sceptic.
Its also interesting that prof Gupta chose Unherd to do this interview. But her analysis is persuasive.
It is a good video, addressing head on the issue I raised here this morning.
The irony is that, if she is right, the government’s initial ‘shield the elderly whilst everyone else carries on’ policy, which lasted only days until the Imperial model blew it out of the water, would have been the correct one.
Absolutely. And why are Oxford going public today? because they are more convinced than ever their analysis is right. They have followed the patterns in every case and they are the same.
The illness runs out of steam very quickly but leaves few with antibodies.
Why? because enormous amounts of people have a natural immunity.
If right, its astonishing stuff.
Isn't it obvious why the infection runs out of steam (hint: millions of people don't leave their home anymore).
Don't the rates of illness and death in closed systems like cruise ships tell us that it's unlikely that we've all had it without noticing?
Maybe, but lets face it cruise ships are far from a proper cross section of the community.
I'd imagine their crews are closer to a cross section? Are there comparisons of infection rates between crew and passenger?
One of the long term implications of corona is how people fed up with the terrible mainstream news coverage have turned to alternative news sources.
This is the most interesting thing I've read on the crisis for a while, even though I suppose I am a lockdown sceptic.
Its also interesting that prof Gupta chose Unherd to do this interview. But her analysis is persuasive.
It is a good video, addressing head on the issue I raised here this morning.
The irony is that, if she is right, the government’s initial ‘shield the elderly whilst everyone else carries on’ policy, which lasted only days until the Imperial model blew it out of the water, would have been the correct one.
Absolutely. And why are Oxford going public today? because they are more convinced than ever their analysis is right. They have followed the patterns in every case and they are the same.
The illness runs out of steam very quickly but leaves few with antibodies.
Why? because enormous amounts of people have a natural immunity.
Trump essentially won the Whitehouse by winning these 3 states. If the election follows these polls, it means Trump would have to gain a non trivial state to remain president.
If Trump holds Pennsylvania but loses Wisconsin and Michigan he narrowly wins the Electoral College if he holds the other Trump voting states from 2016
Trump may have a chance of taking New Hampshire, Maine, Minnesota from the Democrats. The demographics suit him in all those states, whereas Arizona is moving in the other direction.
Arizona always gets mentioned as moving to the Democrats because of the demographics but here is the thing. If you look at vote share, the Democrat share of the vote has been remarkably stable for every election since 2000 in a 44-45% range despite the changing composition of the state. What happened last time was that Trump lost over 5% of vote share. Over 4% went to the Libertarian candidate. I would imagine there is a good chance Trump can claw some of that back in 2020.
Arizona also has a popular Republican Governor.
That being said, while the headline Presidential shares have barely shifted over the last twenty years, the Republicans have steadily - if slowly - lost ground at the State level. Twenty years ago, none of the state level offices were held by Democrats, and neither of the Senators.
Now while the Governor and the Treasurer are still Republican, many of the other state level offices are now in the hands of the Democrats.
I don't think AZ will flip to the Democrats this time, and I wouldn't be surprised if Trump won some of the Libertarian vote. But I would expect the Dems to get into the upper 40s from the lower 40s. And I would expect them to flip the Senate seat too.
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Of course it will, it has a majority of 80, even the Major and Callaghan governments lasted 5 years with barely any majority at all
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Of course it will, it has a majority of 80, even the Major and Callaghan governments lasted 5 years with barely any majority at all
How will it last 5 years? In less than 4 years time there has to be a general election
I'm curious how many people objecting to double taxation in this thread have the same view with inheritance taxes?
Personally I've never cared about such arguments because I know HMRC finds a dozen ways to tax us by breakfast so two is neither here nor there.
Indeed. I've never heard them complain even once about double, triple, quadruple, or quintuple taxation when it comes to all their favoured envy taxes - stamp duty, capital gains, IHT, mansion tax, land value tax etc etc...
Tax should be simple, broad based and hard to avoid.
The art is to pluck the most feathers while causing the least hissing
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Of course it will, it has a majority of 80, even the Major and Callaghan governments lasted 5 years with barely any majority at all
Agreed.
No matter how incompetent,or how bad things get it will survive till 2024
I can't agree with this u-turn for NHS workers. The idea of the surcharge seemed a bit silly anyway if it was solely for the NHS. What about other public services?
If it is to be removed it should be for all migrants whether or not they work in the NHS. We can't put NHS workers on a unique pedestal.
David Starkey has a point - it's possible the reasons care homes have fared so badly might be because they aren't part of the NHS - and treated as of secondary importance.
17% Londoners have had the Rona, according to antibodies tests. More than Stockholm?
Can’t be true. We’ve just been told that almost everyone has had it in the entire country, and thus the 50,000-odd deaths reflect a one-in-a-thousand death rate.
If only one in six of the worst hit place in the country have had it, that estimate would be total bollocks, and as so many of us don’t want to believe it, that must be wrong.
Because wishful thinking is all we need.
Depends what yo mean by had it. The Oxford University group contends that for up to half the population the virus is just not a thing. They have immunity genetically or via colds etc, but crucially they do not show corona antibodies.
They reached this conclusion by tracking the path of the disease in many juristictions and coming to the conclusion that the pattern is 'like clockwork'
Virtually the same lockdown or no lockdown. In the end the virus does a swan dive wherever.
And please don;t shoot the messenger if you reply. This is their analysis not mine
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Of course it will, it has a majority of 80, even the Major and Callaghan governments lasted 5 years with barely any majority at all
Agreed.
No matter how incompetent,or how bad things get it will survive till 2024
Though Thatcher was removed in spite of a majority over 100 and Blair 60.
Downtown Abbey on ITV3 and the usual NHS clapathon later.
So here is a scene which Julian Fellowes unaccountably forgot to include:-
“ 'I say Carson, could you send some pans up stairs?'
'Of course, sir.'
An awkward pause.
'Please forgive the impertinence your Lordship, but might I inquire why?'
'Their Ladyships thought you might appreciate it if we banged them together for you. Thought it might help, all things considered. Lift the spirits for those below stairs.'
'... indeed sir.'
'Might be appreciated, they thought.'
'...'
'How are you all down there, anyway? Lots of subplots? Everyone mucking in?’
I can't agree with this u-turn for NHS workers. The idea of the surcharge seemed a bit silly anyway if it was solely for the NHS. What about other public services?
If it is to be removed it should be for all migrants whether or not they work in the NHS. We can't put NHS workers on a unique pedestal.
David Starkey has a point - it's possible the reasons care homes have fared so badly might be because they aren't part of the NHS - and treated as of secondary importance.
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Do you not remember John Major’s time after the 1992 election? A small and dwindling majority, indeed no majority by the end. He lasted the full five. If you mean Boris Johnson may not last the full five, yes I can see that. But the next election will only be early if the PM at the time thinks they can win.
Trump essentially won the Whitehouse by winning these 3 states. If the election follows these polls, it means Trump would have to gain a non trivial state to remain president.
If Trump holds Pennsylvania but loses Wisconsin and Michigan he narrowly wins the Electoral College if he holds the other Trump voting states from 2016
Trump may have a chance of taking New Hampshire, Maine, Minnesota from the Democrats. The demographics suit him in all those states, whereas Arizona is moving in the other direction.
That for me is quite a good number. Don't know if others feel the same?
Real immunity is likely to be far higher, if you believe the analysis of the Oxford prof on the previous thread. These antibody tests give lots of false negatives for a whole bunch of reasons.
One of the long term implications of corona is how people fed up with the terrible mainstream news coverage have turned to alternative news sources.
This is the most interesting thing I've read on the crisis for a while, even though I suppose I am a lockdown sceptic.
Its also interesting that prof Gupta chose Unherd to do this interview. But her analysis is persuasive.
It is a good video, addressing head on the issue I raised here this morning.
The irony is that, if she is right, the government’s initial ‘shield the elderly whilst everyone else carries on’ policy, which lasted only days until the Imperial model blew it out of the water, would have been the correct one.
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Of course it will, it has a majority of 80, even the Major and Callaghan governments lasted 5 years with barely any majority at all
How will it last 5 years? In less than 4 years time there has to be a general election
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Of course it will, it has a majority of 80, even the Major and Callaghan governments lasted 5 years with barely any majority at all
Agreed.
No matter how incompetent,or how bad things get it will survive till 2024
Though Thatcher was removed in spite of a majority over 100 and Blair 60.
Oh sure Boris might be replaced but the Government will survive.
I dont rate the chances of Priti being in a senior post for more than a couple of years.
London = 17% with antibodies with lockdown. Stockholm = 7% with antibodies with no lockdown.
Our lockdown was pretty lax and a lot of people got it early on.
Not necessarily.
The Oxford analysis asks why such low and uneven rates of antibodies are showing up in all populations regardless of lockdown, considering how infectious the disease is.
Their conclusion is that for many, many people Corona is simply a non event. They have immunity genetically or from colds/flu, the disease passes them by and they do not show antibodies.
Oxford estimates this could be up to 50% of a given population. Which makes a 17% antibody reading extraordinarily high. Its more like 35% of the remaining population.
Why are Gupta and co going public today? because thy are convinced their model is right.
That’s a neat exposition of her interview, which I was too lazy to do! Thanks.
If have any sense they’ll get her on tonight’s show. She is a very clear, impressive communicator.
I'm curious how many people objecting to double taxation in this thread have the same view with inheritance taxes?
Personally I've never cared about such arguments because I know HMRC finds a dozen ways to tax us by breakfast so two is neither here nor there.
Indeed. I've never heard them complain even once about double, triple, quadruple, or quintuple taxation when it comes to all their favoured envy taxes - stamp duty, capital gains, IHT, mansion tax, land value tax etc etc...
Tax should be simple, broad based and hard to avoid.
The art is to pluck the most feathers while causing the least hissing
I believe the phrase is "the maximum milk with the minimum moo"<.i>
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Of course it will, it has a majority of 80, even the Major and Callaghan governments lasted 5 years with barely any majority at all
How will it last 5 years? In less than 4 years time there has to be a general election
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
They have a majority of 80 so could easily run to term even if they were absolutely shite beyond all recognition
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Of course it will, it has a majority of 80, even the Major and Callaghan governments lasted 5 years with barely any majority at all
How will it last 5 years? In less than 4 years time there has to be a general election
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
They have a majority of 80 so could easily run to term even if they were absolutely shite beyond all recognition
The current crisis is a little out of the ordinary, to put it mildly.
That for me is quite a good number. Don't know if others feel the same?
No it's not good at all. Across the UK herd immunity would need about ten times as many cases as there have been according to that data. So you are looking at half a million dead to reach that goal if you were so inclined.
We have surpressed the number of infections, but COVID-19 is as deadly as we feared it was.
Taking this data the iceberg in the UK is around 17:1, better than the 10:1 rule of thumb from other surveys, but still nowhere near the 100:1 scenario needed to save our bacon.
Right. But I have never had belief in the iceberg so for me 17% here in London is a bit better than I feared.
The fact that the government sees it as a good thing to tax people for being foreigners is very telling. Like taxes on tobacco and alcohol, the concept is presumably to treat it as a sin tax.
But like ending freedom of movement, I expect the government sees it as a sign of how welcoming they are to immigrants.
Well it clearly doesn't put off people from coming here, does it?
Quite - no idea why they have allowed the bullying metro twitterati to bully them on this - it's not compulsary.
Put aside Brexit, which was primarily a vehicle for BJ to get himself into No 10, and I think you are going to be surprised at what sort of PM you have elected. It may take a while for the penny to drop for some but what you are going to get is going to be far closer to a Blair than Thatcher.
This 20 minute fast test could be a legitimate game changer, though. Especially if it could be scaled up and made cheap and readily available.
I am not sure if Abbott have fixed thir problem, but this was the issue before:
"The test “performed equivalent to the other platforms with patients that had high and moderate loads of virus,” said Alan Wells, a pathologist who directs the clinical laboratories at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. “However, with lower loads of virus, a large fraction of these patients were not detected as positive.” Wells ran a validation of the test compared with stored samples that had been tested on other platforms."
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Of course it will, it has a majority of 80, even the Major and Callaghan governments lasted 5 years with barely any majority at all
How will it last 5 years? In less than 4 years time there has to be a general election
5 years from December 2019 ie until late 2024
Thanks for confirming you don't check things even after being called out for posting complete, obvious and easily checkable rubbish - it's Boris's most obvious shortcoming and one that both you and Peter_Thompson also fall for - which makes actually debating with you completely pointless.
That for me is quite a good number. Don't know if others feel the same?
Real immunity is likely to be far higher, if you believe the analysis of the Oxford prof on the previous thread. These antibody tests give lots of false negatives for a whole bunch of reasons.
I'm not buying that analysis but I hope it proves to be right.
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Of course it will, it has a majority of 80, even the Major and Callaghan governments lasted 5 years with barely any majority at all
How will it last 5 years? In less than 4 years time there has to be a general election
5 years from December 2019 ie until late 2024
Thanks for confirming you don't check things even after being called out for posting complete, obvious and easily checkable rubbish - it's Boris's most obvious shortcoming and one that both you and Peter_Thompson also fall for - which makes actually debating with you completely pointless.
How about, the parliament will go the full term - to May 2024, unless we finally find a way to rid ourselves of the FTPA?
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Of course it will, it has a majority of 80, even the Major and Callaghan governments lasted 5 years with barely any majority at all
How will it last 5 years? In less than 4 years time there has to be a general election
5 years from December 2019 ie until late 2024
Thanks for confirming you don't check things even after being called out for posting complete, obvious and easily checkable rubbish - it's Boris's most obvious shortcoming and one that both you and Peter_Thompson also fall for - which makes actually debating with you completely pointless.
Thanks for confirming my original point stands absolutely and you cannot dispute it, the parliament will last 5 years
That for me is quite a good number. Don't know if others feel the same?
No it's not good at all. Across the UK herd immunity would need about ten times as many cases as there have been according to that data. So you are looking at half a million dead to reach that goal if you were so inclined.
We have surpressed the number of infections, but COVID-19 is as deadly as we feared it was.
Taking this data the iceberg in the UK is around 17:1, better than the 10:1 rule of thumb from other surveys, but still nowhere near the 100:1 scenario needed to save our bacon.
Right. But I have never had belief in the iceberg so for me 17% here in London is a bit better than I feared.
Okay. Yes it's certainly a little better than some other surveys have suggested, although I dare say there is quite a wide confidence interval, so it might end up more in line with other previous reports.
Getting a lot more antibody tests done is going to be crucial to nailing down where we stand, but I'm fairly sure we aren't going to find the damn thing is almost over.
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Of course it will, it has a majority of 80, even the Major and Callaghan governments lasted 5 years with barely any majority at all
How will it last 5 years? In less than 4 years time there has to be a general election
5 years from December 2019 ie until late 2024
Thanks for confirming you don't check things even after being called out for posting complete, obvious and easily checkable rubbish - it's Boris's most obvious shortcoming and one that both you and Peter_Thompson also fall for - which makes actually debating with you completely pointless.
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Of course it will, it has a majority of 80, even the Major and Callaghan governments lasted 5 years with barely any majority at all
How will it last 5 years? In less than 4 years time there has to be a general election
5 years from December 2019 ie until late 2024
Thanks for confirming you don't check things even after being called out for posting complete, obvious and easily checkable rubbish - it's Boris's most obvious shortcoming and one that both you and Peter_Thompson also fall for - which makes actually debating with you completely pointless.
How about, the parliament will go the full term - to May 2024, unless we finally find a way to rid ourselves of the FTPA?
Maybe an obvious thing to say, but I don't think anyone wants another December election which means this parliament will probably last 4 and a half years at most instead of 5 years.
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Of course it will, it has a majority of 80, even the Major and Callaghan governments lasted 5 years with barely any majority at all
How will it last 5 years? In less than 4 years time there has to be a general election
5 years from December 2019 ie until late 2024
Thanks for confirming you don't check things even after being called out for posting complete, obvious and easily checkable rubbish - it's Boris's most obvious shortcoming and one that both you and Peter_Thompson also fall for - which makes actually debating with you completely pointless.
How about, the parliament will go the full term - to May 2024, unless we finally find a way to rid ourselves of the FTPA?
Both parties said they would, unwanted complexities notwithstanding that means its toast.
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Of course it will, it has a majority of 80, even the Major and Callaghan governments lasted 5 years with barely any majority at all
How will it last 5 years? In less than 4 years time there has to be a general election
5 years from December 2019 ie until late 2024
Thanks for confirming you don't check things even after being called out for posting complete, obvious and easily checkable rubbish - it's Boris's most obvious shortcoming and one that both you and Peter_Thompson also fall for - which makes actually debating with you completely pointless.
Thanks for confirming my original point stands absolutely and you cannot dispute it, the parliament will last 5 years
Perhaps all people wanted to do was take back control. They don't mind immigration - its uncontrolled immigration they don't like.
A country that can't determine who it lets into its borders and who it doesn't is no longer a sovereign nation.
Do you believe that the average Brexit Party/UKIP supporter (ie at least half of the leave vote) will be delighted to see non-EU immigration rising steeply? Do you really think they were arguing to take back control of our borders so we can have lots more non-EU immigrants than EU immigrants?
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Of course it will, it has a majority of 80, even the Major and Callaghan governments lasted 5 years with barely any majority at all
How will it last 5 years? In less than 4 years time there has to be a general election
5 years from December 2019 ie until late 2024
Thanks for confirming you don't check things even after being called out for posting complete, obvious and easily checkable rubbish - it's Boris's most obvious shortcoming and one that both you and Peter_Thompson also fall for - which makes actually debating with you completely pointless.
Thanks for confirming my original point stands absolutely and you cannot dispute it, the parliament will last 5 years
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Of course it will, it has a majority of 80, even the Major and Callaghan governments lasted 5 years with barely any majority at all
How will it last 5 years? In less than 4 years time there has to be a general election
5 years from December 2019 ie until late 2024
Thanks for confirming you don't check things even after being called out for posting complete, obvious and easily checkable rubbish - it's Boris's most obvious shortcoming and one that both you and Peter_Thompson also fall for - which makes actually debating with you completely pointless.
Thanks for confirming my original point stands absolutely and you cannot dispute it, the parliament will last 5 years
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Of course it will, it has a majority of 80, even the Major and Callaghan governments lasted 5 years with barely any majority at all
How will it last 5 years? In less than 4 years time there has to be a general election
5 years from December 2019 ie until late 2024
Thanks for confirming you don't check things even after being called out for posting complete, obvious and easily checkable rubbish - it's Boris's most obvious shortcoming and one that both you and Peter_Thompson also fall for - which makes actually debating with you completely pointless.
Thanks for confirming my original point stands absolutely and you cannot dispute it, the parliament will last 5 years
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Do you not remember John Major’s time after the 1992 election? A small and dwindling majority, indeed no majority by the end. He lasted the full five. If you mean Boris Johnson may not last the full five, yes I can see that. But the next election will only be early if the PM at the time thinks they can win.
Quite. Andy has this weird blindspot where the theoretical possibility of the gov not lasting a full term is hugely overblown by extrapolating from some bad months, when it's quite possible to eke it out for ages. It's a huge majority, by elections are rare now and even at the height of brexit delirium the defections were not huge, and a flailing government on track to lose will hold out as long as it can.
Sunetra Gupta, Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at Oxford University:
"Asked what her updated estimate for the Infection Fatality Rate is, Professor Gupta says, “I think that the epidemic has largely come and is on its way out in this country so I think it would be definitely less than 1 in 1000 and probably closer to 1 in 10,000.” That would be somewhere between 0.1% and 0.01%."
We have a population of 67 million and 36 000 confirmed Covid deaths (plus excess deaths) so we already have lost 0.05% of the population, assuming 100% of the population infected.
As we are nowhere near 100% infected, then surely 0.01% is impossible, or have I slipped a decimal place somewhere?
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Of course it will, it has a majority of 80, even the Major and Callaghan governments lasted 5 years with barely any majority at all
How will it last 5 years? In less than 4 years time there has to be a general election
5 years from December 2019 ie until late 2024
Thanks for confirming you don't check things even after being called out for posting complete, obvious and easily checkable rubbish - it's Boris's most obvious shortcoming and one that both you and Peter_Thompson also fall for - which makes actually debating with you completely pointless.
Thanks for confirming my original point stands absolutely and you cannot dispute it, the parliament will last 5 years
No it won't. It will last a full term but just 4.5 years probably.
It can only last 5 if the FTPA is repealed and the government chooses to drag things out until December. Which would be a very bad thing, that would only happen if the government was really trailing in the polls.
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Of course it will, it has a majority of 80, even the Major and Callaghan governments lasted 5 years with barely any majority at all
How will it last 5 years? In less than 4 years time there has to be a general election
5 years from December 2019 ie until late 2024
Thanks for confirming you don't check things even after being called out for posting complete, obvious and easily checkable rubbish - it's Boris's most obvious shortcoming and one that both you and Peter_Thompson also fall for - which makes actually debating with you completely pointless.
Thanks for confirming my original point stands absolutely and you cannot dispute it, the parliament will last 5 years
It will last from 2019 to 2024 ie a 5 year Government
Once again 4 years and less than 5 months isn't 5 years.
Hyufd taking his 'I've never made even the slightest, most meaningless mistake of inexact terminology as I am a perfect human being' approach strongly.
'You're the problem! You're the fucking problem you fucking Dr White honkin' jam-rag fucking spunk-bubble! I'm telling you Aitch you keep looking at me I'll put you in the fucking ground, promise you!'
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Of course it will, it has a majority of 80, even the Major and Callaghan governments lasted 5 years with barely any majority at all
How will it last 5 years? In less than 4 years time there has to be a general election
5 years from December 2019 ie until late 2024
Thanks for confirming you don't check things even after being called out for posting complete, obvious and easily checkable rubbish - it's Boris's most obvious shortcoming and one that both you and Peter_Thompson also fall for - which makes actually debating with you completely pointless.
I love that you managed to accidentally get another poster's name wrong in the middle of complaining about other people not bothering to check their facts.
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Of course it will, it has a majority of 80, even the Major and Callaghan governments lasted 5 years with barely any majority at all
How will it last 5 years? In less than 4 years time there has to be a general election
5 years from December 2019 ie until late 2024
Thanks for confirming you don't check things even after being called out for posting complete, obvious and easily checkable rubbish - it's Boris's most obvious shortcoming and one that both you and Peter_Thompson also fall for - which makes actually debating with you completely pointless.
How about, the parliament will go the full term - to May 2024, unless we finally find a way to rid ourselves of the FTPA?
Maybe an obvious thing to say, but I don't think anyone wants another December election which means this parliament will probably last 4 and a half years at most instead of 5 years.
This December election worked out fine for at least two parties on comparable turnout to recent other GEs. I expect they'll want to get something back around May again, but I could see them seeking to stretch out the date if a loss looks likely.
Perhaps all people wanted to do was take back control. They don't mind immigration - its uncontrolled immigration they don't like.
A country that can't determine who it lets into its borders and who it doesn't is no longer a sovereign nation.
Do you believe that the average Brexit Party/UKIP supporter (ie at least half of the leave vote) will be delighted to see non-EU immigration rising steeply? Do you really think they were arguing to take back control of our borders so we can have lots more non-EU immigrants than EU immigrants?
all you do with that post is betray your own prejudices.
That for me is quite a good number. Don't know if others feel the same?
Real immunity is likely to be far higher, if you believe the analysis of the Oxford prof on the previous thread. These antibody tests give lots of false negatives for a whole bunch of reasons.
I'm not buying that analysis but I hope it proves to be right.
Assumption - The antibody tests used in the UK figures have been calibrated against the Porton Down samples and passed. Reason for assumption - Antibody tests up to now have been rejected on that basis.
This means that the 17% number would be based on a test that has an extremely high confidence of working, even with low levels of antibodies.
So it is very likely that 17% means "really 17%"
If it is correct, it is worth remembering that at low *effective* R numbers immunity levels like this become significant.
One of the long term implications of corona is how people fed up with the terrible mainstream news coverage have turned to alternative news sources.
This is the most interesting thing I've read on the crisis for a while, even though I suppose I am a lockdown sceptic.
Its also interesting that prof Gupta chose Unherd to do this interview. But her analysis is persuasive.
I doubt that the idea that people have turned to alternative news sources is true now let alone it being a long term implication of corona.
Well the numbers are against you sunshine. Two million people at least have seen Nigel Farage's mucking about in a boat in the channel report.
compare that with year average channel four nightly audience. The government aren't even talking to these people any more.
I've seen Farage mucking about in a boat and I haven't been looking at any "alternative media". Much as I am sure you would love us all to be watching a Fox-style "alternative-facts" news station it's not going to happen.
'You're the problem! You're the fucking problem you fucking Dr White honkin' jam-rag fucking spunk-bubble! I'm telling you Aitch you keep looking at me I'll put you in the fucking ground, promise you!'
Certainly powerful, people like that. Boris looks like a Hobbit taking on the Dark Lord though. I'd be nervous going up against a 100ft Keir Starmer too.
Comments
Personally I've never cared about such arguments because I know HMRC finds a dozen ways to tax us by breakfast so two is neither here nor there.
I do wonder if the Brexiteers will end up making Boris Johnson into their Emperor Valerian. Boris Johnson the human footstool eh?
There are two ways it might go wrong. One is if the GBP decide they don't want a government that reflects their own sentimental flips and flops. The other is if a pattern establishes where BoJo is in office, but policy-wise is continually responding to SKS's questions. What's the point of that?
The Oxford analysis asks why such low and uneven rates of antibodies are showing up in all populations regardless of lockdown, considering how infectious the disease is.
Their conclusion is that for many, many people Corona is simply a non event. They have immunity genetically or from colds/flu, the disease passes them by and they do not show antibodies.
Oxford estimates this could be up to 50% of a given population. Which makes a 17% antibody reading extraordinarily high. Its more like 35% of the remaining population.
Why are Gupta and co going public today? because thy are convinced their model is right.
First, viral load matters. It may be that New York has some particular features, say high rise blocks with crowded lifts where people all press the same buttons, and where received viral loads could be very high.
Secondly, demographics matter. London has a median age of 33.8 (apparently), Queens is 39.2. And older Londoners don't tend to live in high rises.
Thirdly, the UK has better public health provision and better social services. Sick people will have tried to go out to work in New York in a way that won't have happened in London.
Now, do all these things add up to a 3x difference? Seems unlikely. But it's certainly possible.
The illness runs out of steam very quickly but leaves few with antibodies.
Why? because enormous amounts of people have a natural immunity.
If right, its astonishing stuff.
Every single one chose to be here. Barring criminal underground slave trafficking they weren't pressganged and made to come here.
Starmer has an effective PMQs technique where he analyses Johnson's answer to the previous question before moving onto the next. This gives him apparent control over the discussion. If you don't listen carefully you might think. Starmer, not Johnson, was PM
Everyone has the right to judge how much their conscience can take.
My freedom trumps their health and even their life.
It’s a fundamental principle.
At the last NZ election, National won most seats but 2nd place Labour formed a coalition with the Greens and NZ First. Simon Bridges became new leader of National.
Prior to the pandemic there was a clear pattern in the polls with National still ahead on party share, but Jacinda Ardern having a clear lead on preferred PM.
Post-pandemic there has been a clear shift with Labour shooting up to the mid 50s (and potentially winning outright) and National down to about 30%.
Bridges has now been challenged by former businessman Todd Muller and the caucus will decide tomorrow. With the next election due in September, I think Bridges is toast. What will give National a bit of encouragement is that Ardern was herself a late switch in before the last election.
https://twitter.com/kreuzberged/status/1263509212736471040?s=20
We’ve just been told that almost everyone has had it in the entire country, and thus the 50,000-odd deaths reflect a one-in-a-thousand death rate.
If only one in six of the worst hit place in the country have had it, that estimate would be total bollocks, and as so many of us don’t want to believe it, that must be wrong.
Because wishful thinking is all we need.
Maybe, but lets face it cruise ships are far from a proper cross section of the community.
We have surpressed the number of infections, but COVID-19 is as deadly as we feared it was.
Taking this data the iceberg in the UK is around 17:1, better than the 10:1 rule of thumb from other surveys, but still nowhere near the 100:1 scenario needed to save our bacon.
That being said, while the headline Presidential shares have barely shifted over the last twenty years, the Republicans have steadily - if slowly - lost ground at the State level. Twenty years ago, none of the state level offices were held by Democrats, and neither of the Senators.
Now while the Governor and the Treasurer are still Republican, many of the other state level offices are now in the hands of the Democrats.
I don't think AZ will flip to the Democrats this time, and I wouldn't be surprised if Trump won some of the Libertarian vote. But I would expect the Dems to get into the upper 40s from the lower 40s. And I would expect them to flip the Senate seat too.
The art is to pluck the most feathers while causing the least hissing
No matter how incompetent,or how bad things get it will survive till 2024
If it is to be removed it should be for all migrants whether or not they work in the NHS. We can't put NHS workers on a unique pedestal.
David Starkey has a point - it's possible the reasons care homes have fared so badly might be because they aren't part of the NHS - and treated as of secondary importance.
They reached this conclusion by tracking the path of the disease in many juristictions and coming to the conclusion that the pattern is 'like clockwork'
Virtually the same lockdown or no lockdown. In the end the virus does a swan dive wherever.
And please don;t shoot the messenger if you reply. This is their analysis not mine
So here is a scene which Julian Fellowes unaccountably forgot to include:-
“ 'I say Carson, could you send some pans up stairs?'
'Of course, sir.'
An awkward pause.
'Please forgive the impertinence your Lordship, but might I inquire why?'
'Their Ladyships thought you might appreciate it if we banged them together for you. Thought it might help, all things considered. Lift the spirits for those below stairs.'
'... indeed sir.'
'Might be appreciated, they thought.'
'...'
'How are you all down there, anyway? Lots of subplots? Everyone mucking in?’
‘I’ll get the pans sent up right away, sir’”.
Add it to your pedestal
If you mean Boris Johnson may not last the full five, yes I can see that. But the next election will only be early if the PM at the time thinks they can win.
I dont rate the chances of Priti being in a senior post for more than a couple of years.
If have any sense they’ll get her on tonight’s show. She is a very clear, impressive communicator.
Put aside Brexit, which was primarily a vehicle for BJ to get himself into No 10, and I think you are going to be surprised at what sort of PM you have elected. It may take a while for the penny to drop for some but what you are going to get is going to be far closer to a Blair than Thatcher.
"The test “performed equivalent to the other platforms with patients that had high and moderate loads of virus,” said Alan Wells, a pathologist who directs the clinical laboratories at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. “However, with lower loads of virus, a large fraction of these patients were not detected as positive.” Wells ran a validation of the test compared with stored samples that had been tested on other platforms."
https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/16/rapid-coronavirus-test-commonly-used-in-u-s-may-miss-infections-in-some-situations/
compare that with year average channel four nightly audience. The government aren't even talking to these people any more.
Getting a lot more antibody tests done is going to be crucial to nailing down where we stand, but I'm fairly sure we aren't going to find the damn thing is almost over.
That to me is 4 years and just under 6 months.
Pull the other one. Do you believe that the average Brexit Party/UKIP supporter (ie at least half of the leave vote) will be delighted to see non-EU immigration rising steeply? Do you really think they were arguing to take back control of our borders so we can have lots more non-EU immigrants than EU immigrants?
It can only last 5 if the FTPA is repealed and the government chooses to drag things out until December. Which would be a very bad thing, that would only happen if the government was really trailing in the polls.
Next PMQs?
'You're the problem! You're the fucking problem you fucking Dr White honkin' jam-rag fucking spunk-bubble! I'm telling you Aitch you keep looking at me I'll put you in the fucking ground, promise you!'
Reason for assumption - Antibody tests up to now have been rejected on that basis.
This means that the 17% number would be based on a test that has an extremely high confidence of working, even with low levels of antibodies.
So it is very likely that 17% means "really 17%"
If it is correct, it is worth remembering that at low *effective* R numbers immunity levels like this become significant.