I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
Of the five original tests, the first 3 are done. The fourth is in progress and seems on track. The fifth could never be guaranteed so has been loosened/changed/dropped.
We are learning more from other countries unlockdowns than we can learn from looking at our own R during lockdown.
Powerful piece. Perhaps others have evidence, but I don't see yet that this Cummings story has resulted in much weaker adherence to the lockdown.
It does feel like govt are accelerating lifting the lockdown. The daily new cases we are see are still in the thousands...
The other thing I'm wondering about is some of the modelling talked about multiple easing and tightening of lockdowns. Is that part of the govt's plan?
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
Of the five original tests, the first 3 are done. The fourth is in progress and seems on track. The fifth could never be guaranteed so has been loosened/changed/dropped.
We are learning more from other countries unlockdowns than we can learn from looking at our own R during lockdown.
The government needs to say that if it's true.
The problem group are not those itching to go to the pub, the beach or to Nando's. It's the pensioners who have all the money and who don't feel safe out of the house.
I'm sorry but it is sufficient. People need to take responsibility and ownership of their own choices.
Damn straight. Like if they vote for someone who aids and abets genocide, and refuses to apologise for having done so, even when given the opportunity.
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
Of the five original tests, the first 3 are done. The fourth is in progress and seems on track. The fifth could never be guaranteed so has been loosened/changed/dropped.
We are learning more from other countries unlockdowns than we can learn from looking at our own R during lockdown.
The government needs to say that if it's true.
The problem group are not those itching to go to the pub, the beach or to Nando's. It's the pensioners who have all the money and who don't feel safe out of the house.
I haven't seen any official mention of when the specially shielded individuals can come out of hiding. I think TSE said the latest advice is end of June, but the government really haven't talked about this.
I'm sorry but it is sufficient. People need to take responsibility and ownership of their own choices.
Damn straight. Like if they vote for someone who aids and abets genocide, and refuses to apologise for having done so, even when given the opportunity.
I have no idea WTF you are.talking about. But sure.
I'm sorry but it is sufficient. People need to take responsibility and ownership of their own choices.
Damn straight. Like if they vote for someone who aids and abets genocide, and refuses to apologise for having done so, even when given the opportunity.
I have no idea WTF you are.talking about. But sure.
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
Of the five original tests, the first 3 are done. The fourth is in progress and seems on track. The fifth could never be guaranteed so has been loosened/changed/dropped.
We are learning more from other countries unlockdowns than we can learn from looking at our own R during lockdown.
The government needs to say that if it's true.
The problem group are not those itching to go to the pub, the beach or to Nando's. It's the pensioners who have all the money and who don't feel safe out of the house.
I haven't seen any official mention of when the specially shielded individuals can come out of hiding. I think TSE said the latest advice is end of June, but the government really haven't talked about this.
It's not just specially shielded individuals. There's a cohort of over 70s who took the initial statements that they needed to take extra care very seriously indeed.
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
Of the five original tests, the first 3 are done. The fourth is in progress and seems on track. The fifth could never be guaranteed so has been loosened/changed/dropped.
We are learning more from other countries unlockdowns than we can learn from looking at our own R during lockdown.
The government needs to say that if it's true.
The problem group are not those itching to go to the pub, the beach or to Nando's. It's the pensioners who have all the money and who don't feel safe out of the house.
They cant say the fifth was never a real condition. Hell, they wont even admit today is Wednesday if there is any chance it looks bad on them.
Even I dont expect them to do anything but gloss over the fifth condition which was to guarantee there would be no second peak. The virus might mutate and a second peak happen that way, its just not a condition that could ever have been met.
Hmm, the government's handling of this has undoubtedly been a total disaster, but the moral responsibility argument doesn't end there. If it is indeed the case that people are going to die because the public are (quite reasonably) disgruntled with the PM and his sidekick, then we are admitting that personal pique amongst the public outweighs their responsibility to behave in a way which minimises deaths. We are also exonerating opposition politicians, the police, the media, doctors, and others from their responsibility to point out that anger at Cummings is not an excuse for irresponsible behaviour. It's not as though the coverage has exactly been free of partisan glee.
So perhaps we should go back to being grown ups, who can despise Cummings and Boris, whilst simultaneously recognising that social distancing, quarantines and regulations are there to save lives and should still be followed. This shouldn't be hard, really.
As with Adlai Stevenson, who was told that all thinking people would vote for him, that's not enough.
It's probably not enough but it's the best we've got. Are we just going to give up because Cummings is an arrogant jerk and Boris is, well, Boris?
Give up on the Tory party maybe (for those who are into that sort of thing of course).
Too many people want to dispose their critical thinking to others. Everyone should always do what they think is right in the circumstances.
This is precisely why the concept of the "reasonable person" exists in law. Would a reasonable person exit a burning building in order to save themselves despite the rules on lockdown? Yes, obviously.
Would a reasonable person drive halfway up the country with a family member with a suspected Covid-19 infection in order to access the possibility of childcare from family members when they had a) access to other family members far closer to home and b) were the government’s chief advisor & had the resources of the government available to them on tap if they simply lifted the phone to ask? No.
The test is not "I thought I made a reasonable choice". It’s "does the polity (or in court, case law & potentially a jury of peers) think that would be a reasonable action to take".
It’s entirely obvious that a majority of the country do not find Cummings actions to be reasonable. You don’t have to like that Philip, but it is what it is.
I like the reasonable test in law. You know what else I like in law? Innocent until proven guilty.
If someone says they have a reasonable reason and it's not been proven unreasonable then they are not guilty. That a majority may think they are guilty doesn't make them so. You don't have to like that Phil, but it is what it is.
Now you’re definitely getting desperate
I am free to opine on whether I believe Cummings’ actions to be reasonable or not & also to observe the professed opinions of the rest of the country regardless of whether he has been found guilty in a court of law.
Whether Cummings will ever be convicted of anything (spoiler: he won’t, because this is never going to court) is irrelevant.
It’s also irrelevant to the politics of this whole shitshow, which circle around the fact that Cummings and Johnson appear to be congenitally incapable of apologising to the people for rubbing their noses in the fact that there’s one rule for the little people & another for people like Cummings.
The Daily Star cover today isn’t about whether Cummings is guilty or not. It’s about the optics. And the optics are /awful/.
I'm sorry but it is sufficient. People need to take responsibility and ownership of their own choices.
Damn straight. Like if they vote for someone who aids and abets genocide, and refuses to apologise for having done so, even when given the opportunity.
I have no idea WTF you are.talking about. But sure.
Did you vote for the Brexit party in the North West England constituency?
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
To answer that:
We must protect our NHS - Yes.
We must see sustained falls in the death rate - Yes.
We must see sustained and considerable falls in the rate of infection - Yes.
We must sort out our challenges in getting enough PPE to the people who need it, and yes, it is a global problem but we must fix it. - Yes, according to the latest announcements.
And last, we must make sure that any measures we take do not force the reproduction rate of the disease – the R – back up over one, so that we have the kind of exponential growth we were facing a few weeks ago. - To be seen as things develop, but the talk over the past couple of days about the possibility of reimposing lockdowns locally shows that the government is on the case.
So I don't really see what the criticism in big-picture terms is here. The government is doing what it said it would do. Other countries are doing similar things, which will no doubt provide useful pre-warning of any issues.
We can scrutinise the specific decisions and priorities as the regulations are relaxed, but overall the direction and pace seem to be appropriate.
I am afraid none of this is important anymore. Only Dominic Cummings matters
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
Of the five original tests, the first 3 are done. The fourth is in progress and seems on track. The fifth could never be guaranteed so has been loosened/changed/dropped.
We are learning more from other countries unlockdowns than we can learn from looking at our own R during lockdown.
The government needs to say that if it's true.
The problem group are not those itching to go to the pub, the beach or to Nando's. It's the pensioners who have all the money and who don't feel safe out of the house.
Why is that a problem?
At first having those itching to go out doing so, while those who are frightened stay in, is a logical step that enables people to do what they want and aid the transition in social distancing. While protecting those at most risk.
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
Of the five original tests, the first 3 are done. The fourth is in progress and seems on track. The fifth could never be guaranteed so has been loosened/changed/dropped.
We are learning more from other countries unlockdowns than we can learn from looking at our own R during lockdown.
The government needs to say that if it's true.
The problem group are not those itching to go to the pub, the beach or to Nando's. It's the pensioners who have all the money and who don't feel safe out of the house.
I haven't seen any official mention of when the specially shielded individuals can come out of hiding. I think TSE said the latest advice is end of June, but the government really haven't talked about this.
If only you were still Prime Minister Mr Urquhart, things would be so much less chaotic.
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
Of the five original tests, the first 3 are done. The fourth is in progress and seems on track. The fifth could never be guaranteed so has been loosened/changed/dropped.
We are learning more from other countries unlockdowns than we can learn from looking at our own R during lockdown.
The government needs to say that if it's true.
The problem group are not those itching to go to the pub, the beach or to Nando's. It's the pensioners who have all the money and who don't feel safe out of the house.
I haven't seen any official mention of when the specially shielded individuals can come out of hiding. I think TSE said the latest advice is end of June, but the government really haven't talked about this.
It's not just specially shielded individuals. There's a cohort of over 70s who took the initial statements that they needed to take extra care very seriously indeed.
That's only logical. And if they're not itching to get out what's the problem?
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
To answer that:
We must protect our NHS - Yes.
We must see sustained falls in the death rate - Yes.
We must see sustained and considerable falls in the rate of infection - Yes.
We must sort out our challenges in getting enough PPE to the people who need it, and yes, it is a global problem but we must fix it. - Yes, according to the latest announcements.
And last, we must make sure that any measures we take do not force the reproduction rate of the disease – the R – back up over one, so that we have the kind of exponential growth we were facing a few weeks ago. - To be seen as things develop, but the talk over the past couple of days about the possibility of reimposing lockdowns locally shows that the government is on the case.
So I don't really see what the criticism in big-picture terms is here. The government is doing what it said it would do. Other countries are doing similar things, which will no doubt provide useful pre-warning of any issues.
We can scrutinise the specific decisions and priorities as the regulations are relaxed, but overall the direction and pace seem to be appropriate.
The government has said none of that. You're hypothesising.
I'm sorry but it is sufficient. People need to take responsibility and ownership of their own choices.
Damn straight. Like if they vote for someone who aids and abets genocide, and refuses to apologise for having done so, even when given the opportunity.
I have no idea WTF you are.talking about. But sure.
Did you vote for the Brexit party in the North West England constituency?
As a protest vote to get rid of Theresa May not because I supported them, yes. Why?
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
Didn’t a comment like that get Rees Mogg into trouble an aeon ago?
Tbf that was only a double digit death toll, not a 50k+ one.
I'm sorry but it is sufficient. People need to take responsibility and ownership of their own choices.
Damn straight. Like if they vote for someone who aids and abets genocide, and refuses to apologise for having done so, even when given the opportunity.
Or facilitates anti-semitism in his party? Oh sorry, that wasn't the point you were wanting to make....
Hmm, the government's handling of this has undoubtedly been a total disaster, but the moral responsibility argument doesn't end there. If it is indeed the case that people are going to die because the public are (quite reasonably) disgruntled with the PM and his sidekick, then we are admitting that personal pique amongst the public outweighs their responsibility to behave in a way which minimises deaths. We are also exonerating opposition politicians, the police, the media, doctors, and others from their responsibility to point out that anger at Cummings is not an excuse for irresponsible behaviour. It's not as though the coverage has exactly been free of partisan glee.
So perhaps we should go back to being grown ups, who can despise Cummings and Boris, whilst simultaneously recognising that social distancing, quarantines and regulations are there to save lives and should still be followed. This shouldn't be hard, really.
It depends what you mean. I shall follow the laws and whats needed to stop the virus spreading but nonsensical things like I can be in a park surrounded by people I dont know, but not by people I do know? Or I can be in a park but not a big garden? No, I shall no longer bother with such advice.
Good. That's progress. Glad some good has come out of all this.
Let's say that previously @noneoftheabove didn't go to the park. Let's say that his park can hold 1,000 people comfortably maintaining social distancing. Let's say that 30,000 people as a result of Dom's actions think fuck it I'm off down the park.
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
To answer that:
We must protect our NHS - Yes.
We must see sustained falls in the death rate - Yes.
We must see sustained and considerable falls in the rate of infection - Yes.
We must sort out our challenges in getting enough PPE to the people who need it, and yes, it is a global problem but we must fix it. - Yes, according to the latest announcements.
And last, we must make sure that any measures we take do not force the reproduction rate of the disease – the R – back up over one, so that we have the kind of exponential growth we were facing a few weeks ago. - To be seen as things develop, but the talk over the past couple of days about the possibility of reimposing lockdowns locally shows that the government is on the case.
So I don't really see what the criticism in big-picture terms is here. The government is doing what it said it would do. Other countries are doing similar things, which will no doubt provide useful pre-warning of any issues.
We can scrutinise the specific decisions and priorities as the regulations are relaxed, but overall the direction and pace seem to be appropriate.
The government has said none of that. You're hypothesising.
As of today, what Covid alert level are we at?
The government have said all of that. Hancock gave detailed details on PPE. Media wanted to bang on about Cummings but doesn't change the fact those details where given.
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
To answer that:
We must protect our NHS - Yes.
We must see sustained falls in the death rate - Yes.
We must see sustained and considerable falls in the rate of infection - Yes.
We must sort out our challenges in getting enough PPE to the people who need it, and yes, it is a global problem but we must fix it. - Yes, according to the latest announcements.
And last, we must make sure that any measures we take do not force the reproduction rate of the disease – the R – back up over one, so that we have the kind of exponential growth we were facing a few weeks ago. - To be seen as things develop, but the talk over the past couple of days about the possibility of reimposing lockdowns locally shows that the government is on the case.
So I don't really see what the criticism in big-picture terms is here. The government is doing what it said it would do. Other countries are doing similar things, which will no doubt provide useful pre-warning of any issues.
We can scrutinise the specific decisions and priorities as the regulations are relaxed, but overall the direction and pace seem to be appropriate.
The government has said none of that. You're hypothesising.
As of today, what Covid alert level are we at?
The government have said all of that. Hancock gave detailed details on PPE. Media wanted to bang on about Cummings but doesn't change the fact those details where given.
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
To answer that:
We must protect our NHS - Yes.
We must see sustained falls in the death rate - Yes.
We must see sustained and considerable falls in the rate of infection - Yes.
We must sort out our challenges in getting enough PPE to the people who need it, and yes, it is a global problem but we must fix it. - Yes, according to the latest announcements.
And last, we must make sure that any measures we take do not force the reproduction rate of the disease – the R – back up over one, so that we have the kind of exponential growth we were facing a few weeks ago. - To be seen as things develop, but the talk over the past couple of days about the possibility of reimposing lockdowns locally shows that the government is on the case.
So I don't really see what the criticism in big-picture terms is here. The government is doing what it said it would do. Other countries are doing similar things, which will no doubt provide useful pre-warning of any issues.
We can scrutinise the specific decisions and priorities as the regulations are relaxed, but overall the direction and pace seem to be appropriate.
The government has said none of that. You're hypothesising.
As of today, what Covid alert level are we at?
I think the formal review is due tomorrow, presumably that is when we get the detail? But the first 3 are clear from stats in the public domain. We dont need a govt minister to tell us those. (And we shouldnt believe a word they say without the stats anyway.)
Hmm, the government's handling of this has undoubtedly been a total disaster, but the moral responsibility argument doesn't end there. If it is indeed the case that people are going to die because the public are (quite reasonably) disgruntled with the PM and his sidekick, then we are admitting that personal pique amongst the public outweighs their responsibility to behave in a way which minimises deaths. We are also exonerating opposition politicians, the police, the media, doctors, and others from their responsibility to point out that anger at Cummings is not an excuse for irresponsible behaviour. It's not as though the coverage has exactly been free of partisan glee.
So perhaps we should go back to being grown ups, who can despise Cummings and Boris, whilst simultaneously recognising that social distancing, quarantines and regulations are there to save lives and should still be followed. This shouldn't be hard, really.
It depends what you mean. I shall follow the laws and whats needed to stop the virus spreading but nonsensical things like I can be in a park surrounded by people I dont know, but not by people I do know? Or I can be in a park but not a big garden? No, I shall no longer bother with such advice.
Good. That's progress. Glad some good has come out of all this.
Let's say that previously @noneoftheabove didn't go to the park. Let's say that his park can hold 1,000 people comfortably maintaining social distancing. Let's say that 30,000 people as a result of Dom's actions think fuck it I'm off down the park.
What then?
A second wave? According to the PB Brains Trust a second wave looks unlikely because Switzerland has not experienced one. Move along, nothing to see!
Too many people want to dispose their critical thinking to others. Everyone should always do what they think is right in the circumstances.
This is precisely why the concept of the "reasonable person" exists in law. Would a reasonable person exit a burning building in order to save themselves despite the rules on lockdown? Yes, obviously.
Would a reasonable person drive halfway up the country with a family member with a suspected Covid-19 infection in order to access the possibility of childcare from family members when they had a) access to other family members far closer to home and b) were the government’s chief advisor & had the resources of the government available to them on tap if they simply lifted the phone to ask? No.
The test is not "I thought I made a reasonable choice". It’s "does the polity (or in court, case law & potentially a jury of peers) think that would be a reasonable action to take".
It’s entirely obvious that a majority of the country do not find Cummings actions to be reasonable. You don’t have to like that Philip, but it is what it is.
I like the reasonable test in law. You know what else I like in law? Innocent until proven guilty.
If someone says they have a reasonable reason and it's not been proven unreasonable then they are not guilty. That a majority may think they are guilty doesn't make them so. You don't have to like that Phil, but it is what it is.
It is not what you say it is, though. "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't really work that way. It is more a principle of Agatha Christie novels than of actual English law, for starters. The burden of proof for reasonableness is context-dependent, but in the conterxts I can immediately think of the party alleging reasonable grounds for something has to prove it - e.g. if the police say they had reasonable grounds to suspect a crime was being committed, they must prove it. In sexual offences it is for the defendant to prove that he reasonably believed that consent had been given, that other party was over 16, etc. So, the precise opposite of your claim. English law is, to use your expression, what it is, not what a layman would quite like it to be.
At the start of the pandemic, particularly through his illness and right up to the point of his nonsense defense of Cummings - yes he did. Absolutely. People couldn't give a monkeys about his colourful private life and were broadly prepared to do whatever he told them for the good of the nation.
I'm sorry but it is sufficient. People need to take responsibility and ownership of their own choices.
Damn straight. Like if they vote for someone who aids and abets genocide, and refuses to apologise for having done so, even when given the opportunity.
I have no idea WTF you are.talking about. But sure.
Did you vote for the Brexit party in the North West England constituency?
As a protest vote to get rid of Theresa May not because I supported them, yes. Why?
So you have used your vote to support someone who denied a genocide, and libelled journalists who were exposing that genocide.
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
I think it is the general feeling that for various reasons you can't keep 60m people locked down until further notice. I think the science was discarded as being followed some time ago.
Is that wrong or right? We shall see. But I don't think you can keep a country locked down seemingly to avoid all risk. Could it have been and could it still be 500,000 deaths? Not sure. But then neither is anyone else.
Hmm, the government's handling of this has undoubtedly been a total disaster, but the moral responsibility argument doesn't end there. If it is indeed the case that people are going to die because the public are (quite reasonably) disgruntled with the PM and his sidekick, then we are admitting that personal pique amongst the public outweighs their responsibility to behave in a way which minimises deaths. We are also exonerating opposition politicians, the police, the media, doctors, and others from their responsibility to point out that anger at Cummings is not an excuse for irresponsible behaviour. It's not as though the coverage has exactly been free of partisan glee.
So perhaps we should go back to being grown ups, who can despise Cummings and Boris, whilst simultaneously recognising that social distancing, quarantines and regulations are there to save lives and should still be followed. This shouldn't be hard, really.
It depends what you mean. I shall follow the laws and whats needed to stop the virus spreading but nonsensical things like I can be in a park surrounded by people I dont know, but not by people I do know? Or I can be in a park but not a big garden? No, I shall no longer bother with such advice.
Good. That's progress. Glad some good has come out of all this.
Let's say that previously @noneoftheabove didn't go to the park. Let's say that his park can hold 1,000 people comfortably maintaining social distancing. Let's say that 30,000 people as a result of Dom's actions think fuck it I'm off down the park.
What then?
I don't know. What if an asteroid strikes?
30,000 people would be a landslide vote share in most constituencies and all constituencies I know of have multiple parks, so I'm thinking that scenario is somewhat implausible.
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
To answer that:
We must protect our NHS - Yes.
We must see sustained falls in the death rate - Yes.
We must see sustained and considerable falls in the rate of infection - Yes.
We must sort out our challenges in getting enough PPE to the people who need it, and yes, it is a global problem but we must fix it. - Yes, according to the latest announcements.
And last, we must make sure that any measures we take do not force the reproduction rate of the disease – the R – back up over one, so that we have the kind of exponential growth we were facing a few weeks ago. - To be seen as things develop, but the talk over the past couple of days about the possibility of reimposing lockdowns locally shows that the government is on the case.
So I don't really see what the criticism in big-picture terms is here. The government is doing what it said it would do. Other countries are doing similar things, which will no doubt provide useful pre-warning of any issues.
We can scrutinise the specific decisions and priorities as the regulations are relaxed, but overall the direction and pace seem to be appropriate.
The government has said none of that. You're hypothesising.
As of today, what Covid alert level are we at?
We were on 3.5 and will shortly be on 3 so Im going for 3.14159
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
To answer that:
We must protect our NHS - Yes.
We must see sustained falls in the death rate - Yes.
We must see sustained and considerable falls in the rate of infection - Yes.
We must sort out our challenges in getting enough PPE to the people who need it, and yes, it is a global problem but we must fix it. - Yes, according to the latest announcements.
And last, we must make sure that any measures we take do not force the reproduction rate of the disease – the R – back up over one, so that we have the kind of exponential growth we were facing a few weeks ago. - To be seen as things develop, but the talk over the past couple of days about the possibility of reimposing lockdowns locally shows that the government is on the case.
So I don't really see what the criticism in big-picture terms is here. The government is doing what it said it would do. Other countries are doing similar things, which will no doubt provide useful pre-warning of any issues.
We can scrutinise the specific decisions and priorities as the regulations are relaxed, but overall the direction and pace seem to be appropriate.
The government has said none of that. You're hypothesising.
As of today, what Covid alert level are we at?
The government have said all of that. Hancock gave detailed details on PPE. Media wanted to bang on about Cummings but doesn't change the fact those details where given.
It was a bit like remdesivir. This is the biggest medical development since the start of the pandemic but none of the media was interested last night. But hey Dominic Cummings is apparently a bigger story than 9/11.
So I've just crested through the 30,000 comment barrier. I do have a life, honest.
Next up - 30,000 thread headers.
In all seriousness, I'm in awe of Mike. I have no idea how he is able to produce so many. I write one or two a week and that's a challenge. Mike writes one or two a day.
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
To answer that:
We must protect our NHS - Yes.
We must see sustained falls in the death rate - Yes.
We must see sustained and considerable falls in the rate of infection - Yes.
We must sort out our challenges in getting enough PPE to the people who need it, and yes, it is a global problem but we must fix it. - Yes, according to the latest announcements.
And last, we must make sure that any measures we take do not force the reproduction rate of the disease – the R – back up over one, so that we have the kind of exponential growth we were facing a few weeks ago. - To be seen as things develop, but the talk over the past couple of days about the possibility of reimposing lockdowns locally shows that the government is on the case.
So I don't really see what the criticism in big-picture terms is here. The government is doing what it said it would do. Other countries are doing similar things, which will no doubt provide useful pre-warning of any issues.
We can scrutinise the specific decisions and priorities as the regulations are relaxed, but overall the direction and pace seem to be appropriate.
The government has said none of that. You're hypothesising.
As of today, what Covid alert level are we at?
We were on 3.5 and will shortly be on 3 so Im going for 3.14159
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
To answer that:
We must protect our NHS - Yes.
We must see sustained falls in the death rate - Yes.
We must see sustained and considerable falls in the rate of infection - Yes.
We must sort out our challenges in getting enough PPE to the people who need it, and yes, it is a global problem but we must fix it. - Yes, according to the latest announcements.
And last, we must make sure that any measures we take do not force the reproduction rate of the disease – the R – back up over one, so that we have the kind of exponential growth we were facing a few weeks ago. - To be seen as things develop, but the talk over the past couple of days about the possibility of reimposing lockdowns locally shows that the government is on the case.
So I don't really see what the criticism in big-picture terms is here. The government is doing what it said it would do. Other countries are doing similar things, which will no doubt provide useful pre-warning of any issues.
We can scrutinise the specific decisions and priorities as the regulations are relaxed, but overall the direction and pace seem to be appropriate.
The government has said none of that. You're hypothesising.
As of today, what Covid alert level are we at?
We were on 3.5 and will shortly be on 3 so Im going for 3.14159
The graphic in Boris Johnson's talk was terrible, but until 21 May we were at 4.
(Sorry to ruin the jokes.)
I do like the idea of Conservative Thunderbirds: 5... 4... 3.5...
At the start of the pandemic, particularly through his illness and right up to the point of his nonsense defense of Cummings - yes he did. Absolutely. People couldn't give a monkeys about his colourful private life and were broadly prepared to do whatever he told them for the good of the nation.
I'm sorry but it is sufficient. People need to take responsibility and ownership of their own choices.
Damn straight. Like if they vote for someone who aids and abets genocide, and refuses to apologise for having done so, even when given the opportunity.
I have no idea WTF you are.talking about. But sure.
Did you vote for the Brexit party in the North West England constituency?
As a protest vote to get rid of Theresa May not because I supported them, yes. Why?
So you have used your vote to support someone who denied a genocide, and libelled journalists who were exposing that genocide.
No. As I already said, I used my vote to protest against Theresa May.
It's my civic duty to vote. I used mine as a protest.
Highly instructive and not just from the point of view of assessing the Cummings fiasco.
I had hitherto felt the question of the legality of his actions was unclear and best regarded as a grey area. The legal beagle was pretty clear and firm however that there were grounds for a charge (under 'Regulation 6') at least in respect of the Castle episode.
I guess it remains an open possibilty that he will be charged one day although if he is resigned, I don't suppose the plod would bother.
Hmm, the government's handling of this has undoubtedly been a total disaster, but the moral responsibility argument doesn't end there. If it is indeed the case that people are going to die because the public are (quite reasonably) disgruntled with the PM and his sidekick, then we are admitting that personal pique amongst the public outweighs their responsibility to behave in a way which minimises deaths. We are also exonerating opposition politicians, the police, the media, doctors, and others from their responsibility to point out that anger at Cummings is not an excuse for irresponsible behaviour. It's not as though the coverage has exactly been free of partisan glee.
So perhaps we should go back to being grown ups, who can despise Cummings and Boris, whilst simultaneously recognising that social distancing, quarantines and regulations are there to save lives and should still be followed. This shouldn't be hard, really.
I broadly agree, and I think said something similar a couple of days ago. Ultimately most of us are locking down because we think it's necessary for our own safety and that of the wider community, not because we're worried we'll be arrested. Conversely, the mere fact that the Government suddenly announces that we're free to meet for a group hug (or whatever otherwise distraction they think up) doesn't mean we will.
The Rules are not the Law. The Law states what we are required to do, what defences we are allowed if we breach it, and what penalties we will suffer if we are convicted. It does not say you must keep a specific distance, not go to parks, wear face masks, etc. Those are separate Rules that politicians have announced. They are sensible Rules which I have tried to follow at all times, but I always knew that I could break them if necessary based on my judgement of Risk to myself and others, being prepared to take the consequences.
Hmm, the government's handling of this has undoubtedly been a total disaster, but the moral responsibility argument doesn't end there. If it is indeed the case that people are going to die because the public are (quite reasonably) disgruntled with the PM and his sidekick, then we are admitting that personal pique amongst the public outweighs their responsibility to behave in a way which minimises deaths. We are also exonerating opposition politicians, the police, the media, doctors, and others from their responsibility to point out that anger at Cummings is not an excuse for irresponsible behaviour. It's not as though the coverage has exactly been free of partisan glee.
So perhaps we should go back to being grown ups, who can despise Cummings and Boris, whilst simultaneously recognising that social distancing, quarantines and regulations are there to save lives and should still be followed. This shouldn't be hard, really.
It depends what you mean. I shall follow the laws and whats needed to stop the virus spreading but nonsensical things like I can be in a park surrounded by people I dont know, but not by people I do know? Or I can be in a park but not a big garden? No, I shall no longer bother with such advice.
Good. That's progress. Glad some good has come out of all this.
Let's say that previously @noneoftheabove didn't go to the park. Let's say that his park can hold 1,000 people comfortably maintaining social distancing. Let's say that 30,000 people as a result of Dom's actions think fuck it I'm off down the park.
What then?
Well presumably 29k of them will think when they get there, you know what, this is really busy, I am not sure that its safe. I think I will go somewhere else. Or they might think that the risk is worth taking. Is it not their call? When did we become so infantilised that someone from Whitehall had to do our thinking for us?
So I've just crested through the 30,000 comment barrier. I do have a life, honest.
I thought you'd retired from it. Any further forward with what you want to do next (other than writing thread headers for PB, natch)?
As with all the best clichéd novels, I'm doing one last job as a favour just now which has turned out to be very time-consuming.
After that I intend doing some travelling, some writing (recreational rather than professional) and I now have an idea what my main post-retirement activity will be but I need to find if and if so who is already doing work in that area before unveiling it.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
You're the one insulting everyone's intelligence with your increasingly bizarre attempts to defend the labyrinth of lies the government is using to try and justify Cummings.
If he'd left his home because it was on fire nobody would criticise. You are the one lacking any common sense if you swallow the crap coming from Cummings and Johnson.
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
To answer that:
We must protect our NHS - Yes.
We must see sustained falls in the death rate - Yes.
We must see sustained and considerable falls in the rate of infection - Yes.
We must sort out our challenges in getting enough PPE to the people who need it, and yes, it is a global problem but we must fix it. - Yes, according to the latest announcements.
And last, we must make sure that any measures we take do not force the reproduction rate of the disease – the R – back up over one, so that we have the kind of exponential growth we were facing a few weeks ago. - To be seen as things develop, but the talk over the past couple of days about the possibility of reimposing lockdowns locally shows that the government is on the case.
So I don't really see what the criticism in big-picture terms is here. The government is doing what it said it would do. Other countries are doing similar things, which will no doubt provide useful pre-warning of any issues.
We can scrutinise the specific decisions and priorities as the regulations are relaxed, but overall the direction and pace seem to be appropriate.
The government has said none of that. You're hypothesising.
As of today, what Covid alert level are we at?
We were on 3.5 and will shortly be on 3 so Im going for 3.14159
The graphic in Boris Johnson's talk was terrible, but until 21 May we were at 4.
(Sorry to ruin the jokes.)
I do like the idea of Conservative Thunderbirds: 5... 4... 3.5...
That could be an Only Connect question. Is the next number 3.49 recurring?
That last 87 in orange doesn't look great to me, but we shall see. I hope the Cummings story remains one of mortal embarrassment for the Gov't rather than the somewhat darker turn it could yet take.
So I've just crested through the 30,000 comment barrier. I do have a life, honest.
I can relate!
Not sure about that. I randomly come on from time to time. Alastair is on from time to time when I pop in, maybe about 20% of the times I come in. TSE similarly. You Philip, are on here without exception. Serious question; do you do anything else? Because if you don't you really need to get out more mate. It might also broaden your views on things perhaps? Sorry to say it, but very right wing views are nearly always a sign of limited experience of stuff outside your own bubble.
No. As I already said, I used my vote to protest against Theresa May.
It's my civic duty to vote. I used mine as a protest.
Aha, so yours went in the column marked "protesting against Theresa May, but not actively supporting the genocide denier"?
Would you have protested as eloquently against the Centre Party in 1930s Germany?
I'm not sure what genocide denier you're referring to but yes Theresa May quit so I'm happy. The rest as they say is history.
Comparisons with Germany are insane, this was not a meaningful election to choose a government. It was a protest election to a parliament we are no longer a part of and should have already left before the vote was held. I treated that election with all the dignity it deserved.
Hmm, the government's handling of this has undoubtedly been a total disaster, but the moral responsibility argument doesn't end there. If it is indeed the case that people are going to die because the public are (quite reasonably) disgruntled with the PM and his sidekick, then we are admitting that personal pique amongst the public outweighs their responsibility to behave in a way which minimises deaths. We are also exonerating opposition politicians, the police, the media, doctors, and others from their responsibility to point out that anger at Cummings is not an excuse for irresponsible behaviour. It's not as though the coverage has exactly been free of partisan glee.
So perhaps we should go back to being grown ups, who can despise Cummings and Boris, whilst simultaneously recognising that social distancing, quarantines and regulations are there to save lives and should still be followed. This shouldn't be hard, really.
As with Adlai Stevenson, who was told that all thinking people would vote for him, that's not enough.
It's probably not enough but it's the best we've got. Are we just going to give up because Cummings is an arrogant jerk and Boris is, well, Boris?
No, but never underestimate the capacity of the average British person for self-righteous stupidity, especially with a dollop of oleagenous sentimentality about ver kids. It's not you or me you have to worry about but the homme moyen sensuel.
The Rules are not the Law. The Law states what we are required to do, what defences we are allowed if we breach it, and what penalties we will suffer if we are convicted. It does not say you must keep a specific distance, not go to parks, wear face masks, etc. Those are separate Rules that politicians have announced. They are sensible Rules which I have tried to follow at all times, but I always knew that I could break them if necessary based on my judgement of Risk to myself and others, being prepared to take the consequences.
The Rules are not the Law. The Law states what we are required to do, what defences we are allowed if we breach it, and what penalties we will suffer if we are convicted. It does not say you must keep a specific distance, not go to parks, wear face masks, etc. Those are separate Rules that politicians have announced. They are sensible Rules which I have tried to follow at all times, but I always knew that I could break them if necessary based on my judgement of Risk to myself and others, being prepared to take the consequences.
You might like to look at the FT piece I quoted earlier, Exiled:
It's long (though instructive) so the Exucutive Summary is that in order to be on the right side of the Law (Regulation 6, apparently) Cummings had to have a reasonable excuse for his excursions. He offered three for journey North, and it is possible but by no means certain that one of these or a combination may have sufficed.
As regards the Castle expedition, only one excuse was offered, i.e. the much ridiculed 'eyesight' reason. This was so implausible that it would be unlikely to stand up in a court of Law.
Those arguing that Cummings broke no Law may well be wrong.
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
Of the five original tests, the first 3 are done. The fourth is in progress and seems on track. The fifth could never be guaranteed so has been loosened/changed/dropped.
We are learning more from other countries unlockdowns than we can learn from looking at our own R during lockdown.
The government needs to say that if it's true.
The problem group are not those itching to go to the pub, the beach or to Nando's. It's the pensioners who have all the money and who don't feel safe out of the house.
I haven't seen any official mention of when the specially shielded individuals can come out of hiding. I think TSE said the latest advice is end of June, but the government really haven't talked about this.
It's not just specially shielded individuals. There's a cohort of over 70s who took the initial statements that they needed to take extra care very seriously indeed.
I and many of my friends did. And organisations such as the U3a confirmed us in our view.
So I've just crested through the 30,000 comment barrier. I do have a life, honest.
I can relate!
Not sure about that. I randomly come on from time to time. Alastair is on from time to time when I pop in, maybe about 20% of the times I come in. TSE similarly. You Philip, are on here without exception. Serious question; do you do anything else? Because if you don't you really need to get out more mate. It might also broaden your views on things perhaps? Sorry to say it, but very right wing views are nearly always a sign of limited experience of stuff outside your own bubble.
If I'm on five times as often as he is but have a similar post count I must post much less frequently than he does in that time.
You do seem a tad obsessed with me though. It's not healthy.
Hmm, the government's handling of this has undoubtedly been a total disaster, but the moral responsibility argument doesn't end there. If it is indeed the case that people are going to die because the public are (quite reasonably) disgruntled with the PM and his sidekick, then we are admitting that personal pique amongst the public outweighs their responsibility to behave in a way which minimises deaths. We are also exonerating opposition politicians, the police, the media, doctors, and others from their responsibility to point out that anger at Cummings is not an excuse for irresponsible behaviour. It's not as though the coverage has exactly been free of partisan glee.
So perhaps we should go back to being grown ups, who can despise Cummings and Boris, whilst simultaneously recognising that social distancing, quarantines and regulations are there to save lives and should still be followed. This shouldn't be hard, really.
It depends what you mean. I shall follow the laws and whats needed to stop the virus spreading but nonsensical things like I can be in a park surrounded by people I dont know, but not by people I do know? Or I can be in a park but not a big garden? No, I shall no longer bother with such advice.
Good. That's progress. Glad some good has come out of all this.
Let's say that previously @noneoftheabove didn't go to the park. Let's say that his park can hold 1,000 people comfortably maintaining social distancing. Let's say that 30,000 people as a result of Dom's actions think fuck it I'm off down the park.
What then?
I don't know. What if an asteroid strikes?
30,000 people would be a landslide vote share in most constituencies and all constituencies I know of have multiple parks, so I'm thinking that scenario is somewhat implausible.
What if it's 400,000?
That's the point of the whole lockdown thing. Not that you or I couldn't behave sensibly but that you have to have a general prohibition otherwise everyone rightly would think "I'm off to the Park". And now the govt has blown that apart and you are applauding someone who has responded as normal people would respond.
Hmm, the government's handling of this has undoubtedly been a total disaster, but the moral responsibility argument doesn't end there. If it is indeed the case that people are going to die because the public are (quite reasonably) disgruntled with the PM and his sidekick, then we are admitting that personal pique amongst the public outweighs their responsibility to behave in a way which minimises deaths. We are also exonerating opposition politicians, the police, the media, doctors, and others from their responsibility to point out that anger at Cummings is not an excuse for irresponsible behaviour. It's not as though the coverage has exactly been free of partisan glee.
So perhaps we should go back to being grown ups, who can despise Cummings and Boris, whilst simultaneously recognising that social distancing, quarantines and regulations are there to save lives and should still be followed. This shouldn't be hard, really.
It depends what you mean. I shall follow the laws and whats needed to stop the virus spreading but nonsensical things like I can be in a park surrounded by people I dont know, but not by people I do know? Or I can be in a park but not a big garden? No, I shall no longer bother with such advice.
Good. That's progress. Glad some good has come out of all this.
Let's say that previously @noneoftheabove didn't go to the park. Let's say that his park can hold 1,000 people comfortably maintaining social distancing. Let's say that 30,000 people as a result of Dom's actions think fuck it I'm off down the park.
What then?
I don't know. What if an asteroid strikes?
30,000 people would be a landslide vote share in most constituencies and all constituencies I know of have multiple parks, so I'm thinking that scenario is somewhat implausible.
What if it's 400,000?
That's the point of the whole lockdown thing. Not that you or I couldn't behave sensibly but that you have to have a general prohibition otherwise everyone rightly would think "I'm off to the Park". And now the govt has blown that apart and you are applauding someone who has responded as normal people would respond.
You're bright enough to get this. I hope.
As David said if it's 400,000 I imagine 399,000 would think "it's busy here" and go elsewhere.
What if 500,000 descent upon your local supermarket at the same time? We can all ask absurd questions.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
False equivalency klaxon. False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".
They were infected with a deadly virus - something your false equivalency doesn't take into account. Leaving the house meant that others could catch it. Unlike in a fire, there were alternatives to leaving the house up to and including calling social services. While I accept that calling social services not ideal, particularly not to the policital elite, it is temporary and not deadly, WHICH IS WHAT INFECTING COUNTY DURHAM WITH COVID-19 IS FFS. How hard can this be to understand? They may have killed someone to avoid sending their child to a place of safety outside their family - something plenty of very good parents do and have done since time began.
Hmm, the government's handling of this has undoubtedly been a total disaster, but the moral responsibility argument doesn't end there. If it is indeed the case that people are going to die because the public are (quite reasonably) disgruntled with the PM and his sidekick, then we are admitting that personal pique amongst the public outweighs their responsibility to behave in a way which minimises deaths. We are also exonerating opposition politicians, the police, the media, doctors, and others from their responsibility to point out that anger at Cummings is not an excuse for irresponsible behaviour. It's not as though the coverage has exactly been free of partisan glee.
So perhaps we should go back to being grown ups, who can despise Cummings and Boris, whilst simultaneously recognising that social distancing, quarantines and regulations are there to save lives and should still be followed. This shouldn't be hard, really.
It depends what you mean. I shall follow the laws and whats needed to stop the virus spreading but nonsensical things like I can be in a park surrounded by people I dont know, but not by people I do know? Or I can be in a park but not a big garden? No, I shall no longer bother with such advice.
Good. That's progress. Glad some good has come out of all this.
Let's say that previously @noneoftheabove didn't go to the park. Let's say that his park can hold 1,000 people comfortably maintaining social distancing. Let's say that 30,000 people as a result of Dom's actions think fuck it I'm off down the park.
What then?
Well presumably 29k of them will think when they get there, you know what, this is really busy, I am not sure that its safe. I think I will go somewhere else. Or they might think that the risk is worth taking. Is it not their call? When did we become so infantilised that someone from Whitehall had to do our thinking for us?
They might, they might not. What if all 30,000 turn up at 8.59am and the park opens at 9am?
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
Of the five original tests, the first 3 are done. The fourth is in progress and seems on track. The fifth could never be guaranteed so has been loosened/changed/dropped.
We are learning more from other countries unlockdowns than we can learn from looking at our own R during lockdown.
The government needs to say that if it's true.
The problem group are not those itching to go to the pub, the beach or to Nando's. It's the pensioners who have all the money and who don't feel safe out of the house.
I haven't seen any official mention of when the specially shielded individuals can come out of hiding. I think TSE said the latest advice is end of June, but the government really haven't talked about this.
It's not just specially shielded individuals. There's a cohort of over 70s who took the initial statements that they needed to take extra care very seriously indeed.
I and many of my friends did. And organisations such as the U3a confirmed us in our view.
My mother today has for the first time since lockdown gone into a shop. She has been steeling herself for this moment for at least two weeks. She had the moral support at a social distance of my sister. I know she feels extremely proud of herself now.
She lives on a close of bungalows with a lot of other oldies (she'd be affronted if she saw I used that word about her - I got into trouble last night for pointing out that Joe Biden was the same age as her). They're quite sociable between themselves but each only has a handful of links outside the close. They're all really spooked still.
I don't think some younger people have really grasped just how much fear there still is out there.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
The regulations specifically allow you to leave home in order to prevent injury. Very specific aren't they?
Indeed and having a young infant with no childcare is harmful. QED it is reasonable to leave the home to get childcare.
In all your comments, you seem to pretend there was only one beach of regulations, not three or more.
Forget the trips (plural) between London and Durham, and tell me how the Castle Bernard sojourn was in the rules.
Hmm, the government's handling of this has undoubtedly been a total disaster, but the moral responsibility argument doesn't end there. If it is indeed the case that people are going to die because the public are (quite reasonably) disgruntled with the PM and his sidekick, then we are admitting that personal pique amongst the public outweighs their responsibility to behave in a way which minimises deaths. We are also exonerating opposition politicians, the police, the media, doctors, and others from their responsibility to point out that anger at Cummings is not an excuse for irresponsible behaviour. It's not as though the coverage has exactly been free of partisan glee.
So perhaps we should go back to being grown ups, who can despise Cummings and Boris, whilst simultaneously recognising that social distancing, quarantines and regulations are there to save lives and should still be followed. This shouldn't be hard, really.
It depends what you mean. I shall follow the laws and whats needed to stop the virus spreading but nonsensical things like I can be in a park surrounded by people I dont know, but not by people I do know? Or I can be in a park but not a big garden? No, I shall no longer bother with such advice.
Good. That's progress. Glad some good has come out of all this.
Let's say that previously @noneoftheabove didn't go to the park. Let's say that his park can hold 1,000 people comfortably maintaining social distancing. Let's say that 30,000 people as a result of Dom's actions think fuck it I'm off down the park.
What then?
I don't know. What if an asteroid strikes?
30,000 people would be a landslide vote share in most constituencies and all constituencies I know of have multiple parks, so I'm thinking that scenario is somewhat implausible.
What if it's 400,000?
That's the point of the whole lockdown thing. Not that you or I couldn't behave sensibly but that you have to have a general prohibition otherwise everyone rightly would think "I'm off to the Park". And now the govt has blown that apart and you are applauding someone who has responded as normal people would respond.
You're bright enough to get this. I hope.
As David said if it's 400,000 I imagine 399,000 would think "it's busy here" and go elsewhere.
What if 500,000 descent upon your local supermarket at the same time? We can all ask absurd questions.
So 399,000 people at the gates of a park is not a problem?
You are skirting around the issue which is that the rules were categoric and hence people were clear or at least the nudge prevented too many people descending on the parks. But now the rules are less clear and one PB-er has said they will amend their behaviour thus risking danger if enough people like him do the same. And you applaud his common sense.
some interesting figures from the Italian National Health Authority on their fatalities. Quoted by Breitbart (!) but no reason to believe they aren't correct.
96% of all deaths were with at least one co-morbidity 80% of all deaths were with at least two co-morbidities about 60% of all deaths were with at least THREE co-morbidities
Average number of co-morbidities in all deceased. 3.1
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
The regulations specifically allow you to leave home in order to prevent injury. Very specific aren't they?
Indeed and having a young infant with no childcare is harmful. QED it is reasonable to leave the home to get childcare.
In all your comments, you seem to pretend there was only one beach of regulations, not three or more.
Forget the trips (plural) between London and Durham, and tell me how the Castle Bernard sojourn was in the rules.
I think it's logical before you go for a long cross country drive if you've just recovered from illness to take a half hour drive to see that you're up to the pressures of driving.
I believe that's what Cummings meant but not what he said. The way it was phrased was awful but the logic I understood.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
The regulations specifically allow you to leave home in order to prevent injury. Very specific aren't they?
Indeed and having a young infant with no childcare is harmful. QED it is reasonable to leave the home to get childcare.
In all your comments, you seem to pretend there was only one beach of regulations, not three or more.
Forget the trips (plural) between London and Durham, and tell me how the Castle Bernard sojourn was in the rules.
I think it's logical before you go for a long cross country drive if you've just recovered from illness to take a half hour drive to see that you're up to the pressures of driving.
I believe that's what Cummings meant but not what he said. The way it was phrased was awful but the logic I understood.
LOL!
You genuinely think that it is sensible to take a half hour drive to see if you're up to taking a three hour drive?
That must be one of the most (unintentionally I presume) funny things I've read on PB. And of course heard from a senior government advisor.
Hmm, the government's handling of this has undoubtedly been a total disaster, but the moral responsibility argument doesn't end there. If it is indeed the case that people are going to die because the public are (quite reasonably) disgruntled with the PM and his sidekick, then we are admitting that personal pique amongst the public outweighs their responsibility to behave in a way which minimises deaths. We are also exonerating opposition politicians, the police, the media, doctors, and others from their responsibility to point out that anger at Cummings is not an excuse for irresponsible behaviour. It's not as though the coverage has exactly been free of partisan glee.
So perhaps we should go back to being grown ups, who can despise Cummings and Boris, whilst simultaneously recognising that social distancing, quarantines and regulations are there to save lives and should still be followed. This shouldn't be hard, really.
It depends what you mean. I shall follow the laws and whats needed to stop the virus spreading but nonsensical things like I can be in a park surrounded by people I dont know, but not by people I do know? Or I can be in a park but not a big garden? No, I shall no longer bother with such advice.
Good. That's progress. Glad some good has come out of all this.
Let's say that previously @noneoftheabove didn't go to the park. Let's say that his park can hold 1,000 people comfortably maintaining social distancing. Let's say that 30,000 people as a result of Dom's actions think fuck it I'm off down the park.
What then?
I don't know. What if an asteroid strikes?
30,000 people would be a landslide vote share in most constituencies and all constituencies I know of have multiple parks, so I'm thinking that scenario is somewhat implausible.
What if it's 400,000?
That's the point of the whole lockdown thing. Not that you or I couldn't behave sensibly but that you have to have a general prohibition otherwise everyone rightly would think "I'm off to the Park". And now the govt has blown that apart and you are applauding someone who has responded as normal people would respond.
You're bright enough to get this. I hope.
As David said if it's 400,000 I imagine 399,000 would think "it's busy here" and go elsewhere.
What if 500,000 descent upon your local supermarket at the same time? We can all ask absurd questions.
So 399,000 people at the gates of a park is not a problem?
You are skirting around the issue which is that the rules were categoric and hence people were clear or at least the nudge prevented too many people descending on the parks. But now the rules are less clear and one PB-er has said they will amend their behaviour thus risking danger if enough people like him do the same. And you applaud his common sense.
You're being preposterous. How would 399,000 descend upon the gates without first seeing the crowd? Did they teleport there simultaneously?
We are lifting lockdown. I welcome people thinking. I've always welcomed people thinking.
I am not a government representative. If the government says don't think then I don't welcome that. I've criticised the government often in this process including repeatedly today.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
False equivalency klaxon. False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".
They were infected with a deadly virus - something your false equivalency doesn't take into account. Leaving the house meant that others could catch it. Unlike in a fire, there were alternatives to leaving the house up to and including calling social services. While I accept that calling social services not ideal, particularly not to the policital elite, it is temporary and not deadly, WHICH IS WHAT INFECTING COUNTY DURHAM WITH COVID-19 IS FFS. How hard can this be to understand? They may have killed someone to avoid sending their child to a place of safety outside their family - something plenty of very good parents do and have done since time began.
Given that they didn't actually come into contact with anyone either on the way there or back (including Cummings' parents), they could not have infected County Durham with COVID-19. Even if what they did was a technical breach of the rules, surely the key question is did they risk speeding up transmission of the virus? And it doesn't look like they did.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
False equivalency klaxon. False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".
They were infected with a deadly virus - something your false equivalency doesn't take into account. Leaving the house meant that others could catch it. Unlike in a fire, there were alternatives to leaving the house up to and including calling social services. While I accept that calling social services not ideal, particularly not to the policital elite, it is temporary and not deadly, WHICH IS WHAT INFECTING COUNTY DURHAM WITH COVID-19 IS FFS. How hard can this be to understand? They may have killed someone to avoid sending their child to a place of safety outside their family - something plenty of very good parents do and have done since time began.
Given that they didn't actually come into contact with anyone either on the way there or back (including Cummings' parents), they could not have infected County Durham with COVID-19. Even if what they did was a technical breach of the rules, surely the key question is did they risk speeding up transmission of the virus? And it doesn't look like they did.
Hmm, the government's handling of this has undoubtedly been a total disaster, but the moral responsibility argument doesn't end there. If it is indeed the case that people are going to die because the public are (quite reasonably) disgruntled with the PM and his sidekick, then we are admitting that personal pique amongst the public outweighs their responsibility to behave in a way which minimises deaths. We are also exonerating opposition politicians, the police, the media, doctors, and others from their responsibility to point out that anger at Cummings is not an excuse for irresponsible behaviour. It's not as though the coverage has exactly been free of partisan glee.
So perhaps we should go back to being grown ups, who can despise Cummings and Boris, whilst simultaneously recognising that social distancing, quarantines and regulations are there to save lives and should still be followed. This shouldn't be hard, really.
It depends what you mean. I shall follow the laws and whats needed to stop the virus spreading but nonsensical things like I can be in a park surrounded by people I dont know, but not by people I do know? Or I can be in a park but not a big garden? No, I shall no longer bother with such advice.
Good. That's progress. Glad some good has come out of all this.
Let's say that previously @noneoftheabove didn't go to the park. Let's say that his park can hold 1,000 people comfortably maintaining social distancing. Let's say that 30,000 people as a result of Dom's actions think fuck it I'm off down the park.
What then?
I don't know. What if an asteroid strikes?
30,000 people would be a landslide vote share in most constituencies and all constituencies I know of have multiple parks, so I'm thinking that scenario is somewhat implausible.
What if it's 400,000?
That's the point of the whole lockdown thing. Not that you or I couldn't behave sensibly but that you have to have a general prohibition otherwise everyone rightly would think "I'm off to the Park". And now the govt has blown that apart and you are applauding someone who has responded as normal people would respond.
You're bright enough to get this. I hope.
As David said if it's 400,000 I imagine 399,000 would think "it's busy here" and go elsewhere.
What if 500,000 descent upon your local supermarket at the same time? We can all ask absurd questions.
So 399,000 people at the gates of a park is not a problem?
You are skirting around the issue which is that the rules were categoric and hence people were clear or at least the nudge prevented too many people descending on the parks. But now the rules are less clear and one PB-er has said they will amend their behaviour thus risking danger if enough people like him do the same. And you applaud his common sense.
You're being preposterous. How would 399,000 descend upon the gates without first seeing the crowd? Did they teleport there simultaneously?
We are lifting lockdown. I welcome people thinking. I've always welcomed people thinking.
I am not a government representative. If the government says don't think then I don't welcome that. I've criticised the government often in this process including repeatedly today.
It is precisely because they feared 399,000 people descending on a park all at once that the rules were instituted. So they obviously thought it possible.
And those rules have now been changed because of Dom. Would it have changed sooner or later we'll never know. We do know that he has caused it to be changed because of his personal actions.
Doesn't sound like the way govt should set policy, does it?
So I've just crested through the 30,000 comment barrier. I do have a life, honest.
I can relate!
Not sure about that. I randomly come on from time to time. Alastair is on from time to time when I pop in, maybe about 20% of the times I come in. TSE similarly. You Philip, are on here without exception. Serious question; do you do anything else? Because if you don't you really need to get out more mate. It might also broaden your views on things perhaps? Sorry to say it, but very right wing views are nearly always a sign of limited experience of stuff outside your own bubble.
If I'm on five times as often as he is but have a similar post count I must post much less frequently than he does in that time.
You do seem a tad obsessed with me though. It's not healthy.
I don't think you have been here as long perhaps? Not obsessed with you matey, I find you just a little odd, and while I find many of your views preposterous (the latest subject is the best yet!) and others repugnant, I feel somewhat sorry for you, and think someone should tell you to get out more.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
The regulations specifically allow you to leave home in order to prevent injury. Very specific aren't they?
Indeed and having a young infant with no childcare is harmful. QED it is reasonable to leave the home to get childcare.
In all your comments, you seem to pretend there was only one beach of regulations, not three or more.
Forget the trips (plural) between London and Durham, and tell me how the Castle Bernard sojourn was in the rules.
I think it's logical before you go for a long cross country drive if you've just recovered from illness to take a half hour drive to see that you're up to the pressures of driving.
I believe that's what Cummings meant but not what he said. The way it was phrased was awful but the logic I understood.
LOL!
You genuinely think that it is sensible to take a half hour drive to see if you're up to taking a three hour drive?
That must be one of the most (unintentionally I presume) funny things I've read on PB. And of course heard from a senior government advisor.
It is ludicrous. If one were dense enough to take the lie at face value, then presumably one also has to be dense enough to believe the rationale of taking your child in the car when you are checking whether your vision is good enough to drive! Someone like Cummings would of course not be concerned for the other road users.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
False equivalency klaxon. False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".
They were infected with a deadly virus - something your false equivalency doesn't take into account. Leaving the house meant that others could catch it. Unlike in a fire, there were alternatives to leaving the house up to and including calling social services. While I accept that calling social services not ideal, particularly not to the policital elite, it is temporary and not deadly, WHICH IS WHAT INFECTING COUNTY DURHAM WITH COVID-19 IS FFS. How hard can this be to understand? They may have killed someone to avoid sending their child to a place of safety outside their family - something plenty of very good parents do and have done since time began.
Given that they didn't actually come into contact with anyone either on the way there or back (including Cummings' parents), they could not have infected County Durham with COVID-19. Even if what they did was a technical breach of the rules, surely the key question is did they risk speeding up transmission of the virus? And it doesn't look like they did.
You mean, apart from the trip into the hospital.
The lad was assessed over the phone and 999 decided to send an ambulance out. He could have been sent on his own but that seems a cruel thing to do to a four year-old. I would however be interested to know if the paramedics were made aware of Mary Wakefield's illness (assuming she was still symptomatic at that point).
Comments
We are learning more from other countries unlockdowns than we can learn from looking at our own R during lockdown.
Perhaps others have evidence, but I don't see yet that this Cummings story has resulted in much weaker adherence to the lockdown.
It does feel like govt are accelerating lifting the lockdown. The daily new cases we are see are still in the thousands...
The other thing I'm wondering about is some of the modelling talked about multiple easing and tightening of lockdowns. Is that part of the govt's plan?
The problem group are not those itching to go to the pub, the beach or to Nando's. It's the pensioners who have all the money and who don't feel safe out of the house.
Even I dont expect them to do anything but gloss over the fifth condition which was to guarantee there would be no second peak. The virus might mutate and a second peak happen that way, its just not a condition that could ever have been met.
I am free to opine on whether I believe Cummings’ actions to be reasonable or not & also to observe the professed opinions of the rest of the country regardless of whether he has been found guilty in a court of law.
Whether Cummings will ever be convicted of anything (spoiler: he won’t, because this is never going to court) is irrelevant.
It’s also irrelevant to the politics of this whole shitshow, which circle around the fact that Cummings and Johnson appear to be congenitally incapable of apologising to the people for rubbing their noses in the fact that there’s one rule for the little people & another for people like Cummings.
The Daily Star cover today isn’t about whether Cummings is guilty or not. It’s about the optics. And the optics are /awful/.
At first having those itching to go out doing so, while those who are frightened stay in, is a logical step that enables people to do what they want and aid the transition in social distancing. While protecting those at most risk.
As of today, what Covid alert level are we at?
What then?
Is that wrong or right? We shall see. But I don't think you can keep a country locked down seemingly to avoid all risk. Could it have been and could it still be 500,000 deaths? Not sure. But then neither is anyone else.
30,000 people would be a landslide vote share in most constituencies and all constituencies I know of have multiple parks, so I'm thinking that scenario is somewhat implausible.
(Sorry to ruin the jokes.)
I do like the idea of Conservative Thunderbirds: 5... 4... 3.5...
40,000 can't be far off....
Let’s blow up the internet.
It's my civic duty to vote. I used mine as a protest.
https://www.ft.com/video/e82b5a00-3ad5-4d2c-9703-ff14942aa5b1
Highly instructive and not just from the point of view of assessing the Cummings fiasco.
I had hitherto felt the question of the legality of his actions was unclear and best regarded as a grey area. The legal beagle was pretty clear and firm however that there were grounds for a charge (under 'Regulation 6') at least in respect of the Castle episode.
I guess it remains an open possibilty that he will be charged one day although if he is resigned, I don't suppose the plod would bother.
After that I intend doing some travelling, some writing (recreational rather than professional) and I now have an idea what my main post-retirement activity will be but I need to find if and if so who is already doing work in that area before unveiling it.
If he'd left his home because it was on fire nobody would criticise. You are the one lacking any common sense if you swallow the crap coming from Cummings and Johnson.
Would you have protested as eloquently against the Centre Party in 1930s Germany?
Comparisons with Germany are insane, this was not a meaningful election to choose a government. It was a protest election to a parliament we are no longer a part of and should have already left before the vote was held. I treated that election with all the dignity it deserved.
https://www.ft.com/video/e82b5a00-3ad5-4d2c-9703-ff14942aa5b1
It's long (though instructive) so the Exucutive Summary is that in order to be on the right side of the Law (Regulation 6, apparently) Cummings had to have a reasonable excuse for his excursions. He offered three for journey North, and it is possible but by no means certain that one of these or a combination may have sufficed.
As regards the Castle expedition, only one excuse was offered, i.e. the much ridiculed 'eyesight' reason. This was so implausible that it would be unlikely to stand up in a court of Law.
Those arguing that Cummings broke no Law may well be wrong.
You do seem a tad obsessed with me though. It's not healthy.
That's the point of the whole lockdown thing. Not that you or I couldn't behave sensibly but that you have to have a general prohibition otherwise everyone rightly would think "I'm off to the Park". And now the govt has blown that apart and you are applauding someone who has responded as normal people would respond.
You're bright enough to get this. I hope.
What if 500,000 descent upon your local supermarket at the same time? We can all ask absurd questions.
They were infected with a deadly virus - something your false equivalency doesn't take into account. Leaving the house meant that others could catch it. Unlike in a fire, there were alternatives to leaving the house up to and including calling social services. While I accept that calling social services not ideal, particularly not to the policital elite, it is temporary and not deadly, WHICH IS WHAT INFECTING COUNTY DURHAM WITH COVID-19 IS FFS. How hard can this be to understand? They may have killed someone to avoid sending their child to a place of safety outside their family - something plenty of very good parents do and have done since time began.
She lives on a close of bungalows with a lot of other oldies (she'd be affronted if she saw I used that word about her - I got into trouble last night for pointing out that Joe Biden was the same age as her). They're quite sociable between themselves but each only has a handful of links outside the close. They're all really spooked still.
I don't think some younger people have really grasped just how much fear there still is out there.
Forget the trips (plural) between London and Durham, and tell me how the Castle Bernard sojourn was in the rules.
You are skirting around the issue which is that the rules were categoric and hence people were clear or at least the nudge prevented too many people descending on the parks. But now the rules are less clear and one PB-er has said they will amend their behaviour thus risking danger if enough people like him do the same. And you applaud his common sense.
96% of all deaths were with at least one co-morbidity
80% of all deaths were with at least two co-morbidities
about 60% of all deaths were with at least THREE co-morbidities
Average number of co-morbidities in all deceased. 3.1
Average age of deceased. Around 80.
I believe that's what Cummings meant but not what he said. The way it was phrased was awful but the logic I understood.
Incredible.
You genuinely think that it is sensible to take a half hour drive to see if you're up to taking a three hour drive?
That must be one of the most (unintentionally I presume) funny things I've read on PB. And of course heard from a senior government advisor.
We are lifting lockdown. I welcome people thinking. I've always welcomed people thinking.
I am not a government representative. If the government says don't think then I don't welcome that. I've criticised the government often in this process including repeatedly today.
And those rules have now been changed because of Dom. Would it have changed sooner or later we'll never know. We do know that he has caused it to be changed because of his personal actions.
Doesn't sound like the way govt should set policy, does it?
He has made that decision and obviously is willing to take the hit
Perhaps he knows he wont be there to face the electoral reckoning in 2024. That serious money wont earn itself.