I'm fairly certain that's partial figures that will be added to over the day. As though the UK figures were updated with those from Wales before the rest of the country was included.
All the polling indicates that this issue cut right through, it was anything but a "Westminster bubble", it got huge traction. You believe that it has made the government look stronger by ignoring what a huge majority of people right across the political divide felt about the issue, we will see.
I am friends with a guy called Peter on Facebook who is just your standard thick as pig shit leaver. I am not sure how he ended up there, maybe he's a friend of a relative. Anyway, he is a reliable poster of all manner of Brexit and poppy related crap. He loves nurses, lorry drivers, key workers and funny looking kids that are missing limbs. He hates the EU, Corbyn and anything that can be construed as political correctness. Traditionally there has been no emoji that adequately expresses the intensity of his fondness for Johnson.
This week he has been reposting Barnard Castle Eye Test memes with glee. That's how deep this has cut.
So now he'll be voting for the arch-Remainer, PC human rights lawyer socialist at the next election, right?
Definitely not. There is an arrogance from some on the left who think people will just forget Brexit and Starmer's mess because they enjoy a funny meme about an eye test. Ultimately the damage Brexit has done to Labour is far deeper than any issue with Cummings. It is certainly a step in the right direction for Keir to ditch the EU rejoiner loons but he has a long way to go to win back the trust of millions of voters.
Well, the polls and approval ratings do show that a lot of voters are quite open to Starmer as PM and Labour government.
I know it was late at night but your response was unnecessarily assertive!
My use of Alastair’s now infamous stairs stat wasn’t to in some way to criticise the lockdown, it is merely good shorthand for people’s warped perception of risk.
People are getting wiser to the actual risks they face. If you are under 60 and healthy, you are (apparently, according to PB, I haven’t verified this) at more risk of falling down the stairs than from Covid-19.
I dare say few people know this. And I wasn’t only talking about risk of death, I was talking about general risk of both death and injury.
Apparently a quarter of a million Britons a year end up in hospital having fallen down the stairs. Of course, only a fraction of those A&E reports die, but many are injured (some seriously) from their accident.
So, Alastair’s stat is useful, as it provides an everyday comparator. @AndyJS has been trying to convey this risk profile daily, and is often ignored or even attacked for it.
Yet the risk profile is very relevant. That is not to underplay the risks from Covid, merely to quantify and compare them.
Hmm ... a lot of those falls are for prior medical reasons, so it's not a fair comparator. Falling is a symptom rather than a disease in itself. [edit]
A lot of Covid deaths and injuries are due to prior medical reasons too!!
The key issue is this:
1 - We have found that IF THEY GET MEDICAL HELP AND HOSPITALISATION, people of younger demographics without any additional issues (which could be as minor as asthma or diabetes) have an excellent chance of avoiding death (serious pain, long-running medical issues afterwards and the like are omitted)
2 - These younger demographics, however, do still have significant risk of getting so ill that they need that medical help. If the disease was to be either uncontrolled or poorly controlled, huge numbers of them would need help.
3 - The above would easily more than overwhelm the NHS, such that a big chunk of those would die. At which point, the risk of death is no longer as minor as it has been, but really significant. To the point where tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of them would die.
4 - THANKS TO THE RESTRICTIONS (including lockdown), the above has been avoided and the risk of death for these demographics kept down to the levels quoted (comparable with dying from falls).
5 - People immediately start quoting the low death rates for these demographics that we've managed to achieve and using them to argue that the restrictions are actually unnecessary.
It's sort of like using a parachute, landing softly, and then insisting you can jump from 10,000 without bothering with the parachute next time. Yes, your chances of dying when falling from 10,000 feet are minimal when you have a parachute you use correctly (I can corroborate that, having done it 149 times), but this doesn't mean that the parachute was unnecessary or should be omitted in future.
Yep, it's a big moment. The entire Opposition Blob fired everything they had at Cummings, including several kitchen sinks and the BBC's comical 'impartiality', and they could. not. move. him. The Government's ability to ignore any future trumped-up scandals is vastly increased, as is its ability to tell the media to get stuffed if they don't like it.
I really think that you don't get it.
Starmer wasn't trying to move Cummings. Starmer was trying to move voting intention and public attitudes to Johnson personally. Starmer was also trying to turn Cummings into a widely known figure of derision while hoping that Johnson held onto his Svengali in order to ensure that this continued to hurt the Conservatives going forward.
Starmer seems to have succeeded in every count. The gap with YouGov is down from the 24% he inherited to 6% now. And there's the fallout from the Conservative recession to come.
. Neutralize that (the media), and Starmer is thoroughly beatable.
For me, one of the most worrying developments is the concerted effort to “neutralise” the media. Drawn straight from the Bannon/Trump playbook it is anathema to a healthy democracy to hamstring a free press, however angry you might feel about something they report. Conservatives should hold this principle dear; @BluestBlue typifies the reason this lifetime Tory voter will not vote for them again unless or until they recover their genuinely one nation ethos.
Sounds worrying. Over-zealous cops not wanting to be filmed, or media provoking the crowd?
In the clip its very clear - the (black) reporter is polite and calm - says we were here before you arrived - where would you like us to move to? He asks several times - but the (white) cops arrest him - and his team, anyway. On live TV.
The original video that incited these riots, of that poor guy being suffocated, is one of the saddest things I have seen on the Net.
It's not horrific like an ISIS vid, it is tragic and awful
For me, the contrast with how the police behaved when the armed rednecks stormed the Michigan State House is the most depressing thing. Different state I accept but I have no doubt it is reflective of attitudes accross the US.
Fun fact. Ronald Reagan became a fan of gun control (in the form of the Mulford Act) while Governor of California when the Black Panthers began to exercise their open carry rights in Oakland. Armed Black Panther members marched on the California State Capitol in Sacramento to protest against the bill.
What Shriver fails to mention is that for 20-somethings, there isn;t really any extra risk. The only risk is giving it to granny. So, for the time being, don't visit granny.
All the polling indicates that this issue cut right through, it was anything but a "Westminster bubble", it got huge traction. You believe that it has made the government look stronger by ignoring what a huge majority of people right across the political divide felt about the issue, we will see.
I am friends with a guy called Peter on Facebook who is just your standard thick as pig shit leaver. I am not sure how he ended up there, maybe he's a friend of a relative. Anyway, he is a reliable poster of all manner of Brexit and poppy related crap. He loves nurses, lorry drivers, key workers and funny looking kids that are missing limbs. He hates the EU, Corbyn and anything that can be construed as political correctness. Traditionally there has been no emoji that adequately expresses the intensity of his fondness for Johnson.
This week he has been reposting Barnard Castle Eye Test memes with glee. That's how deep this has cut.
So now he'll be voting for the arch-Remainer, PC human rights lawyer socialist at the next election, right?
Definitely not. There is an arrogance from some on the left who think people will just forget Brexit and Starmer's mess because they enjoy a funny meme about an eye test. Ultimately the damage Brexit has done to Labour is far deeper than any issue with Cummings. It is certainly a step in the right direction for Keir to ditch the EU rejoiner loons but he has a long way to go to win back the trust of millions of voters.
I know it was late at night but your response was unnecessarily assertive!
My use of Alastair’s now infamous stairs stat wasn’t to in some way to criticise the lockdown, it is merely good shorthand for people’s warped perception of risk.
People are getting wiser to the actual risks they face. If you are under 60 and healthy, you are (apparently, according to PB, I haven’t verified this) at more risk of falling down the stairs than from Covid-19.
I dare say few people know this. And I wasn’t only talking about risk of death, I was talking about general risk of both death and injury.
Apparently a quarter of a million Britons a year end up in hospital having fallen down the stairs. Of course, only a fraction of those A&E reports die, but many are injured (some seriously) from their accident.
So, Alastair’s stat is useful, as it provides an everyday comparator. @AndyJS has been trying to convey this risk profile daily, and is often ignored or even attacked for it.
Yet the risk profile is very relevant. That is not to underplay the risks from Covid, merely to quantify and compare them.
Hmm ... a lot of those falls are for prior medical reasons, so it's not a fair comparator. Falling is a symptom rather than a disease in itself. [edit]
A lot of Covid deaths and injuries are due to prior medical reasons too!!
The key issue is this:
1 - We have found that IF THEY GET MEDICAL HELP AND HOSPITALISATION, people of younger demographics without any additional issues (which could be as minor as asthma or diabetes) have an excellent chance of avoiding death (serious pain, long-running medical issues afterwards and the like are omitted)
2 - These younger demographics, however, do still have significant risk of getting so ill that they need that medical help. If the disease was to be either uncontrolled or poorly controlled, huge numbers of them would need help.
3 - The above would easily more than overwhelm the NHS, such that a big chunk of those would die. At which point, the risk of death is no longer as minor as it has been, but really significant. To the point where tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of them would die.
4 - THANKS TO THE RESTRICTIONS (including lockdown), the above has been avoided and the risk of death for these demographics kept down to the levels quoted (comparable with dying from falls).
5 - People immediately start quoting the low death rates for these demographics that we've managed to achieve and using them to argue that the restrictions are actually unnecessary.
It's sort of like using a parachute, landing softly, and then insisting you can jump from 10,000 without bothering with the parachute next time. Yes, your chances of dying when falling from 10,000 feet are minimal when you have a parachute you use correctly (I can corroborate that, having done it 149 times), but this doesn't mean that the parachute was unnecessary or should be omitted in future.
Reminds of those media clips of people really pissed off that we are now allowed to go to the beach and it is too busy for it to be safe, while standing at the beach...
He will pick the majority side on every issue going for the next 2-3 years, then enter politics full time in some way.
I predict he will overstep. He's far too excitable and reactive. Some issue will come along and he will take the WRONG side and go too far and poofff! - his media ascent will end
Very likely. Id be happy to back him as PM by the end of the decade at 100/1 though.
I have said this a few times (plagarised from a forgotten source) but in the battle between the hormones of horny teenagers and Matt Hancock, there is only one winner, and it's not Hancock.
He will pick the majority side on every issue going for the next 2-3 years, then enter politics full time in some way.
I predict he will overstep. He's far too excitable and reactive. Some issue will come along and he will take the WRONG side and go too far and poofff! - his media ascent will end
Like running fakes photos of army torture....I am still amazed how under his editorship the Mirror were European champions at phone hacking, but he had absolutely no idea it was going on.
Nothing to do with the Daily Star change of ownership?
Not really it's always been more entertainment than news - it now seems that taking the mickey out of Cummings is entertainment for those people who would prefer to be out with their mates.
And that's the danger. The wider public know who Cummings is, that he's a wrongun and that BoJo has nailed his trousers to the Cummings mast.
Dom's a celebrity now.
How long before he gets a SuBo style nickname? DomCum?
I have said this a few times (plagarised from a forgotten source) but in the battle between the hormones of horny teenagers and Matt Hancock, there is only one winner, and it's not Hancock.
Nothing to do with the Daily Star change of ownership?
Not really it's always been more entertainment than news - it now seems that taking the mickey out of Cummings is entertainment for those people who would prefer to be out with their mates.
And that's the danger. The wider public know who Cummings is, that he's a wrongun and that BoJo has nailed his trousers to the Cummings mast.
Dom's a celebrity now.
How long before he gets a SuBo style nickname? DomCum?
I've been meaning to ask, do you come from New Cross?
I have said this a few times (plagarised from a forgotten source) but in the battle between the hormones of horny teenagers and Matt Hancock, there is only one winner, and it's not Hancock.
I know it was late at night but your response was unnecessarily assertive!
My use of Alastair’s now infamous stairs stat wasn’t to in some way to criticise the lockdown, it is merely good shorthand for people’s warped perception of risk.
People are getting wiser to the actual risks they face. If you are under 60 and healthy, you are (apparently, according to PB, I haven’t verified this) at more risk of falling down the stairs than from Covid-19.
I dare say few people know this. And I wasn’t only talking about risk of death, I was talking about general risk of both death and injury.
Apparently a quarter of a million Britons a year end up in hospital having fallen down the stairs. Of course, only a fraction of those A&E reports die, but many are injured (some seriously) from their accident.
So, Alastair’s stat is useful, as it provides an everyday comparator. @AndyJS has been trying to convey this risk profile daily, and is often ignored or even attacked for it.
Yet the risk profile is very relevant. That is not to underplay the risks from Covid, merely to quantify and compare them.
Hmm ... a lot of those falls are for prior medical reasons, so it's not a fair comparator. Falling is a symptom rather than a disease in itself. [edit]
A lot of Covid deaths and injuries are due to prior medical reasons too!!
The key issue is this:
1 - We have found that IF THEY GET MEDICAL HELP AND HOSPITALISATION, people of younger demographics without any additional issues (which could be as minor as asthma or diabetes) have an excellent chance of avoiding death (serious pain, long-running medical issues afterwards and the like are omitted)
2 - These younger demographics, however, do still have significant risk of getting so ill that they need that medical help. If the disease was to be either uncontrolled or poorly controlled, huge numbers of them would need help.
3 - The above would easily more than overwhelm the NHS, such that a big chunk of those would die. At which point, the risk of death is no longer as minor as it has been, but really significant. To the point where tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of them would die.
4 - THANKS TO THE RESTRICTIONS (including lockdown), the above has been avoided and the risk of death for these demographics kept down to the levels quoted (comparable with dying from falls).
5 - People immediately start quoting the low death rates for these demographics that we've managed to achieve and using them to argue that the restrictions are actually unnecessary.
It's sort of like using a parachute, landing softly, and then insisting you can jump from 10,000 without bothering with the parachute next time. Yes, your chances of dying when falling from 10,000 feet are minimal when you have a parachute you use correctly (I can corroborate that, having done it 149 times), but this doesn't mean that the parachute was unnecessary or should be omitted in future.
Trust me on that one.
How can you say that you have validly and scientifically tested this when you have used a parachute every time? Where is your nul hypothesis?
Nothing to do with the Daily Star change of ownership?
Not really it's always been more entertainment than news - it now seems that taking the mickey out of Cummings is entertainment for those people who would prefer to be out with their mates.
And that's the danger. The wider public know who Cummings is, that he's a wrongun and that BoJo has nailed his trousers to the Cummings mast.
Dom's a celebrity now.
How long before he gets a SuBo style nickname? DomCum?
I've been meaning to ask, do you come from New Cross?
He will pick the majority side on every issue going for the next 2-3 years, then enter politics full time in some way.
I predict he will overstep. He's far too excitable and reactive. Some issue will come along and he will take the WRONG side and go too far and poofff! - his media ascent will end
Like running fakes photos of army torture....I am still amazed how under his editorship the Mirror were European champions at phone hacking, but he had absolutely no idea it was going on.
He's a wrong'un. But another journalist who conspired with someone to have a fellow journalist beaten up, as a "joke" he says, is now PM. So anything can happen.
Part of the problem going forward is the decline in local newspapers the only medium to report on local council activities. So they can operate in a bubble free of criticism. Even worse when there is no opposition. STV multi member wards would stop single party councils but as can be seen from turnout in local elections 60% of the electorate aren’t interested.
Not interested because there's no point (although I think turnout has gone up in Scotland since the introduction of STV?). Not interested because they're not educated. Not interested because it is all just a crooked con.
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he wasn't one of them, but I hope he was all over twitter making a similar point when various Brexiteers were predicting violent revolution just because their frankly piddling interpretations of what Brexit should be were being thwarted.
I have said this a few times (plagarised from a forgotten source) but in the battle between the hormones of horny teenagers and Matt Hancock, there is only one winner, and it's not Hancock.
The government eggheads were correct that strict lockdown for more than a few weeks just wasn't possible. I think the public have exceeded expectations, but the reality is with the sunny weather coming and 10 weeks locked up in your home, people in low risk categories are never going to continue to stick to this rigidly (regardless of what the government or opposition line is).
Much that it would get howls of "CONNNNNNNFFFUSSSSSSIIONNNN", I think it would now be better for the government to level with the public and lay out the levels of risk in undertaking different activities and to different groups and ask the public to think about their actions and make sensible choices in terms of trying to always choose a lower risk option i.e. don't meet people inside, if you have to meet, do it outside . Don't go meeting person after person after person. Try to limit your interactions to a small network i.e. if you really need to shag your mistress, just do her, don't go then having loads of mates around.
Nothing to do with the Daily Star change of ownership?
Not really it's always been more entertainment than news - it now seems that taking the mickey out of Cummings is entertainment for those people who would prefer to be out with their mates.
And that's the danger. The wider public know who Cummings is, that he's a wrongun and that BoJo has nailed his trousers to the Cummings mast.
Dom's a celebrity now.
How long before he gets a SuBo style nickname? DomCum?
I've been meaning to ask, do you come from New Cross?
I live there. Are you also a SE London local?
Used to be, I lived in Greenwich for five years, but I was a fan of Carter the Unstoppable Sex Machine when I was a kid. That's where I got the reference from.
People sitting at home, not working but still getting paid, quite fond of the idea of doing the same for a bit longer. What a surprise.
So, you think regular people are all lazy workshy bastards, but it's the left who are elitists. Okay.
No, I’m saying (to the government’s credit) that so far most people are not suffering major financial harm despite the crisis. This support, however, can’t continue indefinitely, and the continued support for the lockdown will disappear very quickly once the financial support from government ends. There’s already a lot of layoffs been announced, and a lot of small business failures that won’t make headline news.
I know it was late at night but your response was unnecessarily assertive!
My use of Alastair’s now infamous stairs stat wasn’t to in some way to criticise the lockdown, it is merely good shorthand for people’s warped perception of risk.
People are getting wiser to the actual risks they face. If you are under 60 and healthy, you are (apparently, according to PB, I haven’t verified this) at more risk of falling down the stairs than from Covid-19.
I dare say few people know this. And I wasn’t only talking about risk of death, I was talking about general risk of both death and injury.
Apparently a quarter of a million Britons a year end up in hospital having fallen down the stairs. Of course, only a fraction of those A&E reports die, but many are injured (some seriously) from their accident.
So, Alastair’s stat is useful, as it provides an everyday comparator. @AndyJS has been trying to convey this risk profile daily, and is often ignored or even attacked for it.
Yet the risk profile is very relevant. That is not to underplay the risks from Covid, merely to quantify and compare them.
Hmm ... a lot of those falls are for prior medical reasons, so it's not a fair comparator. Falling is a symptom rather than a disease in itself. [edit]
A lot of Covid deaths and injuries are due to prior medical reasons too!!
The key issue is this:
1 - We have found that IF THEY GET MEDICAL HELP AND HOSPITALISATION, people of younger demographics without any additional issues (which could be as minor as asthma or diabetes) have an excellent chance of avoiding death (serious pain, long-running medical issues afterwards and the like are omitted)
2 - These younger demographics, however, do still have significant risk of getting so ill that they need that medical help. If the disease was to be either uncontrolled or poorly controlled, huge numbers of them would need help.
3 - The above would easily more than overwhelm the NHS, such that a big chunk of those would die. At which point, the risk of death is no longer as minor as it has been, but really significant. To the point where tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of them would die.
4 - THANKS TO THE RESTRICTIONS (including lockdown), the above has been avoided and the risk of death for these demographics kept down to the levels quoted (comparable with dying from falls).
5 - People immediately start quoting the low death rates for these demographics that we've managed to achieve and using them to argue that the restrictions are actually unnecessary.
It's sort of like using a parachute, landing softly, and then insisting you can jump from 10,000 without bothering with the parachute next time. Yes, your chances of dying when falling from 10,000 feet are minimal when you have a parachute you use correctly (I can corroborate that, having done it 149 times), but this doesn't mean that the parachute was unnecessary or should be omitted in future.
Trust me on that one.
A palpable anecdote! Just because your 149 jumps were correlated with safe landings, you want to infer causation. Point us to an RCT.
I know it was late at night but your response was unnecessarily assertive!
My use of Alastair’s now infamous stairs stat wasn’t to in some way to criticise the lockdown, it is merely good shorthand for people’s warped perception of risk.
People are getting wiser to the actual risks they face. If you are under 60 and healthy, you are (apparently, according to PB, I haven’t verified this) at more risk of falling down the stairs than from Covid-19.
I dare say few people know this. And I wasn’t only talking about risk of death, I was talking about general risk of both death and injury.
Apparently a quarter of a million Britons a year end up in hospital having fallen down the stairs. Of course, only a fraction of those A&E reports die, but many are injured (some seriously) from their accident.
So, Alastair’s stat is useful, as it provides an everyday comparator. @AndyJS has been trying to convey this risk profile daily, and is often ignored or even attacked for it.
Yet the risk profile is very relevant. That is not to underplay the risks from Covid, merely to quantify and compare them.
Hmm ... a lot of those falls are for prior medical reasons, so it's not a fair comparator. Falling is a symptom rather than a disease in itself. [edit]
A lot of Covid deaths and injuries are due to prior medical reasons too!!
The key issue is this:
1 - We have found that IF THEY GET MEDICAL HELP AND HOSPITALISATION, people of younger demographics without any additional issues (which could be as minor as asthma or diabetes) have an excellent chance of avoiding death (serious pain, long-running medical issues afterwards and the like are omitted)
2 - These younger demographics, however, do still have significant risk of getting so ill that they need that medical help. If the disease was to be either uncontrolled or poorly controlled, huge numbers of them would need help.
3 - The above would easily more than overwhelm the NHS, such that a big chunk of those would die. At which point, the risk of death is no longer as minor as it has been, but really significant. To the point where tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of them would die.
4 - THANKS TO THE RESTRICTIONS (including lockdown), the above has been avoided and the risk of death for these demographics kept down to the levels quoted (comparable with dying from falls).
5 - People immediately start quoting the low death rates for these demographics that we've managed to achieve and using them to argue that the restrictions are actually unnecessary.
It's sort of like using a parachute, landing softly, and then insisting you can jump from 10,000 without bothering with the parachute next time. Yes, your chances of dying when falling from 10,000 feet are minimal when you have a parachute you use correctly (I can corroborate that, having done it 149 times), but this doesn't mean that the parachute was unnecessary or should be omitted in future.
Trust me on that one.
Have you tried without a parachute though?
I've just read a survey that shows the average age of those admittted to hospital with COVID in England so far is 72.
So the assertion that younger demographics can get so ill they need medical help, and that huge numbers would need it if there was no lockdown.
I'm sorry but on the evidence those statements are simply not true.
Th arguments for lockdown are falling apart faster than....er....lockdown.
Nothing to do with the Daily Star change of ownership?
Not really it's always been more entertainment than news - it now seems that taking the mickey out of Cummings is entertainment for those people who would prefer to be out with their mates.
And that's the danger. The wider public know who Cummings is, that he's a wrongun and that BoJo has nailed his trousers to the Cummings mast.
Dom's a celebrity now.
But most people probably think that he looks like Sherlock.
Nothing to do with the Daily Star change of ownership?
Not really it's always been more entertainment than news - it now seems that taking the mickey out of Cummings is entertainment for those people who would prefer to be out with their mates.
And that's the danger. The wider public know who Cummings is, that he's a wrongun and that BoJo has nailed his trousers to the Cummings mast.
Dom's a celebrity now.
How long before he gets a SuBo style nickname? DomCum?
I've been meaning to ask, do you come from New Cross?
We also need to know if he is a crusty, a greebo or a goth.
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he wasn't one of them, but I hope he was all over twitter making a similar point when various Brexiteers were predicting violent revolution just because their frankly piddling interpretations of what Brexit should be were being thwarted.
The problem with this for the Black community in the States is that when you peacefully protest police brutality, say by kneeling for the national anthem, you are denounced as traitorous and lose your job.
Back lay them both, and hope Biden makes it to the Convention?
Not a bad thought but it only gives a just under 10% return so you can get the same money just backing Biden to be Dem nominee (on Betfair) and you remove a tiny but still additional risk that Trump doesn't make it to November.
Personally I'm pleased to say I got a fairly chunky bet on Biden at 2.42 around the time my article talking him up went live 3 weeks ago. I reckon there will very likely be a point in the campaign when he is comfortably if not massively odds on (say 1.7-1.83) and if that does occur I'll reassess then as to whether I cash out or not.
Nothing to do with the Daily Star change of ownership?
Not really it's always been more entertainment than news - it now seems that taking the mickey out of Cummings is entertainment for those people who would prefer to be out with their mates.
And that's the danger. The wider public know who Cummings is, that he's a wrongun and that BoJo has nailed his trousers to the Cummings mast.
Dom's a celebrity now.
How long before he gets a SuBo style nickname? DomCum?
I've been meaning to ask, do you come from New Cross?
We also need to know if he is a crusty, a greebo or a goth.
I was asked this when I first joined the forum. I think the answer I gave then was that I was a centrist dad.
I know it was late at night but your response was unnecessarily assertive!
My use of Alastair’s now infamous stairs stat wasn’t to in some way to criticise the lockdown, it is merely good shorthand for people’s warped perception of risk.
People are getting wiser to the actual risks they face. If you are under 60 and healthy, you are (apparently, according to PB, I haven’t verified this) at more risk of falling down the stairs than from Covid-19.
I dare say few people know this. And I wasn’t only talking about risk of death, I was talking about general risk of both death and injury.
Apparently a quarter of a million Britons a year end up in hospital having fallen down the stairs. Of course, only a fraction of those A&E reports die, but many are injured (some seriously) from their accident.
So, Alastair’s stat is useful, as it provides an everyday comparator. @AndyJS has been trying to convey this risk profile daily, and is often ignored or even attacked for it.
Yet the risk profile is very relevant. That is not to underplay the risks from Covid, merely to quantify and compare them.
A better comparison might be the one I made in my most recent thread header, namely, TB. This is contagious and is spread in very similar ways to Covid-19. Death from it is similar too. And if you survive it, it often leaves long-term health problems.
The death rate world-wide is 15%. In 2018 1.5 million people died from it. Even though there are antibiotics that can cure it.
And, yet, despite this appalling death rate, the world has not reacted in the same way by shutting down everything in sight.
So it is legitimate to ask whether we are not overreacting - particularly in our apparent intention to keep things shut or make it impossible for them to reopen.
TB is not a First World problem! It is sad, but that is the reason.
I know that. But even the countries where it is a problem have not reacted in this way. Nor has the WHO. And nor did we when it was a problem in this country.
Nor did we in 1968 and 1957 when we had flu epidemics which killed tens of thousands of people.
So I do think that we should be asking ourselves whether we are overreacting.
You are thinking about tens of thousands of people.
The question is whether you doubt, that if this virus worked its way through the whole population unhindered, we would be talking about half a million deaths. And whether you think in that context we are overreacting.
1.5 million people died of TB in 2018.
I think locking down to suppress the virus is probably the right thing to do in the short-term. Shutting down for the long-term is a different question - and there I think the question of overreaction, risk, the costs of doing so, the purpose of life etc should be taken into account. That is what my last thread header was about. It was roundly ignored because of Cummings but it is, even if I am the one saying so, a necessary debate.
Yes, but the death toll from TB in England is on the close order of 200 per year, and a vaccine is not only available but in widespread use. If the Covid-19 death toll was similar and a vaccine was available and in widespread use, things would be very different and a lockdown would certainly not have been used.
If we release the lockdown too soon and get a larger second wave, the hospitality sector is one of the first deaths. Very few people would go out to bars and restaurants as soon as they get scared of it - and the oft-quoted line that "If you're not old and ill already, you're safe" would cease to be true the moment the health service gets overwhelmed. And they will get scared if a new wave comes along. Releasing the restrictions together with releasing support could be the worst thing to happen to them - they'll get minimal customers and no support.
Sunak was doing the right thing. He should directly target the hospitality sector for extra support when they can't operate normally, because otherwise healthy businesses will perish if he doesn't. Requiring them to pay 20% of wages is bloody stupid and incredibly short-sighted: the loss of these businesses will lose corporation taxes, will lose NI contributions from employer and employee alike, and will lose income tax contributions from the former employees who will then require state support, anyway.
The free market, working properly, is only supposed to close down businesses that are unprofitable in normal operation - using the sense of "profit" being "creating more value in output than consumed in its inputs." Healthy and well-managed bars and restaurants will collapse without support when they are unable to trade - either by government fiat or by a pandemic inducing customers to stay away. And rebuilding them afterwards is far more costly than preserving them, so it's a no-brainer (to me) to preserve them. Especially as we're highly likely to have come across some solution by the end of this year, or mid-next year at the latest (whether vaccine, treatment, or easy rapid test).
I have said this a few times (plagarised from a forgotten source) but in the battle between the hormones of horny teenagers and Matt Hancock, there is only one winner, and it's not Hancock.
I know it was late at night but your response was unnecessarily assertive!
My use of Alastair’s now infamous stairs stat wasn’t to in some way to criticise the lockdown, it is merely good shorthand for people’s warped perception of risk.
People are getting wiser to the actual risks they face. If you are under 60 and healthy, you are (apparently, according to PB, I haven’t verified this) at more risk of falling down the stairs than from Covid-19.
I dare say few people know this. And I wasn’t only talking about risk of death, I was talking about general risk of both death and injury.
Apparently a quarter of a million Britons a year end up in hospital having fallen down the stairs. Of course, only a fraction of those A&E reports die, but many are injured (some seriously) from their accident.
So, Alastair’s stat is useful, as it provides an everyday comparator. @AndyJS has been trying to convey this risk profile daily, and is often ignored or even attacked for it.
Yet the risk profile is very relevant. That is not to underplay the risks from Covid, merely to quantify and compare them.
Hmm ... a lot of those falls are for prior medical reasons, so it's not a fair comparator. Falling is a symptom rather than a disease in itself. [edit]
A lot of Covid deaths and injuries are due to prior medical reasons too!!
The key issue is this:
1 - We have found that IF THEY GET MEDICAL HELP AND HOSPITALISATION, people of younger demographics without any additional issues (which could be as minor as asthma or diabetes) have an excellent chance of avoiding death (serious pain, long-running medical issues afterwards and the like are omitted)
2 - These younger demographics, however, do still have significant risk of getting so ill that they need that medical help. If the disease was to be either uncontrolled or poorly controlled, huge numbers of them would need help.
3 - The above would easily more than overwhelm the NHS, such that a big chunk of those would die. At which point, the risk of death is no longer as minor as it has been, but really significant. To the point where tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of them would die.
4 - THANKS TO THE RESTRICTIONS (including lockdown), the above has been avoided and the risk of death for these demographics kept down to the levels quoted (comparable with dying from falls).
5 - People immediately start quoting the low death rates for these demographics that we've managed to achieve and using them to argue that the restrictions are actually unnecessary.
It's sort of like using a parachute, landing softly, and then insisting you can jump from 10,000 without bothering with the parachute next time. Yes, your chances of dying when falling from 10,000 feet are minimal when you have a parachute you use correctly (I can corroborate that, having done it 149 times), but this doesn't mean that the parachute was unnecessary or should be omitted in future.
Trust me on that one.
Have you tried without a parachute though?
I've just read a survey that shows the average age of those admittted to hospital with COVID in England so far is 72.
So the assertion that younger demographics can get so ill they need medical help, and that huge numbers would need it if there was no lockdown.
I'm sorry but on the evidence those statements are simply not true.
Th arguments for lockdown are falling apart faster than....er....lockdown.
"Average" - such a difficult concept to get one's head around. I sympathise.
I imagine by that point that No 10 will be releasing hourly bulletins on the progress of the dear leader (de facto).
Number 10 are going to enjoy wrong footing the press and keep them all guessing. I reckon he will go when Boris steps down in 2023/2024 and Sunak or whoever else will bring in their own guy.
If you think they have been "wrong footing" the press so far you are either even more deluded than I thought or from a completely different planet to everyone else.
I really don't know whether BluestBlue and Brom actually believe this line they are taking despite all the evidence out there or whether they are desperate to try and put some sort of positive spin on it and it's the best they can come up with. I hope for their sakes it is the latter.
Look at the Starmer/Johnson polling when he became LOTO and look at it 8 weeks later. The last 8 weeks have brought Labour right back in to the game.
Of course you can argue that this won't matter by the time the next GE rolls around but nobody knows that right now but you would have to be fairly deluded to think Boris has played a blinder over the last couple of months. He might recover or it might be become even clearer that he actually is the bumbling incompetent many suspect . For that we will have to wait and see.
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he wasn't one of them, but I hope he was all over twitter making a similar point when various Brexiteers were predicting violent revolution just because their frankly piddling interpretations of what Brexit should be were being thwarted.
The problem with this for the Black community in the States is that when you peacefully protest police brutality, say by kneeling for the national anthem, you are denounced as traitorous and lose your job.
"With equal force" is what puzzles me. Is "don't put pineapple on pizzas" also morally on a par with "don't kill innocent black men?"
I know it's a matter of some controversy on PB, so I'm sure everyone is glad to know that BJ seems to be back to his pre Covid, smashing-wee-Japanese-kids weight.
A 'car crash' is looming for student accommodation landlords
University life will be very different in September. If students defer their places, local landlords will be swamped with mass vacancies
"He cited the example of a Hull landlord who was trying to sell up. “He has 45 houses and no tenants for next year,” Mr Hart said."
(Telegraph)
Talk about putting all your eggs in one basket.
I have no idea what the government are going to do about the whole university "industry". The damage is going to be enormous. There were already too many poorly run universities, who had little diversity in income. And of course sprung up around them, all these "cottage industries", which cater for all the students.
I know it was late at night but your response was unnecessarily assertive!
My use of Alastair’s now infamous stairs stat wasn’t to in some way to criticise the lockdown, it is merely good shorthand for people’s warped perception of risk.
People are getting wiser to the actual risks they face. If you are under 60 and healthy, you are (apparently, according to PB, I haven’t verified this) at more risk of falling down the stairs than from Covid-19.
I dare say few people know this. And I wasn’t only talking about risk of death, I was talking about general risk of both death and injury.
Apparently a quarter of a million Britons a year end up in hospital having fallen down the stairs. Of course, only a fraction of those A&E reports die, but many are injured (some seriously) from their accident.
So, Alastair’s stat is useful, as it provides an everyday comparator. @AndyJS has been trying to convey this risk profile daily, and is often ignored or even attacked for it.
Yet the risk profile is very relevant. That is not to underplay the risks from Covid, merely to quantify and compare them.
Hmm ... a lot of those falls are for prior medical reasons, so it's not a fair comparator. Falling is a symptom rather than a disease in itself. [edit]
A lot of Covid deaths and injuries are due to prior medical reasons too!!
The key issue is this:
1 - We have found that IF THEY GET MEDICAL HELP AND HOSPITALISATION, people of younger demographics without any additional issues (which could be as minor as asthma or diabetes) have an excellent chance of avoiding death (serious pain, long-running medical issues afterwards and the like are omitted)
2 - These younger demographics, however, do still have significant risk of getting so ill that they need that medical help. If the disease was to be either uncontrolled or poorly controlled, huge numbers of them would need help.
3 - The above would easily more than overwhelm the NHS, such that a big chunk of those would die. At which point, the risk of death is no longer as minor as it has been, but really significant. To the point where tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of them would die.
4 - THANKS TO THE RESTRICTIONS (including lockdown), the above has been avoided and the risk of death for these demographics kept down to the levels quoted (comparable with dying from falls).
5 - People immediately start quoting the low death rates for these demographics that we've managed to achieve and using them to argue that the restrictions are actually unnecessary.
It's sort of like using a parachute, landing softly, and then insisting you can jump from 10,000 without bothering with the parachute next time. Yes, your chances of dying when falling from 10,000 feet are minimal when you have a parachute you use correctly (I can corroborate that, having done it 149 times), but this doesn't mean that the parachute was unnecessary or should be omitted in future.
Trust me on that one.
Have you tried without a parachute though?
I've just read a survey that shows the average age of those admittted to hospital with COVID in England so far is 72.
So the assertion that younger demographics can get so ill they need medical help, and that huge numbers would need it if there was no lockdown.
I'm sorry but on the evidence those statements are simply not true.
Th arguments for lockdown are falling apart faster than....er....lockdown.
"Average" - such a difficult concept to get one's head around. I sympathise.
An insult and no evidence to the contrary.
par for the course from a long lockdowner these days.
Diseased and desperate Mexicans are abandoning their crushed local hospitals, fleeing north, collapsing at the US border - and being taken to US hospitals
It's not hard to see where this ends. With Trump in power. These poor Mexicans are theoretically bringing the virus into California, which was hitherto doing well in suppressing it
This second episode of CORONAVIRUS could be much nastier than the first
Not Mexicans - US citizens, reportedly: ...small community hospitals in Southern California, some of the poorest in the state, have been flooded with Americans who have fallen ill and crossed the border. They are retirees and dual citizens, Americans working in Mexico or visiting family there...
As Brexit keeps being mentioned its instructive to look beyond the culture war that some rampers insist it is about as to why normal punters up here on Teesside and elsewhere voted for it. And why non-voting people voted for the first and last time for it.
Brexit is the silver bullet magic wand, the one size fits all solution to all your problems. Don't like the darkies? Brexit. Think things were better at some unspecified point in the past? Brexit. Want more people like you to live near you? Brexit. Can't get a job? Brexit. 30 years of things getting harder and you want better times for your kids? Brexit. Its about culture and about opportunity, and of those two things give people cash and nice holidays and a new iPhone and suddenly Romanians washing that nice new car you have on finance is less of a problem.
We left the EU at the end of January. Get Brexit Done remember? It is done. And most normals have moved on - they now want those better times they were promised. The Pandemic has made things a lot lot worse but thats different. However, as we head through the winter and no deal makes for fun times, people aren't going to say "good, I'm glad that we are queueing outside the supermarkets for half an hour in the freezing rain and there's fuck all to buy, stick that you remoaners". When 3m+ lose their jobs off the end of furlough and there's no jobs to be had they won't be cheering on Boris. It'll be what we're already starting to see in the Tory press - "this isn't the Brexit I voted for".
Would really help some of our most foamy Tories to consider just for a moment that what they think isn't automatically what new Brexit leaning first time Tory voters think. Lose their support and you lose all hope of winning a majority. They aren't ideologically wedded to the same things as you - they can't afford to be. They just want better times, and if you don't deliver they won't be happy...
I think Marquee Mark's general point about the press losing their cool and being unable to see through the issue is pretty much bang on. They've absolutely lost it. Lost. It.
Yep, it's a big moment. The entire Opposition Blob fired everything they had at Cummings, including several kitchen sinks and the BBC's comical 'impartiality', and they could. not. move. him. The Government's ability to ignore any future trumped-up scandals is vastly increased, as is its ability to tell the media to get stuffed if they don't like it.
If you define the blob as people who think Cummings should resign, that's a pretty big blob, encompassing well over half the British population and millions of Tory voters. Happy to be counted as part of the blob myself.
Once ministers (maybe Hancock is top of the the list) have had to appear regularly in excruciating circumstances plainly embarrassed to defend the indefensible, and obviously coming second in the batting order to an unelected official it is difficult to get authority back.
And sometimes it doesn't go away. Blair and Campbell have still never really recovered from their contortions over Iraq.
Blair was re elected in 2005 after the Iraq invasion, albeit with a smaller majority
FPTP is the best!
Warcrimes calmly swept under the carpet. Nothing to see here.
I do wonder if Maitlis can survive this barrage. Hoist by her own petard it would appear. I believe she is on course to recieve the most Ofcom complaints of all time.
Newsnight really is just clinging on.
That said, I feel there is an overreaction to her poorly worded opening remarks. Lots of pent up rage resulting from lockdown is to be expected. Everyone is poised on twitter just waiting to be outraged.
Because they had to spend 30 mins asking the same question about Big Dom.
There is also the issue of the app...its not here, there is no firm date for its release. It was said initially it was centrepiece of the test, track, and trace approach that would get us out of lockdown.
I know it was late at night but your response was unnecessarily assertive!
My use of Alastair’s now infamous stairs stat wasn’t to in some way to criticise the lockdown, it is merely good shorthand for people’s warped perception of risk.
People are getting wiser to the actual risks they face. If you are under 60 and healthy, you are (apparently, according to PB, I haven’t verified this) at more risk of falling down the stairs than from Covid-19.
I dare say few people know this. And I wasn’t only talking about risk of death, I was talking about general risk of both death and injury.
Apparently a quarter of a million Britons a year end up in hospital having fallen down the stairs. Of course, only a fraction of those A&E reports die, but many are injured (some seriously) from their accident.
So, Alastair’s stat is useful, as it provides an everyday comparator. @AndyJS has been trying to convey this risk profile daily, and is often ignored or even attacked for it.
Yet the risk profile is very relevant. That is not to underplay the risks from Covid, merely to quantify and compare them.
Hmm ... a lot of those falls are for prior medical reasons, so it's not a fair comparator. Falling is a symptom rather than a disease in itself. [edit]
A lot of Covid deaths and injuries are due to prior medical reasons too!!
The key issue is this:
1 - We have found that IF THEY GET MEDICAL HELP AND HOSPITALISATION, people of younger demographics without any additional issues (which could be as minor as asthma or diabetes) have an excellent chance of avoiding death (serious pain, long-running medical issues afterwards and the like are omitted)
2 - These younger demographics, however, do still have significant risk of getting so ill that they need that medical help. If the disease was to be either uncontrolled or poorly controlled, huge numbers of them would need help.
3 - The above would easily more than overwhelm the NHS, such that a big chunk of those would die. At which point, the risk of death is no longer as minor as it has been, but really significant. To the point where tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of them would die.
4 - THANKS TO THE RESTRICTIONS (including lockdown), the above has been avoided and the risk of death for these demographics kept down to the levels quoted (comparable with dying from falls).
5 - People immediately start quoting the low death rates for these demographics that we've managed to achieve and using them to argue that the restrictions are actually unnecessary.
It's sort of like using a parachute, landing softly, and then insisting you can jump from 10,000 without bothering with the parachute next time. Yes, your chances of dying when falling from 10,000 feet are minimal when you have a parachute you use correctly (I can corroborate that, having done it 149 times), but this doesn't mean that the parachute was unnecessary or should be omitted in future.
Trust me on that one.
Have you tried without a parachute though?
He’s just another guy spouting off about something he’s never actually experienced?
I know it was late at night but your response was unnecessarily assertive!
My use of Alastair’s now infamous stairs stat wasn’t to in some way to criticise the lockdown, it is merely good shorthand for people’s warped perception of risk.
People are getting wiser to the actual risks they face. If you are under 60 and healthy, you are (apparently, according to PB, I haven’t verified this) at more risk of falling down the stairs than from Covid-19.
I dare say few people know this. And I wasn’t only talking about risk of death, I was talking about general risk of both death and injury.
Apparently a quarter of a million Britons a year end up in hospital having fallen down the stairs. Of course, only a fraction of those A&E reports die, but many are injured (some seriously) from their accident.
So, Alastair’s stat is useful, as it provides an everyday comparator. @AndyJS has been trying to convey this risk profile daily, and is often ignored or even attacked for it.
Yet the risk profile is very relevant. That is not to underplay the risks from Covid, merely to quantify and compare them.
Hmm ... a lot of those falls are for prior medical reasons, so it's not a fair comparator. Falling is a symptom rather than a disease in itself. [edit]
A lot of Covid deaths and injuries are due to prior medical reasons too!!
The key issue is this:
1 - We have found that IF THEY GET MEDICAL HELP AND HOSPITALISATION, people of younger demographics without any additional issues (which could be as minor as asthma or diabetes) have an excellent chance of avoiding death (serious pain, long-running medical issues afterwards and the like are omitted)
2 - These younger demographics, however, do still have significant risk of getting so ill that they need that medical help. If the disease was to be either uncontrolled or poorly controlled, huge numbers of them would need help.
3 - The above would easily more than overwhelm the NHS, such that a big chunk of those would die. At which point, the risk of death is no longer as minor as it has been, but really significant. To the point where tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of them would die.
4 - THANKS TO THE RESTRICTIONS (including lockdown), the above has been avoided and the risk of death for these demographics kept down to the levels quoted (comparable with dying from falls).
5 - People immediately start quoting the low death rates for these demographics that we've managed to achieve and using them to argue that the restrictions are actually unnecessary.
It's sort of like using a parachute, landing softly, and then insisting you can jump from 10,000 without bothering with the parachute next time. Yes, your chances of dying when falling from 10,000 feet are minimal when you have a parachute you use correctly (I can corroborate that, having done it 149 times), but this doesn't mean that the parachute was unnecessary or should be omitted in future.
Trust me on that one.
Have you tried without a parachute though?
He’s just another guy spouting off about something he’s never actually experienced?
Because they had to spend 30 mins asking the same question about Big Dom.
There is also the issue of the app...its not here, there is no firm date for its release. It was said initially it was centrepiece of the test, track, and trace approach that would get us out of lockdown.
Good to see the government leading, not following.
If you had a dull job and you were sat at home getting 80% of your wages for doing nothing, why would you want it to end? The weather is great, why would you want to go back to work?
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he wasn't one of them, but I hope he was all over twitter making a similar point when various Brexiteers were predicting violent revolution just because their frankly piddling interpretations of what Brexit should be were being thwarted.
There is no reason at all why one ought to "assent with equal force" to those two propositions.
Why does Dan not just say what he means instead of obscuring it with convoluted pretentious language?
I know it was late at night but your response was unnecessarily assertive!
My use of Alastair’s now infamous stairs stat wasn’t to in some way to criticise the lockdown, it is merely good shorthand for people’s warped perception of risk.
People are getting wiser to the actual risks they face. If you are under 60 and healthy, you are (apparently, according to PB, I haven’t verified this) at more risk of falling down the stairs than from Covid-19.
I dare say few people know this. And I wasn’t only talking about risk of death, I was talking about general risk of both death and injury.
Apparently a quarter of a million Britons a year end up in hospital having fallen down the stairs. Of course, only a fraction of those A&E reports die, but many are injured (some seriously) from their accident.
So, Alastair’s stat is useful, as it provides an everyday comparator. @AndyJS has been trying to convey this risk profile daily, and is often ignored or even attacked for it.
Yet the risk profile is very relevant. That is not to underplay the risks from Covid, merely to quantify and compare them.
Hmm ... a lot of those falls are for prior medical reasons, so it's not a fair comparator. Falling is a symptom rather than a disease in itself. [edit]
A lot of Covid deaths and injuries are due to prior medical reasons too!!
The key issue is this:
1 - We have found that IF THEY GET MEDICAL HELP AND HOSPITALISATION, people of younger demographics without any additional issues (which could be as minor as asthma or diabetes) have an excellent chance of avoiding death (serious pain, long-running medical issues afterwards and the like are omitted)
2 - These younger demographics, however, do still have significant risk of getting so ill that they need that medical help. If the disease was to be either uncontrolled or poorly controlled, huge numbers of them would need help.
3 - The above would easily more than overwhelm the NHS, such that a big chunk of those would die. At which point, the risk of death is no longer as minor as it has been, but really significant. To the point where tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of them would die.
4 - THANKS TO THE RESTRICTIONS (including lockdown), the above has been avoided and the risk of death for these demographics kept down to the levels quoted (comparable with dying from falls).
5 - People immediately start quoting the low death rates for these demographics that we've managed to achieve and using them to argue that the restrictions are actually unnecessary.
It's sort of like using a parachute, landing softly, and then insisting you can jump from 10,000 without bothering with the parachute next time. Yes, your chances of dying when falling from 10,000 feet are minimal when you have a parachute you use correctly (I can corroborate that, having done it 149 times), but this doesn't mean that the parachute was unnecessary or should be omitted in future.
Trust me on that one.
Have you tried without a parachute though?
I've just read a survey that shows the average age of those admittted to hospital with COVID in England so far is 72.
So the assertion that younger demographics can get so ill they need medical help, and that huge numbers would need it if there was no lockdown.
I'm sorry but on the evidence those statements are simply not true.
Th arguments for lockdown are falling apart faster than....er....lockdown.
"Average" - such a difficult concept to get one's head around. I sympathise.
An insult and no evidence to the contrary.
par for the course from a long lockdowner these days.
Well, if you accept that at least some of the hospitalized are over 80, you don't need any further evidence, just as you don't need to carry out real world case studies to prove that no bachelors are married. Also, I am not a long lockdowner. Inferences are not really your thing, are they?
Nothing to do with the Daily Star change of ownership?
Not really it's always been more entertainment than news - it now seems that taking the mickey out of Cummings is entertainment for those people who would prefer to be out with their mates.
And that's the danger. The wider public know who Cummings is, that he's a wrongun and that BoJo has nailed his trousers to the Cummings mast.
Dom's a celebrity now.
But most people probably think that he looks like Sherlock.
He must get a lot of requests for his autograph from people who mistake him for Dominic Cumberpatch.
I know it was late at night but your response was unnecessarily assertive!
My use of Alastair’s now infamous stairs stat wasn’t to in some way to criticise the lockdown, it is merely good shorthand for people’s warped perception of risk.
People are getting wiser to the actual risks they face. If you are under 60 and healthy, you are (apparently, according to PB, I haven’t verified this) at more risk of falling down the stairs than from Covid-19.
I dare say few people know this. And I wasn’t only talking about risk of death, I was talking about general risk of both death and injury.
Apparently a quarter of a million Britons a year end up in hospital having fallen down the stairs. Of course, only a fraction of those A&E reports die, but many are injured (some seriously) from their accident.
So, Alastair’s stat is useful, as it provides an everyday comparator. @AndyJS has been trying to convey this risk profile daily, and is often ignored or even attacked for it.
Yet the risk profile is very relevant. That is not to underplay the risks from Covid, merely to quantify and compare them.
Hmm ... a lot of those falls are for prior medical reasons, so it's not a fair comparator. Falling is a symptom rather than a disease in itself. [edit]
A lot of Covid deaths and injuries are due to prior medical reasons too!!
The key issue is this:
1 - We have found that IF THEY GET MEDICAL HELP AND HOSPITALISATION, people of younger demographics without any additional issues (which could be as minor as asthma or diabetes) have an excellent chance of avoiding death (serious pain, long-running medical issues afterwards and the like are omitted)
2 - These younger demographics, however, do still have significant risk of getting so ill that they need that medical help. If the disease was to be either uncontrolled or poorly controlled, huge numbers of them would need help.
3 - The above would easily more than overwhelm the NHS, such that a big chunk of those would die. At which point, the risk of death is no longer as minor as it has been, but really significant. To the point where tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of them would die.
4 - THANKS TO THE RESTRICTIONS (including lockdown), the above has been avoided and the risk of death for these demographics kept down to the levels quoted (comparable with dying from falls).
5 - People immediately start quoting the low death rates for these demographics that we've managed to achieve and using them to argue that the restrictions are actually unnecessary.
It's sort of like using a parachute, landing softly, and then insisting you can jump from 10,000 without bothering with the parachute next time. Yes, your chances of dying when falling from 10,000 feet are minimal when you have a parachute you use correctly (I can corroborate that, having done it 149 times), but this doesn't mean that the parachute was unnecessary or should be omitted in future.
Trust me on that one.
Have you tried without a parachute though?
He’s just another guy spouting off about something he’s never actually experienced?
What, skydiving?
It's been a while, but happily my old logbook was on the window sill nearby.
Here's the last page of it. And yes, I was having some issue matching fall rates with the others in the formation.
EDIT: "Let" is a Turbolet. PD190 is the parachute used. Both were from 13,000 feet.
EDIT2: A couple of photos of me in skydiving gear from back then just fell out of the pages. Christ, I looked young.
I know it was late at night but your response was unnecessarily assertive!
My use of Alastair’s now infamous stairs stat wasn’t to in some way to criticise the lockdown, it is merely good shorthand for people’s warped perception of risk.
People are getting wiser to the actual risks they face. If you are under 60 and healthy, you are (apparently, according to PB, I haven’t verified this) at more risk of falling down the stairs than from Covid-19.
I dare say few people know this. And I wasn’t only talking about risk of death, I was talking about general risk of both death and injury.
Apparently a quarter of a million Britons a year end up in hospital having fallen down the stairs. Of course, only a fraction of those A&E reports die, but many are injured (some seriously) from their accident.
So, Alastair’s stat is useful, as it provides an everyday comparator. @AndyJS has been trying to convey this risk profile daily, and is often ignored or even attacked for it.
Yet the risk profile is very relevant. That is not to underplay the risks from Covid, merely to quantify and compare them.
Hmm ... a lot of those falls are for prior medical reasons, so it's not a fair comparator. Falling is a symptom rather than a disease in itself. [edit]
A lot of Covid deaths and injuries are due to prior medical reasons too!!
The key issue is this:
1 - We have found that IF THEY GET MEDICAL HELP AND HOSPITALISATION, people of younger demographics without any additional issues (which could be as minor as asthma or diabetes) have an excellent chance of avoiding death (serious pain, long-running medical issues afterwards and the like are omitted)
2 - These younger demographics, however, do still have significant risk of getting so ill that they need that medical help. If the disease was to be either uncontrolled or poorly controlled, huge numbers of them would need help.
3 - The above would easily more than overwhelm the NHS, such that a big chunk of those would die. At which point, the risk of death is no longer as minor as it has been, but really significant. To the point where tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of them would die.
4 - THANKS TO THE RESTRICTIONS (including lockdown), the above has been avoided and the risk of death for these demographics kept down to the levels quoted (comparable with dying from falls).
5 - People immediately start quoting the low death rates for these demographics that we've managed to achieve and using them to argue that the restrictions are actually unnecessary.
It's sort of like using a parachute, landing softly, and then insisting you can jump from 10,000 without bothering with the parachute next time. Yes, your chances of dying when falling from 10,000 feet are minimal when you have a parachute you use correctly (I can corroborate that, having done it 149 times), but this doesn't mean that the parachute was unnecessary or should be omitted in future.
Trust me on that one.
Have you tried without a parachute though?
He’s just another guy spouting off about something he’s never actually experienced?
What, skydiving?
It's been a while, but happily my old logbook was on the window sill nearby.
Here's the last page of it. And yes, I was having some issue matching fall rates with the others in the formation.
We were just teasing you on your lack of experience skydiving without a parachute.
"Local government reform is one of those areas that isn't discussed enough."
How would you reform it? Proportional representation is one way to break the local party monopolies...
I would start by having mayors for every local authority - then one person is clearly responsible.
Then give that mayor real power (say to appoint chief constables, council department heads etc).
Then remove political patronage completely from local government: everyone stands as an independent, ban endorsements from political parties, unions, community leaders etc.
I know it was late at night but your response was unnecessarily assertive!
My use of Alastair’s now infamous stairs stat wasn’t to in some way to criticise the lockdown, it is merely good shorthand for people’s warped perception of risk.
People are getting wiser to the actual risks they face. If you are under 60 and healthy, you are (apparently, according to PB, I haven’t verified this) at more risk of falling down the stairs than from Covid-19.
I dare say few people know this. And I wasn’t only talking about risk of death, I was talking about general risk of both death and injury.
Apparently a quarter of a million Britons a year end up in hospital having fallen down the stairs. Of course, only a fraction of those A&E reports die, but many are injured (some seriously) from their accident.
So, Alastair’s stat is useful, as it provides an everyday comparator. @AndyJS has been trying to convey this risk profile daily, and is often ignored or even attacked for it.
Yet the risk profile is very relevant. That is not to underplay the risks from Covid, merely to quantify and compare them.
Hmm ... a lot of those falls are for prior medical reasons, so it's not a fair comparator. Falling is a symptom rather than a disease in itself. [edit]
A lot of Covid deaths and injuries are due to prior medical reasons too!!
The key issue is this:
1 - We have found that IF THEY GET MEDICAL HELP AND HOSPITALISATION, people of younger demographics without any additional issues (which could be as minor as asthma or diabetes) have an excellent chance of avoiding death (serious pain, long-running medical issues afterwards and the like are omitted)
2 - These younger demographics, however, do still have significant risk of getting so ill that they need that medical help. If the disease was to be either uncontrolled or poorly controlled, huge numbers of them would need help.
3 - The above would easily more than overwhelm the NHS, such that a big chunk of those would die. At which point, the risk of death is no longer as minor as it has been, but really significant. To the point where tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of them would die.
4 - THANKS TO THE RESTRICTIONS (including lockdown), the above has been avoided and the risk of death for these demographics kept down to the levels quoted (comparable with dying from falls).
5 - People immediately start quoting the low death rates for these demographics that we've managed to achieve and using them to argue that the restrictions are actually unnecessary.
It's sort of like using a parachute, landing softly, and then insisting you can jump from 10,000 without bothering with the parachute next time. Yes, your chances of dying when falling from 10,000 feet are minimal when you have a parachute you use correctly (I can corroborate that, having done it 149 times), but this doesn't mean that the parachute was unnecessary or should be omitted in future.
Trust me on that one.
Have you tried without a parachute though?
He’s just another guy spouting off about something he’s never actually experienced?
What, skydiving?
It's been a while, but happily my old logbook was on the window sill nearby.
Here's the last page of it. And yes, I was having some issue matching fall rates with the others in the formation.
We were just teasing you on your lack of experience skydiving without a parachute.
Well, to be fair, we always did say that it's perfectly possible to skydive without a parachute.
because they were too busy asking other questions, particularly to people they must have known were going to only ever reply with the straightest of bats.
I mean, its a waste of time, but sure don't half generate the pixels.
Long-term lurker here. Apologies for being off the topic of the thread, but the following question is eating at me...
If in the 2020 US election the Republican candidate is NOT Donald Trump (paths include 1. removal under 25th amendment; 2. impeachment conviction; 3. he chooses not to be; 4. the GOP chooses somebody else; 5. death), how would people estimate the conditional probabilities of various other Republicans winning the presidency?
Names include Pence Haley Cotton Ryan Kasich Cruz Rubio Romney ?
I know it was late at night but your response was unnecessarily assertive!
My use of Alastair’s now infamous stairs stat wasn’t to in some way to criticise the lockdown, it is merely good shorthand for people’s warped perception of risk.
People are getting wiser to the actual risks they face. If you are under 60 and healthy, you are (apparently, according to PB, I haven’t verified this) at more risk of falling down the stairs than from Covid-19.
I dare say few people know this. And I wasn’t only talking about risk of death, I was talking about general risk of both death and injury.
Apparently a quarter of a million Britons a year end up in hospital having fallen down the stairs. Of course, only a fraction of those A&E reports die, but many are injured (some seriously) from their accident.
So, Alastair’s stat is useful, as it provides an everyday comparator. @AndyJS has been trying to convey this risk profile daily, and is often ignored or even attacked for it.
Yet the risk profile is very relevant. That is not to underplay the risks from Covid, merely to quantify and compare them.
Hmm ... a lot of those falls are for prior medical reasons, so it's not a fair comparator. Falling is a symptom rather than a disease in itself. [edit]
A lot of Covid deaths and injuries are due to prior medical reasons too!!
The key issue is this:
1 - We have found that IF THEY GET MEDICAL HELP AND HOSPITALISATION, people of younger demographics without any additional issues (which could be as minor as asthma or diabetes) have an excellent chance of avoiding death (serious pain, long-running medical issues afterwards and the like are omitted)
2 - These younger demographics, however, do still have significant risk of getting so ill that they need that medical help. If the disease was to be either uncontrolled or poorly controlled, huge numbers of them would need help.
3 - The above would easily more than overwhelm the NHS, such that a big chunk of those would die. At which point, the risk of death is no longer as minor as it has been, but really significant. To the point where tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of them would die.
4 - THANKS TO THE RESTRICTIONS (including lockdown), the above has been avoided and the risk of death for these demographics kept down to the levels quoted (comparable with dying from falls).
5 - People immediately start quoting the low death rates for these demographics that we've managed to achieve and using them to argue that the restrictions are actually unnecessary.
It's sort of like using a parachute, landing softly, and then insisting you can jump from 10,000 without bothering with the parachute next time. Yes, your chances of dying when falling from 10,000 feet are minimal when you have a parachute you use correctly (I can corroborate that, having done it 149 times), but this doesn't mean that the parachute was unnecessary or should be omitted in future.
Trust me on that one.
Have you tried without a parachute though?
He’s just another guy spouting off about something he’s never actually experienced?
What, skydiving?
It's been a while, but happily my old logbook was on the window sill nearby.
Here's the last page of it. And yes, I was having some issue matching fall rates with the others in the formation.
We were just teasing you on your lack of experience skydiving without a parachute.
I know it was late at night but your response was unnecessarily assertive!
My use of Alastair’s now infamous stairs stat wasn’t to in some way to criticise the lockdown, it is merely good shorthand for people’s warped perception of risk.
People are getting wiser to the actual risks they face. If you are under 60 and healthy, you are (apparently, according to PB, I haven’t verified this) at more risk of falling down the stairs than from Covid-19.
I dare say few people know this. And I wasn’t only talking about risk of death, I was talking about general risk of both death and injury.
Apparently a quarter of a million Britons a year end up in hospital having fallen down the stairs. Of course, only a fraction of those A&E reports die, but many are injured (some seriously) from their accident.
So, Alastair’s stat is useful, as it provides an everyday comparator. @AndyJS has been trying to convey this risk profile daily, and is often ignored or even attacked for it.
Yet the risk profile is very relevant. That is not to underplay the risks from Covid, merely to quantify and compare them.
Hmm ... a lot of those falls are for prior medical reasons, so it's not a fair comparator. Falling is a symptom rather than a disease in itself. [edit]
A lot of Covid deaths and injuries are due to prior medical reasons too!!
The key issue is this:
1 - We have found that IF THEY GET MEDICAL HELP AND HOSPITALISATION, people of younger demographics without any additional issues (which could be as minor as asthma or diabetes) have an excellent chance of avoiding death (serious pain, long-running medical issues afterwards and the like are omitted)
2 - These younger demographics, however, do still have significant risk of getting so ill that they need that medical help. If the disease was to be either uncontrolled or poorly controlled, huge numbers of them would need help.
3 - The above would easily more than overwhelm the NHS, such that a big chunk of those would die. At which point, the risk of death is no longer as minor as it has been, but really significant. To the point where tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of them would die.
4 - THANKS TO THE RESTRICTIONS (including lockdown), the above has been avoided and the risk of death for these demographics kept down to the levels quoted (comparable with dying from falls).
5 - People immediately start quoting the low death rates for these demographics that we've managed to achieve and using them to argue that the restrictions are actually unnecessary.
It's sort of like using a parachute, landing softly, and then insisting you can jump from 10,000 without bothering with the parachute next time. Yes, your chances of dying when falling from 10,000 feet are minimal when you have a parachute you use correctly (I can corroborate that, having done it 149 times), but this doesn't mean that the parachute was unnecessary or should be omitted in future.
Trust me on that one.
Have you tried without a parachute though?
He’s just another guy spouting off about something he’s never actually experienced?
What, skydiving?
It's been a while, but happily my old logbook was on the window sill nearby.
Here's the last page of it. And yes, I was having some issue matching fall rates with the others in the formation.
We were just teasing you on your lack of experience skydiving without a parachute.
Well, to be fair, we always did say that it's perfectly possible to skydive without a parachute.
Just not more than once...
Apparently before the Arnhem air-drop, some of the troops were teased when they were given their parachutes "if they don't work, come back for a new one!"
I know it was late at night but your response was unnecessarily assertive!
My use of Alastair’s now infamous stairs stat wasn’t to in some way to criticise the lockdown, it is merely good shorthand for people’s warped perception of risk.
People are getting wiser to the actual risks they face. If you are under 60 and healthy, you are (apparently, according to PB, I haven’t verified this) at more risk of falling down the stairs than from Covid-19.
I dare say few people know this. And I wasn’t only talking about risk of death, I was talking about general risk of both death and injury.
Apparently a quarter of a million Britons a year end up in hospital having fallen down the stairs. Of course, only a fraction of those A&E reports die, but many are injured (some seriously) from their accident.
So, Alastair’s stat is useful, as it provides an everyday comparator. @AndyJS has been trying to convey this risk profile daily, and is often ignored or even attacked for it.
Yet the risk profile is very relevant. That is not to underplay the risks from Covid, merely to quantify and compare them.
Hmm ... a lot of those falls are for prior medical reasons, so it's not a fair comparator. Falling is a symptom rather than a disease in itself. [edit]
A lot of Covid deaths and injuries are due to prior medical reasons too!!
The key issue is this:
1 - We have found that IF THEY GET MEDICAL HELP AND HOSPITALISATION, people of younger demographics without any additional issues (which could be as minor as asthma or diabetes) have an excellent chance of avoiding death (serious pain, long-running medical issues afterwards and the like are omitted)
2 - These younger demographics, however, do still have significant risk of getting so ill that they need that medical help. If the disease was to be either uncontrolled or poorly controlled, huge numbers of them would need help.
3 - The above would easily more than overwhelm the NHS, such that a big chunk of those would die. At which point, the risk of death is no longer as minor as it has been, but really significant. To the point where tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of them would die.
4 - THANKS TO THE RESTRICTIONS (including lockdown), the above has been avoided and the risk of death for these demographics kept down to the levels quoted (comparable with dying from falls).
5 - People immediately start quoting the low death rates for these demographics that we've managed to achieve and using them to argue that the restrictions are actually unnecessary.
It's sort of like using a parachute, landing softly, and then insisting you can jump from 10,000 without bothering with the parachute next time. Yes, your chances of dying when falling from 10,000 feet are minimal when you have a parachute you use correctly (I can corroborate that, having done it 149 times), but this doesn't mean that the parachute was unnecessary or should be omitted in future.
Trust me on that one.
Have you tried without a parachute though?
I've just read a survey that shows the average age of those admittted to hospital with COVID in England so far is 72.
So the assertion that younger demographics can get so ill they need medical help, and that huge numbers would need it if there was no lockdown.
I'm sorry but on the evidence those statements are simply not true.
Th arguments for lockdown are falling apart faster than....er....lockdown.
"Average" - such a difficult concept to get one's head around. I sympathise.
An insult and no evidence to the contrary.
par for the course from a long lockdowner these days.
In the Intensive care network audit, of 9000 or so cases, the Median age of a Covid-19 admission was 60, with an IQR of 51 and 67, so a quarter were aged 50 or less.
As a male in my fifties, I would have a 1/50 chance of death if I catch it. That seems pretty significant to me.
I have a pretty significant occupational risk as social distancing is limited. PPE is only for patient facing areas. Outdoors is fine, but no way am I adding to my risk by eating out, going to pubs or indoor shopping any more than essential. I miss cinema and theatre, but wouldn't go even if they reopened. There is simply too much virus around still.
Outdoors and visiting family, I will certainly do, and over to the Isle of Wight too. I can do social distance visiting of grandma fairly easily, through the window.
I know it's a matter of some controversy on PB, so I'm sure everyone is glad to know that BJ seems to be back to his pre Covid, smashing-wee-Japanese-kids weight.
By Mr Johnson's dishevelled look and his attire it appears he may have been disturbed during a private moment with the next Mrs Johnson before going into the street to 'clap for Boris'.
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he wasn't one of them, but I hope he was all over twitter making a similar point when various Brexiteers were predicting violent revolution just because their frankly piddling interpretations of what Brexit should be were being thwarted.
The problem with this for the Black community in the States is that when you peacefully protest police brutality, say by kneeling for the national anthem, you are denounced as traitorous and lose your job.
"With equal force" is what puzzles me. Is "don't put pineapple on pizzas" also morally on a par with "don't kill innocent black men?"
Exactly. What a stupid and poncy way of saying "the killing was dreadful but it does not excuse the rioting."
Assuming that IS what he meant. Maybe written like that it does not look sufficiently "intellectual" for him. I sense that's it.
Anyway, I agree with him. The killing of a black man does not excuse rioting. Nor, for that matter, does it justify going to Morrisons in string vest and speedos.
Comments
So 54 v 40 is the correct headline
Usual story of twitter clowns getting over excited about something they don't understand
1 - We have found that IF THEY GET MEDICAL HELP AND HOSPITALISATION, people of younger demographics without any additional issues (which could be as minor as asthma or diabetes) have an excellent chance of avoiding death (serious pain, long-running medical issues afterwards and the like are omitted)
2 - These younger demographics, however, do still have significant risk of getting so ill that they need that medical help. If the disease was to be either uncontrolled or poorly controlled, huge numbers of them would need help.
3 - The above would easily more than overwhelm the NHS, such that a big chunk of those would die. At which point, the risk of death is no longer as minor as it has been, but really significant. To the point where tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of them would die.
4 - THANKS TO THE RESTRICTIONS (including lockdown), the above has been avoided and the risk of death for these demographics kept down to the levels quoted (comparable with dying from falls).
5 - People immediately start quoting the low death rates for these demographics that we've managed to achieve and using them to argue that the restrictions are actually unnecessary.
It's sort of like using a parachute, landing softly, and then insisting you can jump from 10,000 without bothering with the parachute next time. Yes, your chances of dying when falling from 10,000 feet are minimal when you have a parachute you use correctly (I can corroborate that, having done it 149 times), but this doesn't mean that the parachute was unnecessary or should be omitted in future.
Trust me on that one.
Fun fact. Ronald Reagan became a fan of gun control (in the form of the Mulford Act) while Governor of California when the Black Panthers began to exercise their open carry rights in Oakland. Armed Black Panther members marched on the California State Capitol in Sacramento to protest against the bill.
all other bets should be off.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8368703/One-seven-Brits-admit-flouting-lockdown-rules-visit-family-lovers-having-haircut.html
Reminds of those media clips of people really pissed off that we are now allowed to go to the beach and it is too busy for it to be safe, while standing at the beach...
So the risk level the same as it has been for months. Did BoZo announce that it will magically be less on Monday?
Not interested because they're not educated.
Not interested because it is all just a crooked con.
Take your pick. But we are SCREWED.
https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/1266332682738425856?s=20
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he wasn't one of them, but I hope he was all over twitter making a similar point when various Brexiteers were predicting violent revolution just because their frankly piddling interpretations of what Brexit should be were being thwarted.
Much that it would get howls of "CONNNNNNNFFFUSSSSSSIIONNNN", I think it would now be better for the government to level with the public and lay out the levels of risk in undertaking different activities and to different groups and ask the public to think about their actions and make sensible choices in terms of trying to always choose a lower risk option i.e. don't meet people inside, if you have to meet, do it outside . Don't go meeting person after person after person. Try to limit your interactions to a small network i.e. if you really need to shag your mistress, just do her, don't go then having loads of mates around.
So the assertion that younger demographics can get so ill they need medical help, and that huge numbers would need it if there was no lockdown.
I'm sorry but on the evidence those statements are simply not true.
Th arguments for lockdown are falling apart faster than....er....lockdown.
Personally I'm pleased to say I got a fairly chunky bet on Biden at 2.42 around the time my article talking him up went live 3 weeks ago. I reckon there will very likely be a point in the campaign when he is comfortably if not massively odds on (say 1.7-1.83) and if that does occur I'll reassess then as to whether I cash out or not.
If we release the lockdown too soon and get a larger second wave, the hospitality sector is one of the first deaths. Very few people would go out to bars and restaurants as soon as they get scared of it - and the oft-quoted line that "If you're not old and ill already, you're safe" would cease to be true the moment the health service gets overwhelmed. And they will get scared if a new wave comes along. Releasing the restrictions together with releasing support could be the worst thing to happen to them - they'll get minimal customers and no support.
Sunak was doing the right thing. He should directly target the hospitality sector for extra support when they can't operate normally, because otherwise healthy businesses will perish if he doesn't. Requiring them to pay 20% of wages is bloody stupid and incredibly short-sighted: the loss of these businesses will lose corporation taxes, will lose NI contributions from employer and employee alike, and will lose income tax contributions from the former employees who will then require state support, anyway.
The free market, working properly, is only supposed to close down businesses that are unprofitable in normal operation - using the sense of "profit" being "creating more value in output than consumed in its inputs." Healthy and well-managed bars and restaurants will collapse without support when they are unable to trade - either by government fiat or by a pandemic inducing customers to stay away. And rebuilding them afterwards is far more costly than preserving them, so it's a no-brainer (to me) to preserve them. Especially as we're highly likely to have come across some solution by the end of this year, or mid-next year at the latest (whether vaccine, treatment, or easy rapid test).
Look at the Starmer/Johnson polling when he became LOTO and look at it 8 weeks later. The last 8 weeks have brought Labour right back in to the game.
Of course you can argue that this won't matter by the time the next GE rolls around but nobody knows that right now but you would have to be fairly deluded to think Boris has played a blinder over the last couple of months. He might recover or it might be become even clearer that he actually is the bumbling incompetent many suspect . For that we will have to wait and see.
University life will be very different in September. If students defer their places, local landlords will be swamped with mass vacancies
"He cited the example of a Hull landlord who was trying to sell up. “He has 45 houses and no tenants for next year,” Mr Hart said."
(Telegraph)
Talk about putting all your eggs in one basket.
https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1266094736680660993?s=20
par for the course from a long lockdowner these days.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1266343539631435776
...small community hospitals in Southern California, some of the poorest in the state, have been flooded with Americans who have fallen ill and crossed the border. They are retirees and dual citizens, Americans working in Mexico or visiting family there...
1.5m US citizens live in Mexico.
https://twitter.com/samcoatessky/status/1266343539631435776?s=21
Brexit is the silver bullet magic wand, the one size fits all solution to all your problems. Don't like the darkies? Brexit. Think things were better at some unspecified point in the past? Brexit. Want more people like you to live near you? Brexit. Can't get a job? Brexit. 30 years of things getting harder and you want better times for your kids? Brexit. Its about culture and about opportunity, and of those two things give people cash and nice holidays and a new iPhone and suddenly Romanians washing that nice new car you have on finance is less of a problem.
We left the EU at the end of January. Get Brexit Done remember? It is done. And most normals have moved on - they now want those better times they were promised. The Pandemic has made things a lot lot worse but thats different. However, as we head through the winter and no deal makes for fun times, people aren't going to say "good, I'm glad that we are queueing outside the supermarkets for half an hour in the freezing rain and there's fuck all to buy, stick that you remoaners". When 3m+ lose their jobs off the end of furlough and there's no jobs to be had they won't be cheering on Boris. It'll be what we're already starting to see in the Tory press - "this isn't the Brexit I voted for".
Would really help some of our most foamy Tories to consider just for a moment that what they think isn't automatically what new Brexit leaning first time Tory voters think. Lose their support and you lose all hope of winning a majority. They aren't ideologically wedded to the same things as you - they can't afford to be. They just want better times, and if you don't deliver they won't be happy...
Warcrimes calmly swept under the carpet. Nothing to see here.
That said, I feel there is an overreaction to her poorly worded opening remarks. Lots of pent up rage resulting from lockdown is to be expected. Everyone is poised on twitter just waiting to be outraged.
There is also the issue of the app...its not here, there is no firm date for its release. It was said initially it was centrepiece of the test, track, and trace approach that would get us out of lockdown.
And changing attitudes.
Why does Dan not just say what he means instead of obscuring it with convoluted pretentious language?
https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1266342941649506304
It's been a while, but happily my old logbook was on the window sill nearby.
Here's the last page of it. And yes, I was having some issue matching fall rates with the others in the formation.
EDIT: "Let" is a Turbolet. PD190 is the parachute used. Both were from 13,000 feet.
EDIT2: A couple of photos of me in skydiving gear from back then just fell out of the pages. Christ, I looked young.
Xi Jinping?
Then give that mayor real power (say to appoint chief constables, council department heads etc).
Then remove political patronage completely from local government: everyone stands as an independent, ban endorsements from political parties, unions, community leaders etc.
Her husband in his early 50s , has been in ICU for over 7 weeks.
But Scott beat me to it!
Just not more than once...
Do keep up.
I mean, its a waste of time, but sure don't half generate the pixels.
If in the 2020 US election the Republican candidate is NOT Donald Trump (paths include 1. removal under 25th amendment; 2. impeachment conviction; 3. he chooses not to be; 4. the GOP chooses somebody else; 5. death), how would people estimate the conditional probabilities of various other Republicans winning the presidency?
Names include
Pence
Haley
Cotton
Ryan
Kasich
Cruz
Rubio
Romney
?
Not just the 330,000 BNOs passport holders.
Now that IS ballsy
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GaANi96Z-Wg
https://twitter.com/mndps_msp/status/1266338580596690949?s=21
As a male in my fifties, I would have a 1/50 chance of death if I catch it. That seems pretty significant to me.
I have a pretty significant occupational risk as social distancing is limited. PPE is only for patient facing areas. Outdoors is fine, but no way am I adding to my risk by eating out, going to pubs or indoor shopping any more than essential. I miss cinema and theatre, but wouldn't go even if they reopened. There is simply too much virus around still.
Outdoors and visiting family, I will certainly do, and over to the Isle of Wight too. I can do social distance visiting of grandma fairly easily, through the window.
Assuming that IS what he meant. Maybe written like that it does not look sufficiently "intellectual" for him. I sense that's it.
Anyway, I agree with him. The killing of a black man does not excuse rioting. Nor, for that matter, does it justify going to Morrisons in string vest and speedos.