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 ?
Welcome.
Personally I reckon it would be Pence (who may actually have a better chance of winning) but not something I've thought about much. I reckon it's sure to be the two old dinosaurs facing off.
Given the arrest was televised and you can hear the journalist identifying himself as being from CNN (and as you say, the camera is rolling right there) this is fairly obviously a lie.
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 ?
Welcome.
Personally I reckon it would be Pence (who may actually have a better chance of winning) but not something I've thought about much. I reckon it's sure to be the two old dinosaurs facing off.
I dunno, what better counter to someone who says they are the "bridge to the future" than the future?
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.
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.
Those numbers do convey a quite different picture to what I read, I grant you.
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!"
Oh, there were all sorts of lines that went around.
“What do we do if both the main and reserve fail?” —— “Take your time over sorting them out. You’ve got the rest of your life to fix them.”
Or “Grab the grass when you land. The impact just shatters your bones. It’s the bounce that sends these through your organs and kills you, so hold tight and don’t bounce”
Or “Hold your right hand up high on impact” “That helps?” —- “No, but it means we cam at least save your watch”
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.
Those numbers do convey a quite different picture to what I read, I grant you.
IF one catches it. Remember the chances of catching it in the first place are pretty low!
Foxy is a high risk group because of his job. But most people are not.
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.
Those numbers do convey a quite different picture to what I read, I grant you.
IF one catches it. Remember the chances of catching it in the first place are pretty low!
Foxy is a high risk group because of his job. But most people are not.
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 ?
Welcome.
Personally I reckon it would be Pence (who may actually have a better chance of winning) but not something I've thought about much. I reckon it's sure to be the two old dinosaurs facing off.
It's hard to go past the Silver Fox but once the media have finished laughing at whatever Karen is wearing he is fucking boring. They would need to balance the ticket with some obnoxious insanity in the form of DJTJ - depending on how his old man had checked out.
The risks of hospitalisation for the healthy under 60s are very low. The risks of death are remote.
Tell that to Kate Garroway, Her husband in his early 50s , has been in ICU for over 7 weeks.
You are using an individual case to illustrate a general risk. Not wise!
Unfortunately there are between 35,000 and 50,000 'indivual' cases one can use to illustrate a general risk.
No. Because most of those are not fit and healthy under 60s.
Fair point, although any unnecessary fatality bears its own burden.
One could also argue that Draper is somewhat on the portly side, which is where I come in, and I am a few years older than Nadine's nemesis. In truth, in our fifties most of us are carrying some excess baggage.
Its clear that emergence from lockdown is being partly driven by economic and social imperatives.
And changing attitudes.
And to try and distract from the Cummings fuckup
In which case, more fool them. The JBU keeping the alert level at four (it was never 3 1/2) but the lifting of the lockdown moving to step two regardless, in order to preserve the June 1st milestone, was much the more promising angle to take in order to discomfort the PM.
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.
Haven’t they heard of Team Viewer? That application is all that’s kept my business running for the past two hs.
But his computer wasn't working...
If it was that much not working, they should just have put a replacement in the post.
The original tweet does seem confused though, was it in the middle of the lockdown or the middle of the Cummings row (which was after the lockdown had been lifted for tradesmen)?
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.
Those numbers do convey a quite different picture to what I read, I grant you.
IF one catches it. Remember the chances of catching it in the first place are pretty low!
Foxy is a high risk group because of his job. But most people are not.
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.
Haven’t they heard of Team Viewer? That application is all that’s kept my business running for the past two hs.
But his computer wasn't working...
If it was that much not working, they should just have put a replacement in the post.
The original tweet does seem confused though, was it in the middle of the lockdown or the middle of the Cummings row (which was after the lockdown had been lifted for tradesmen)?
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.
Those numbers do convey a quite different picture to what I read, I grant you.
IF one catches it. Remember the chances of catching it in the first place are pretty low!
Foxy is a high risk group because of his job. But most people are not.
The chances of catching it are pretty low indeed. Providing you take reasonable precautions. Such as not piling en masse into poorly ventilated overcrowded indoor spaces. Certainly if you are male and 50 plus it is a significant risk of death. Which is why large sectors of the economy are doomed. Which is why the economy is headed for a very severe recession. 'Getting back to normal" to save the economy aint going to work. And that's before the discretionary purchasing power of the really at risk groups is considered.
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 ?
Welcome.
Personally I reckon it would be Pence (who may actually have a better chance of winning) but not something I've thought about much. I reckon it's sure to be the two old dinosaurs facing off.
It's hard to go past the Silver Fox but once the media have finished laughing at whatever Karen is wearing he is fucking boring. They would need to balance the ticket with some obnoxious insanity in the form of DJTJ - depending on how his old man had checked out.
What a really unpleasant picture your penultimate statement paints? Junior is even more humourless than the old man.
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.
Haven’t they heard of Team Viewer? That application is all that’s kept my business running for the past two hs.
But his computer wasn't working...
If it was that much not working, they should just have put a replacement in the post.
The original tweet does seem confused though, was it in the middle of the lockdown or the middle of the Cummings row (which was after the lockdown had been lifted for tradesmen)?
It was this week, so after.
In which case, what’s the actual story (apart from Crick being Crick)?
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.
Haven’t they heard of Team Viewer? That application is all that’s kept my business running for the past two hs.
But his computer wasn't working...
If it was that much not working, they should just have put a replacement in the post.
The original tweet does seem confused though, was it in the middle of the lockdown or the middle of the Cummings row (which was after the lockdown had been lifted for tradesmen)?
It was this week, so after.
In which case, what’s the actual story (apart from Crick being Crick)?
I don't know, a bad story about the PM's dad I guess.
Although the skydiving tangent (and apologies for that) does actually bring up a factor supporting that our assessment of risk is a bit skew-whiff. People sometimes think I'm an adrenaline junkie when I am, in fact, a fully paid-up card-carrying coward. Both back when I did skydiving and these days when I fly microlights. Because both can be done in such a way as to hugely minimise risk.
And, as long as you don't play silly buggers like deliberately pulling low or doing dangerous low hook turns to swoop a canopy, the most dangerous part of a weekend spent skydiving is usually the drive to and from the dropzone.
It's just that the human brain sees these as being dangerous and out-there while driving is safe and normal.
This is not, though, to downplay the risk of this virus. The chance of infection is, today, low - thanks to the efforts we've done in the restrictions. The chance of death for younger people is very low - thanks to the fact that we've minimised infections and can medically help them.
And the more we find out, the more we can carefully tailor the restrictions so they're not crude and overarching.
I have been tasked with doing a politics round for a work quiz tomorrow evening.
Any tidbits of politics trivia (the more scurrilous and low brow the better - people already think I'm going to be sending them to sleep), I would be very grateful if you could throw them my way. Thanks!
I have been tasked with doing a politics round for a work quiz tomorrow evening.
Any tidbits of politics trivia (the more scurrilous and low brow the better - people already think I'm going to be sending them to sleep), I would be very grateful if you could throw them my way. Thanks!
which Labour MP stars in the film Danger Within and out of what receptacle does he drink his vino from?
I have been tasked with doing a politics round for a work quiz tomorrow evening.
Any tidbits of politics trivia (the more scurrilous and low brow the better - people already think I'm going to be sending them to sleep), I would be very grateful if you could throw them my way. Thanks!
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.
Those numbers do convey a quite different picture to what I read, I grant you.
IF one catches it. Remember the chances of catching it in the first place are pretty low!
Foxy is a high risk group because of his job. But most people are not.
Well, about 7% of the population have caught it in 3 months despite lockdown etc, so not that hard.
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.
Thanks for that. One in fifty is a startling statistic.
I have been tasked with doing a politics round for a work quiz tomorrow evening.
Any tidbits of politics trivia (the more scurrilous and low brow the better - people already think I'm going to be sending them to sleep), I would be very grateful if you could throw them my way. Thanks!
Identifying politicians when young was a good round in my quiz.
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.
...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.
As a male in my fifties, that's essentially my (much less informed) risk assessment.
Do make sure you post the update next week - it'll be very illuminating for all of us.
Just because people noticed the story that led almost every news bulletin for a week, doesnt mean that they care about it.
I want to see some polling asking what the top 5 issues are right now, let’s see if the two month old movements of the PM’s SpAd registers with more than a handful of people.
I have been tasked with doing a politics round for a work quiz tomorrow evening.
Any tidbits of politics trivia (the more scurrilous and low brow the better - people already think I'm going to be sending them to sleep), I would be very grateful if you could throw them my way. Thanks!
Q: How much did Boris Johnson weigh at the point he contracted coronavirus?
A: Seventeen and a half stones.
Other acceptable answers - 245 pounds, 112 kg, "dunno but a fuck of a lot, fat git".
I have been tasked with doing a politics round for a work quiz tomorrow evening.
Any tidbits of politics trivia (the more scurrilous and low brow the better - people already think I'm going to be sending them to sleep), I would be very grateful if you could throw them my way. Thanks!
How many kids does Johnson have would be a good question as it is hard to google on a phone.
Do make sure you post the update next week - it'll be very illuminating for all of us.
Just because people noticed the story that led almost every news bulletin for a week, doesnt mean that they care about it.
I want to see some polling asking what the top 5 issues are right now, let’s see if the two month old movements of the PM’s SpAd registers with more than a handful of people.
People didn't really care about the various stories that battered John Major's administration between 92 and 97, but collectively they had a dramatic effect on how much people cared about reelecting them.
Although the skydiving tangent (and apologies for that) does actually bring up a factor supporting that our assessment of risk is a bit skew-whiff. People sometimes think I'm an adrenaline junkie when I am, in fact, a fully paid-up card-carrying coward. Both back when I did skydiving and these days when I fly microlights. Because both can be done in such a way as to hugely minimise risk.
And, as long as you don't play silly buggers like deliberately pulling low or doing dangerous low hook turns to swoop a canopy, the most dangerous part of a weekend spent skydiving is usually the drive to and from the dropzone.
It's just that the human brain sees these as being dangerous and out-there while driving is safe and normal.
This is not, though, to downplay the risk of this virus. The chance of infection is, today, low - thanks to the efforts we've done in the restrictions. The chance of death for younger people is very low - thanks to the fact that we've minimised infections and can medically help them.
And the more we find out, the more we can carefully tailor the restrictions so they're not crude and overarching.
Not questioning the claim in this particular context, but the glider pilot Bruno Gantenbrink got so tired of hearing "the most dangerous part of gliding is the drive to the airport" that he made 3 lists
People he knew who had died in gliding accidents - 30 People he knew who had died on the way to an airport - nil People he knew who had died in any kind of RTA, anywhere - nil
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?
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.
Thanks for that. One in fifty is a startling statistic.
And the chance of a protracted, deeply unpleasant, debilitating illness - involving periods of real distress and fear - is somewhat higher than that.
I have been tasked with doing a politics round for a work quiz tomorrow evening.
Any tidbits of politics trivia (the more scurrilous and low brow the better - people already think I'm going to be sending them to sleep), I would be very grateful if you could throw them my way. Thanks!
One of my faves: Which Scottish Conservative MP's favourite musician was Bob Marley?
It would depend on some knowledge of Scottish Conservative MPs but you could make it multiple choice I guess?
I have been tasked with doing a politics round for a work quiz tomorrow evening.
Any tidbits of politics trivia (the more scurrilous and low brow the better - people already think I'm going to be sending them to sleep), I would be very grateful if you could throw them my way. Thanks!
Do it on the weirdest political scandals.
What animal was associated with DC and the Oxford dining club dinner? What did half a dozen MPs and former MPs end up in jail for in 2012-13? Who shopped Chris Huhne for lying to the court about his speeding ticket? How much did Bernie Ecclestone give to Tony Blair? Who was the MP found dead with an orange in his mouth and wearing women’s stockings? Who said “No woman in my lifetime will be prime minister”?
Curious. Where's this 'Mighty Boris versus The Media' thing coming from? (One or two Boris admirers on here have also been relentlessly pushing it.) The media were also overwhelmingly hostile to the Iraq War, so are we now canonizing Tone for his defiance on that occasion? This all smacks of inventing imaginary adversaries for Boris to conquer. His supporters should be concerned that they feel the need to do this.
Indeed, but I was also referring to the subject matter he picked
All the Brexiteers rejoicing at the closure of the Barcelona plant failed to notice that they didn't say production was moving to Sunderland. In their call, Nissan mentioned Sunderland, er, not at all...
So if BoZo shielding Cummings is the same as Sunderland voting for Brexit, that may not work out to his advantage.
You're really longing for that factory to close with the accompanying job losses aren't you? And you're not alone. How did you get here?
It was reported today Nissan will concentrate on the US and Japanese market while Renault will concentrate on the European market.
If true WTO terms Brexit may not hit Nissan Sunderland much at all and a US trade deal could even boost it
I have been tasked with doing a politics round for a work quiz tomorrow evening.
Any tidbits of politics trivia (the more scurrilous and low brow the better - people already think I'm going to be sending them to sleep), I would be very grateful if you could throw them my way. Thanks!
Which unsuccessful candidate in the 1928 Presidential election campaigned on seeking repeal of prohibition if he was elected. His campaign slogans therefore included "[Candidate Name]: To make your wet dreams come true."
And yes, the phrase meant the same thing back then as it does now.
Optional hint: He was the first Catholic candidate nominated by a major party.
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...
Lose Leavers who want the transition period ended in December and never mind winning a majority, the Tories would be lucky to avoid coming 3rd behind Labour and the Brexit Party
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.
@Andy_JS The figure for Germany is now up to +120 for the day. Will likely be higher again before the end of the day.
Although the skydiving tangent (and apologies for that) does actually bring up a factor supporting that our assessment of risk is a bit skew-whiff. People sometimes think I'm an adrenaline junkie when I am, in fact, a fully paid-up card-carrying coward. Both back when I did skydiving and these days when I fly microlights. Because both can be done in such a way as to hugely minimise risk.
And, as long as you don't play silly buggers like deliberately pulling low or doing dangerous low hook turns to swoop a canopy, the most dangerous part of a weekend spent skydiving is usually the drive to and from the dropzone.
It's just that the human brain sees these as being dangerous and out-there while driving is safe and normal.
This is not, though, to downplay the risk of this virus. The chance of infection is, today, low - thanks to the efforts we've done in the restrictions. The chance of death for younger people is very low - thanks to the fact that we've minimised infections and can medically help them.
And the more we find out, the more we can carefully tailor the restrictions so they're not crude and overarching.
Not questioning the claim in this particular context, but the glider pilot Bruno Gantenbrink got so tired of hearing "the most dangerous part of gliding is the drive to the airport" that he made 3 lists
People he knew who had died in gliding accidents - 30 People he knew who had died on the way to an airport - nil People he knew who had died in any kind of RTA, anywhere - nil
For me, I knew one person who died skydiving (very peripherally; I'd said "hi" at a dropzone); he died in a skysurfing accident. I've known a few who died on the roads and one person who got seriously injured riding home from a parachute dropzone (so maybe it resonated more with me), but arguably motorbikes are significantly more risky than cars, anyway.
Although the skydiving tangent (and apologies for that) does actually bring up a factor supporting that our assessment of risk is a bit skew-whiff. People sometimes think I'm an adrenaline junkie when I am, in fact, a fully paid-up card-carrying coward. Both back when I did skydiving and these days when I fly microlights. Because both can be done in such a way as to hugely minimise risk.
And, as long as you don't play silly buggers like deliberately pulling low or doing dangerous low hook turns to swoop a canopy, the most dangerous part of a weekend spent skydiving is usually the drive to and from the dropzone.
It's just that the human brain sees these as being dangerous and out-there while driving is safe and normal.
This is not, though, to downplay the risk of this virus. The chance of infection is, today, low - thanks to the efforts we've done in the restrictions. The chance of death for younger people is very low - thanks to the fact that we've minimised infections and can medically help them.
And the more we find out, the more we can carefully tailor the restrictions so they're not crude and overarching.
Not questioning the claim in this particular context, but the glider pilot Bruno Gantenbrink got so tired of hearing "the most dangerous part of gliding is the drive to the airport" that he made 3 lists
People he knew who had died in gliding accidents - 30 People he knew who had died on the way to an airport - nil People he knew who had died in any kind of RTA, anywhere - nil
For me, I knew one person who died skydiving (very peripherally; I'd said "hi" at a dropzone); he died in a skysurfing accident. I've known a few who died on the roads and one person who got seriously injured riding home from a parachute dropzone (so maybe it resonated more with me), but arguably motorbikes are significantly more risky than cars, anyway.
I have known one skydiver, who was tandem with a client who panicked. Very sad.
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.
Oh no, those poor landlords.
Being restrained :-), the story is mainly baloney and the landlord's a twit.
(And you are arguing from the particular to the general @RobD - tut. If you want a better dataset try the LLs who have made thousands of homes available free for NHS and Care staff. https://www.nhshomes.co.uk/)
If a student landlord with a largish portfolio does not have a portion under contract by the previous Christmas then he isn't running his business sensibly.
And he should have his reserves in place to cover his basic expenses for 12-18 months as a matter of course.
He may suffer somewhat if he has to switch to single family lets, as that may halve the value of his houses - but if he keeps paying his mortgages (which are cheap now) he will cover his costs.
The biggest disturbance may be if a Uni just closes for a year. But the biggest loser there will be the residential institutions running halls, and the Uni's who treat student accommodation as cash cow.
If it comes to it yes, he will be able to sell some at some price (unless they are total wrecks - and they shouldn't be due to licensing requirements), because far less has been built in the last 6 months than last year. Max LTV on a mortgage will be about 75%, so that should cover more than the modest fall forecast in market prices.
The really tricky challenge would be if the whole Uni is upended and all the student housing halves in value.
Although the skydiving tangent (and apologies for that) does actually bring up a factor supporting that our assessment of risk is a bit skew-whiff. People sometimes think I'm an adrenaline junkie when I am, in fact, a fully paid-up card-carrying coward. Both back when I did skydiving and these days when I fly microlights. Because both can be done in such a way as to hugely minimise risk.
And, as long as you don't play silly buggers like deliberately pulling low or doing dangerous low hook turns to swoop a canopy, the most dangerous part of a weekend spent skydiving is usually the drive to and from the dropzone.
It's just that the human brain sees these as being dangerous and out-there while driving is safe and normal.
This is not, though, to downplay the risk of this virus. The chance of infection is, today, low - thanks to the efforts we've done in the restrictions. The chance of death for younger people is very low - thanks to the fact that we've minimised infections and can medically help them.
And the more we find out, the more we can carefully tailor the restrictions so they're not crude and overarching.
Not questioning the claim in this particular context, but the glider pilot Bruno Gantenbrink got so tired of hearing "the most dangerous part of gliding is the drive to the airport" that he made 3 lists
People he knew who had died in gliding accidents - 30 People he knew who had died on the way to an airport - nil People he knew who had died in any kind of RTA, anywhere - nil
I have been tasked with doing a politics round for a work quiz tomorrow evening.
Any tidbits of politics trivia (the more scurrilous and low brow the better - people already think I'm going to be sending them to sleep), I would be very grateful if you could throw them my way. Thanks!
Which former Scottish minister was convicted and imprisoned for fire-raising at an Edinburgh hotel in 2005?
An ipaper journalist reports the Home Office is about to up the ante on HK by mooting offering all 2.9m HK residents citizenship.
Not just the 330,000 BNOs passport holders.
Now that IS ballsy
Priti Patel is clearly the 'hawk' in the cabinet.
Reportedly Patel wanted to introduce arrival self quarantine from the start (along with 90% of the planet) but was blocked by Shapps and the Cabinet. It only took them 3 months to get there....
I have been tasked with doing a politics round for a work quiz tomorrow evening.
Any tidbits of politics trivia (the more scurrilous and low brow the better - people already think I'm going to be sending them to sleep), I would be very grateful if you could throw them my way. Thanks!
Do it on the weirdest political scandals.
What animal was associated with DC and the Oxford dining club dinner? What did half a dozen MPs and former MPs end up in jail for in 2012-13? Who shopped Chris Huhne for lying to the court about his speeding ticket? How much did Bernie Ecclestone give to Tony Blair? Who was the MP found dead with an orange in his mouth and wearing women’s stockings? Who said “No woman in my lifetime will be prime minister”?
Name all 8 Labour Chancellors of the Exechequer since the war :-).
Name MPs who were falsely accused of rape? (Start with Neil Hamilton - depending on whether you are talking in or out of office.)
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...
Lose Leavers who want the transition period ended in December and never mind winning a majority, the Tories would be lucky to avoid coming 3rd behind Labour and the Brexit Party
Much as I would like to believe that is true I don't think it is. However, either way, you are stuffed. Leaving with no deal will only add to the economic misery that is on its way. No 10 is assuming there will be no deal. If you exclude a transition period then things look very dim for your bunch indeed.
Curious. Where's this 'Mighty Boris versus The Media' thing coming from? (One or two Boris admirers on here have also been relentlessly pushing it.) The media were also overwhelmingly hostile to the Iraq War, so are we now canonizing Tone for his defiance on that occasion? This all smacks of inventing imaginary adversaries for Boris to conquer. His supporters should be concerned that they feel the need to do this.
Indeed, but I was also referring to the subject matter he picked
All the Brexiteers rejoicing at the closure of the Barcelona plant failed to notice that they didn't say production was moving to Sunderland. In their call, Nissan mentioned Sunderland, er, not at all...
So if BoZo shielding Cummings is the same as Sunderland voting for Brexit, that may not work out to his advantage.
You're really longing for that factory to close with the accompanying job losses aren't you? And you're not alone. How did you get here?
It was reported today Nissan will concentrate on the US and Japanese market while Renault will concentrate on the European market.
If true WTO terms Brexit may not hit Nissan Sunderland much at all and a US trade deal could even boost it
Why is that pile of absolute crap - Nissan my put some focus in the US but they won't be exporting cars from Sunderland there as they already have factories in the US.
Curious. Where's this 'Mighty Boris versus The Media' thing coming from? (One or two Boris admirers on here have also been relentlessly pushing it.) The media were also overwhelmingly hostile to the Iraq War, so are we now canonizing Tone for his defiance on that occasion? This all smacks of inventing imaginary adversaries for Boris to conquer. His supporters should be concerned that they feel the need to do this.
Indeed, but I was also referring to the subject matter he picked
All the Brexiteers rejoicing at the closure of the Barcelona plant failed to notice that they didn't say production was moving to Sunderland. In their call, Nissan mentioned Sunderland, er, not at all...
So if BoZo shielding Cummings is the same as Sunderland voting for Brexit, that may not work out to his advantage.
You're really longing for that factory to close with the accompanying job losses aren't you? And you're not alone. How did you get here?
It was reported today Nissan will concentrate on the US and Japanese market while Renault will concentrate on the European market.
If true WTO terms Brexit may not hit Nissan Sunderland much at all and a US trade deal could even boost it
"WTO terms" Brexit is one of those shiny catchphrases that will, once reality smacks us in the face, prove to be as real as "Brexit Dividend".
That single peak with a long fat tail fits what I see locally. We finish the month with the same number of covid-19 inpatients as a month ago.
Given that this matches both the predictions, and what other countries have seen, I am not suprised.
We've slipped to around a 15 day death halving time since the start of the virus now. But the deaths are still lowering, we're still getting there - just a bit more slowly than we were a few weeks back. A lower level endemic problem still looks like it could potentially be an issue but R was below 1 a fortnight ago or so.
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...
Lose Leavers who want the transition period ended in December and never mind winning a majority, the Tories would be lucky to avoid coming 3rd behind Labour and the Brexit Party
Normals *don't care* about transition periods. They got Brexit done. What they want are all the benefits they were promised. You are still foaming at the mouth about Brexit betrayals, they aren't.
I have been tasked with doing a politics round for a work quiz tomorrow evening.
Any tidbits of politics trivia (the more scurrilous and low brow the better - people already think I'm going to be sending them to sleep), I would be very grateful if you could throw them my way. Thanks!
which Labour MP stars in the film Danger Within and out of what receptacle does he drink his vino from?
That argument is history. They're not on the wrong side of the public's answer to the question "Should Britain rejoin the EU in the next 5 years?". It's because of that that Starmer doesn't want the next election to be a rerun of 2019, whereas a Brexit-dominated election would suit the Conservatives just fine.
Curious. Where's this 'Mighty Boris versus The Media' thing coming from? (One or two Boris admirers on here have also been relentlessly pushing it.) The media were also overwhelmingly hostile to the Iraq War, so are we now canonizing Tone for his defiance on that occasion? This all smacks of inventing imaginary adversaries for Boris to conquer. His supporters should be concerned that they feel the need to do this.
Indeed, but I was also referring to the subject matter he picked
All the Brexiteers rejoicing at the closure of the Barcelona plant failed to notice that they didn't say production was moving to Sunderland. In their call, Nissan mentioned Sunderland, er, not at all...
So if BoZo shielding Cummings is the same as Sunderland voting for Brexit, that may not work out to his advantage.
You're really longing for that factory to close with the accompanying job losses aren't you? And you're not alone. How did you get here?
It was reported today Nissan will concentrate on the US and Japanese market while Renault will concentrate on the European market.
If true WTO terms Brexit may not hit Nissan Sunderland much at all and a US trade deal could even boost it
"WTO terms" Brexit is one of those shiny catchphrases that will, once reality smacks us in the face, prove to be as real as "Brexit Dividend".
What WTO organisation - Trump has destroyed it over the last few months. It hasn't got a leader and won't have one until one is appointed. And Trump won't do that.
No it isn't, but I fully expect those arsewits at the Spectator and all the other alt-right dumping grounds to ramp the shit out of the next thoroughly ignorable piece of terrorist* fuckwittery that makes the news.
I have been tasked with doing a politics round for a work quiz tomorrow evening.
Any tidbits of politics trivia (the more scurrilous and low brow the better - people already think I'm going to be sending them to sleep), I would be very grateful if you could throw them my way. Thanks!
Do it on the weirdest political scandals.
What animal was associated with DC and the Oxford dining club dinner? What did half a dozen MPs and former MPs end up in jail for in 2012-13? Who shopped Chris Huhne for lying to the court about his speeding ticket? How much did Bernie Ecclestone give to Tony Blair? Who was the MP found dead with an orange in his mouth and wearing women’s stockings? Who said “No woman in my lifetime will be prime minister”?
These are perfect! I'll make some easier (got to know your audience) but fantastic question topics.
"WTO terms" Brexit is one of those shiny catchphrases that will, once reality smacks us in the face, prove to be as real as "Brexit Dividend".
What WTO organisation - Trump has destroyed it over the last few months. It hasn't got a leader and won't have one until one is appointed. And Trump won't do that.
Naah. The WTO will fix themselves. And rewrite GATT24 to do what we said it does as opposed to what it actually does. This is England. Who do these foreign types think they are?
An ipaper journalist reports the Home Office is about to up the ante on HK by mooting offering all 2.9m HK residents citizenship.
Not just the 330,000 BNOs passport holders.
Now that IS ballsy
Priti Patel is clearly the 'hawk' in the cabinet.
Reportedly Patel wanted to introduce arrival self quarantine from the start (along with 90% of the planet) but was blocked by Shapps and the Cabinet. It only took them 3 months to get there....
And now we're trying to reopen the country by closing it down ...
"WTO terms" Brexit is one of those shiny catchphrases that will, once reality smacks us in the face, prove to be as real as "Brexit Dividend".
What WTO organisation - Trump has destroyed it over the last few months. It hasn't got a leader and won't have one until one is appointed. And Trump won't do that.
Naah. The WTO will fix themselves. And rewrite GATT24 to do what we said it does as opposed to what it actually does. This is England. Who do these foreign types think they are?
I have been tasked with doing a politics round for a work quiz tomorrow evening.
Any tidbits of politics trivia (the more scurrilous and low brow the better - people already think I'm going to be sending them to sleep), I would be very grateful if you could throw them my way. Thanks!
which Labour MP stars in the film Danger Within and out of what receptacle does he drink his vino from?
Great question!
you could probably have a round on him alone - whether as MP or actor ...
An ipaper journalist reports the Home Office is about to up the ante on HK by mooting offering all 2.9m HK residents citizenship.
Not just the 330,000 BNOs passport holders.
Now that IS ballsy
Priti Patel is clearly the 'hawk' in the cabinet.
I am not convinced tweaking China's nose over Hong Kong, although admirable in many ways, does not have potential downsides too.
What are they going to do about it?
Offering the people of Hong Kong British citizenship is morally the right thing to do. Not a tweak to China.
Back before 97, the Chinese government said that if the UK offered mass citizenship, or setup a completely democratic government in the colony, they would simply invade.
I have been tasked with doing a politics round for a work quiz tomorrow evening.
Any tidbits of politics trivia (the more scurrilous and low brow the better - people already think I'm going to be sending them to sleep), I would be very grateful if you could throw them my way. Thanks!
Which unsuccessful candidate in the 1928 Presidential election campaigned on seeking repeal of prohibition if he was elected. His campaign slogans therefore included "[Candidate Name]: To make your wet dreams come true."
And yes, the phrase meant the same thing back then as it does now.
Optional hint: He was the first Catholic candidate nominated by a major party.
Wouldn't it be more useful to ask people whether or not they accept the result of the referendum and think it's time to move on to other things?
Like whether we should extend the transition or try to replumb our relationship with the rest of Europe in the middle of dealing with a pandemic?
Why on earth would we extend transition? It would be insanity.
We need to replumb the economy now due to the pandemic. The relationship with Europe is incidental but why go through two sets of replumbing rather than get all the work done at once?
An ipaper journalist reports the Home Office is about to up the ante on HK by mooting offering all 2.9m HK residents citizenship.
Not just the 330,000 BNOs passport holders.
Now that IS ballsy
Priti Patel is clearly the 'hawk' in the cabinet.
I am not convinced tweaking China's nose over Hong Kong, although admirable in many ways, does not have potential downsides too.
What are they going to do about it?
Offering the people of Hong Kong British citizenship is morally the right thing to do. Not a tweak to China.
Back before 97, the Chinese government said that if the UK offered mass citizenship, or setup a completely democratic government in the colony, they would simply invade.
Well, I guess that threat doesn't work any more now they've got control of the place!
Comments
Personally I reckon it would be Pence (who may actually have a better chance of winning) but not something I've thought about much. I reckon it's sure to be the two old dinosaurs facing off.
I would bet a huge quantity of virtual money that Stephen Miller introduced Trump to it.
“What do we do if both the main and reserve fail?”
—— “Take your time over sorting them out. You’ve got the rest of your life to fix them.”
Or “Grab the grass when you land. The impact just shatters your bones. It’s the bounce that sends these through your organs and kills you, so hold tight and don’t bounce”
Or “Hold your right hand up high on impact”
“That helps?”
—- “No, but it means we cam at least save your watch”
Awesome.
Foxy is a high risk group because of his job. But most people are not.
Merely to say that the overall risks are low if you are a healthy under 60!
One could also argue that Draper is somewhat on the portly side, which is where I come in, and I am a few years older than Nadine's nemesis. In truth, in our fifties most of us are carrying some excess baggage.
The original tweet does seem confused though, was it in the middle of the lockdown or the middle of the Cummings row (which was after the lockdown had been lifted for tradesmen)?
https://twitter.com/PopulusPolls/status/1266352021491286016
Providing you take reasonable precautions.
Such as not piling en masse into poorly ventilated overcrowded indoor spaces. Certainly if you are male and 50 plus it is a significant risk of death.
Which is why large sectors of the economy are doomed.
Which is why the economy is headed for a very severe recession.
'Getting back to normal" to save the economy aint going to work.
And that's before the discretionary purchasing power of the really at risk groups is considered.
If you emerge from police custody with life and limb intact ...
And, as long as you don't play silly buggers like deliberately pulling low or doing dangerous low hook turns to swoop a canopy, the most dangerous part of a weekend spent skydiving is usually the drive to and from the dropzone.
It's just that the human brain sees these as being dangerous and out-there while driving is safe and normal.
This is not, though, to downplay the risk of this virus. The chance of infection is, today, low - thanks to the efforts we've done in the restrictions. The chance of death for younger people is very low - thanks to the fact that we've minimised infections and can medically help them.
And the more we find out, the more we can carefully tailor the restrictions so they're not crude and overarching.
Any tidbits of politics trivia (the more scurrilous and low brow the better - people already think I'm going to be sending them to sleep), I would be very grateful if you could throw them my way. Thanks!
I want to see some polling asking what the top 5 issues are right now, let’s see if the two month old movements of the PM’s SpAd registers with more than a handful of people.
A: Seventeen and a half stones.
Other acceptable answers - 245 pounds, 112 kg, "dunno but a fuck of a lot, fat git".
People he knew who had died in gliding accidents - 30
People he knew who had died on the way to an airport - nil
People he knew who had died in any kind of RTA, anywhere - nil
https://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/en/library/safety-comes-first
....oh.
I don't want it.
It would depend on some knowledge of Scottish Conservative MPs but you could make it multiple choice I guess?
What animal was associated with DC and the Oxford dining club dinner?
What did half a dozen MPs and former MPs end up in jail for in 2012-13?
Who shopped Chris Huhne for lying to the court about his speeding ticket?
How much did Bernie Ecclestone give to Tony Blair?
Who was the MP found dead with an orange in his mouth and wearing women’s stockings?
Who said “No woman in my lifetime will be prime minister”?
If true WTO terms Brexit may not hit Nissan Sunderland much at all and a US trade deal could even boost it
And yes, the phrase meant the same thing back then as it does now.
Optional hint: He was the first Catholic candidate nominated by a major party.
For me, I knew one person who died skydiving (very peripherally; I'd said "hi" at a dropzone); he died in a skysurfing accident. I've known a few who died on the roads and one person who got seriously injured riding home from a parachute dropzone (so maybe it resonated more with me), but arguably motorbikes are significantly more risky than cars, anyway.
(And you are arguing from the particular to the general @RobD - tut. If you want a better dataset try the LLs who have made thousands of homes available free for NHS and Care staff. https://www.nhshomes.co.uk/)
If a student landlord with a largish portfolio does not have a portion under contract by the previous Christmas then he isn't running his business sensibly.
And he should have his reserves in place to cover his basic expenses for 12-18 months as a matter of course.
He may suffer somewhat if he has to switch to single family lets, as that may halve the value of his houses - but if he keeps paying his mortgages (which are cheap now) he will cover his costs.
The biggest disturbance may be if a Uni just closes for a year. But the biggest loser there will be the residential institutions running halls, and the Uni's who treat student accommodation as cash cow.
If it comes to it yes, he will be able to sell some at some price (unless they are total wrecks - and they shouldn't be due to licensing requirements), because far less has been built in the last 6 months than last year. Max LTV on a mortgage will be about 75%, so that should cover more than the modest fall forecast in market prices.
The really tricky challenge would be if the whole Uni is upended and all the student housing halves in value.
I have known a couple of people who sadly lost their lives in glider accidents.
Name MPs who were falsely accused of rape? (Start with Neil Hamilton - depending on whether you are talking in or out of office.)
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1266343851071078405
The result "caused a shiver to run along the Scottish Labour benches looking for a spine to run up".
This famous quip was made about the result of which groundbreaking by-election?
But the deaths are still lowering, we're still getting there - just a bit more slowly than we were a few weeks back. A lower level endemic problem still looks like it could potentially be an issue but R was below 1 a fortnight ago or so.
*By brown people, obvs.
Offering the people of Hong Kong British citizenship is morally the right thing to do. Not a tweak to China.
We need to replumb the economy now due to the pandemic. The relationship with Europe is incidental but why go through two sets of replumbing rather than get all the work done at once?
Unless they're going to invade us, of course.