Barnier's arrogance and attitude is going to collapse these talks
12 months ago I had this opinion and was considered extreme here for doing so. It seems to be becoming mainstream now.
....yet it is Johnson who hasn't stood by 4 statements he agreed to in the WA?....
That the Tories have lied consistently on Brexit for a number of years really shouldn't surprise anyone. Some things they wil get away with. Others will be less easy to explain away ... https://twitter.com/BBCCountryfile/status/1215284448129880066
I'm not surprised Barnier is pissed off with us. How can you negotiate with liars and cheats.
Barnier's problem, like many others, is he has not accepted we are leaving and wants to restrict the UK's ability to make it own laws and trade
So you believe that Britain should rat on commitments it signed up to last year?
The UK voted to leave, not to be tied to EU law on tax and state aid and were originally offered a Canada style deal
The EU in your words 'ratted' on it
There are no good outcomes here and as Germany takes over the EU presidency the word out of Germany that Merkel wants a deal and by September is promising
There is no point in extended the deadlock paying billions more into the EU
who offered a Canada style agreement\?
Barnier. On a number of occasions, right up until the day we said yes, that’s what we want too.
It is quite clear now that the EU will not do a Canada style FTA with us, even only for GB despite the concessions the Withdrawal Agreement made on our side for Northern Ireland.
The best we could get is a deal that leaves the customs union and ends free movement but keeps us under most of the single market rules otherwise.
Then walk away and not negotiate anything.
Then as independent equal partners we can start negotiations when they drop their hubris.
I hope excuses aren't found to continue to make people wear masks on public transport once Covid-19 is no longer around. I can almost hear someone arguing "people should carry on wearing facemasks in order to stop the spread of seasonal flu".
If "no longer around" means "having developed a vaccine" then I would agree with you. Till that point Covid-19 will most definitely still be around.
It may fizzle out on its own.
By just deciding not to infect anyone? It's a virus, it will infect everyone it can. The only reason it is "fizzling out" is because of the extraordinary measures taken.
I hope excuses aren't found to continue to make people wear masks on public transport once Covid-19 is no longer around. I can almost hear someone arguing "people should carry on wearing facemasks in order to stop the spread of seasonal flu".
If "no longer around" means "having developed a vaccine" then I would agree with you. Till that point Covid-19 will most definitely still be around.
Ebola is still around but its not a pandemic in this country.
Well quite (and I agree with your post above about firemen not walking away from a spluttering fire).
I think we have ramped up fear of this thing to such a ludicrous degree that some people will advocate staying in lockdown or mask-wearing while-ever covid is present at all!
That is madness. Once it gets down to a manageable level – which might not be too far away – the aim should be a rapid return to normality.
The big question is can it stay at a manageable level if things return to normality. I think distancing at the very least will be required in the medium term.
I would have thought it a snub to all those out in the real world who considered his behaviour to be unacceptable.
For a small but significant part of the Brexit right the primary benefit is simply to annoy fellow citizens who they disagree with. You will hear it on here many times - "Its worth it just to wind up the liberal elite etc"
I can see it happening.
Personally, I would be deeply disgusted if Cummings were to become a knight...
I demand that he receive the hereditary lordship of Barnard Castle - nothing less will do!
I hope excuses aren't found to continue to make people wear masks on public transport once Covid-19 is no longer around. I can almost hear someone arguing "people should carry on wearing facemasks in order to stop the spread of seasonal flu".
If "no longer around" means "having developed a vaccine" then I would agree with you. Till that point Covid-19 will most definitely still be around.
It may fizzle out on its own.
By just deciding not to infect anyone? It's a virus, it will infect everyone it can. The only reason it is "fizzling out" is because of the extraordinary measures taken.
I agree. It is difficult to balance Prof Karl Friston's view that up to 80% of people may not be susceptible to Covid-19 with the Amsterdam choir experience where 78% became infected and the Skagit choir where 87% became infected.
I would have thought it a snub to all those out in the real world who considered his behaviour to be unacceptable.
For a small but significant part of the Brexit right the primary benefit is simply to annoy fellow citizens who they disagree with. You will hear it on here many times - "Its worth it just to wind up the liberal elite etc"
I can see it happening.
If Scummings tells Johnson to give him a K what choice does Johnson have?
I speculated on these pages weeks ago that this thing would peak in 60 days and fizzle out by 120.
Possibly that guess was about right?
What mechanism caused the 'fizzling out'. Could it be a combination of social distancing, shielding, working from home and maybe the nice weather?
complete amateur but I read its partly a self preservation thing by the virus...?? it tends not to survive on people it......er.......kills and so becomes less threatening to the host over time.
I hope excuses aren't found to continue to make people wear masks on public transport once Covid-19 is no longer around. I can almost hear someone arguing "people should carry on wearing facemasks in order to stop the spread of seasonal flu".
If "no longer around" means "having developed a vaccine" then I would agree with you. Till that point Covid-19 will most definitely still be around.
It may fizzle out on its own.
By just deciding not to infect anyone? It's a virus, it will infect everyone it can. The only reason it is "fizzling out" is because of the extraordinary measures taken.
Viruses do just fizzle out, if they didn't the human race would not exist.
By running out of hosts, perhaps. Before then it's not going to do anything on its own.
I wonder if Britain will power back to economic health the way America is doing, with Rishi Sunak's oh so clever, oh so generous furlough scheme.
If you think 2.5 million getting a job is "powering back" compared to over 20 million having lost it, then yes I expect Sunak's scheme will see us do better. I expect more than 10% of people to be taken off furlough and returned back to work.
Fair enough, but I just wonder if there are enough incentives in place for a strong recovery. Let's see
I hope excuses aren't found to continue to make people wear masks on public transport once Covid-19 is no longer around. I can almost hear someone arguing "people should carry on wearing facemasks in order to stop the spread of seasonal flu".
If "no longer around" means "having developed a vaccine" then I would agree with you. Till that point Covid-19 will most definitely still be around.
It may fizzle out on its own.
By just deciding not to infect anyone? It's a virus, it will infect everyone it can. The only reason it is "fizzling out" is because of the extraordinary measures taken.
Viruses do just fizzle out, if they didn't the human race would not exist.
By running out of hosts, perhaps. Before then it's not going to do anything on its own.
Is that true?
I'm reliably informed by my NHS friends that plenty of viruses fizzle out despite the fact that there are large amounts of uninfected people to potentially infect. Some mutate into much less potent forms, for example.
Johnson really is the marmite politician. Lots of negatives but surprising positives too. 43% think he's a capable leader. Capable ?!?
Starmer doesn't have any negatives, except being a bit boring. But he needs more positives to beat Johnsons. Hopefully for him, a chunk of the large Don't Knows may break positive.
Assuming the big gaps for Starmer are DKs, Tories have 4 years to ensure his DKs go to Do not apply.
The thing with marmite, is lots of people really like it. I don't sense the same enthusiasm for the details man....
I think the approval figures are OK for Johnson right now because favourables matter more than negatives. You are negative to the people that won't vote for you anyway. Johnson has decent favourables.
Starmer hasn't sealed the deal with the British voting public, but he has the potential to do so on these figures. Johnson doesn't have anywhere to go because his negatives are too high.
I would have thought it a snub to all those out in the real world who considered his behaviour to be unacceptable.
For a small but significant part of the Brexit right the primary benefit is simply to annoy fellow citizens who they disagree with. You will hear it on here many times - "Its worth it just to wind up the liberal elite etc"
I can see it happening.
"rattling the right people", I think, is how its synthesised on here.
The bigger personality always wins... and it's 64-30 to Boris
Have we polling on this from previous leader clashes?
You mean like Clem Attlee versus Churchill at GE1945
Or Wilson versus Heath at GE1970
Or Kinnock versus Major at GE1992
No I mean in modern times, where reality tv is king.
Since 97 the personality has won every time except 2017, I'm checking the polling now to see if it backs up my theory
You might have something here. Perhaps we are more impressed with "big characters" in politics than we used to be - or (imo) ought to be.
But I detect a change in the air. The ultimate in electing somebody based on flamboyant bullshit was Trump in 2016. And given this was America it had an influence stretching far and wide.
So by the same token when he is rejected at the polls in November this too may have ramifications on political life elsewhere. His election in 2016 may prove the high watermark of "colourful" populist politicians winning elections. His defeat in 2020 the sign that the tide has turned.
I really think so. I can feel a new tomorrow coming on.
People said so in 2010. Brown seen as the competent, no frills man for a crisis. I thought so too, made that argument and voted for him.
Still lost though
I've made the argument a few times that a certain relatability has been the defining feature of all successful US presidential candidates perhaps as far back as 1976. Bush Sr. in 1988 is the one I'm least sure of in that respect. That has meant slightly different things on different occasions.
Bush Snr in 1988 was more charismatic and more of a personality than Dukakis.
You have to go back to 1968 when Nixon beat Humphrey for the time the lesser personality won the presidential election.
Here the least charismatic candidate won in 1945 and 1951 when Attlee beat Churchill, 1970 when Heath beat Wilson and 1992 when Major beat Kinnock as OGH stated earlier
Relatability is not quite the same as personality.
Major's quite laid back cricket and warm beer ordinary bloke brand was at its height and made him pretty relatable in 1992, and the soapbox was a thing of genius. He was up against a politician who was widely portrayed as a bit of a windbag.
I hope excuses aren't found to continue to make people wear masks on public transport once Covid-19 is no longer around. I can almost hear someone arguing "people should carry on wearing facemasks in order to stop the spread of seasonal flu".
If "no longer around" means "having developed a vaccine" then I would agree with you. Till that point Covid-19 will most definitely still be around.
It may fizzle out on its own.
By just deciding not to infect anyone? It's a virus, it will infect everyone it can. The only reason it is "fizzling out" is because of the extraordinary measures taken.
Viruses do just fizzle out, if they didn't the human race would not exist.
By running out of hosts, perhaps. Before then it's not going to do anything on its own.
I would have thought it a snub to all those out in the real world who considered his behaviour to be unacceptable.
For a small but significant part of the Brexit right the primary benefit is simply to annoy fellow citizens who they disagree with. You will hear it on here many times - "Its worth it just to wind up the liberal elite etc"
I can see it happening.
If Scummings tells Johnson to give him a K what choice does Johnson have?
I hope excuses aren't found to continue to make people wear masks on public transport once Covid-19 is no longer around. I can almost hear someone arguing "people should carry on wearing facemasks in order to stop the spread of seasonal flu".
If "no longer around" means "having developed a vaccine" then I would agree with you. Till that point Covid-19 will most definitely still be around.
It may fizzle out on its own.
By just deciding not to infect anyone? It's a virus, it will infect everyone it can. The only reason it is "fizzling out" is because of the extraordinary measures taken.
Viruses do just fizzle out, if they didn't the human race would not exist.
By running out of hosts, perhaps. Before then it's not going to do anything on its own.
Is that true?
I'm reliably informed by my NHS friends that plenty of viruses fizzle out despite the fact that there are large amounts of uninfected people to potentially infect. Some mutate into much less potent forms, for example.
Does that typically happen in a two month window? In any case, a mutation doesn't affect all of the viruses simultaneously, the more infectious/potent strains will still be out there.
I hope excuses aren't found to continue to make people wear masks on public transport once Covid-19 is no longer around. I can almost hear someone arguing "people should carry on wearing facemasks in order to stop the spread of seasonal flu".
If "no longer around" means "having developed a vaccine" then I would agree with you. Till that point Covid-19 will most definitely still be around.
It may fizzle out on its own.
By just deciding not to infect anyone? It's a virus, it will infect everyone it can. The only reason it is "fizzling out" is because of the extraordinary measures taken.
Viruses do just fizzle out, if they didn't the human race would not exist.
By running out of hosts, perhaps. Before then it's not going to do anything on its own.
I hope excuses aren't found to continue to make people wear masks on public transport once Covid-19 is no longer around. I can almost hear someone arguing "people should carry on wearing facemasks in order to stop the spread of seasonal flu".
If "no longer around" means "having developed a vaccine" then I would agree with you. Till that point Covid-19 will most definitely still be around.
It may fizzle out on its own.
By just deciding not to infect anyone? It's a virus, it will infect everyone it can. The only reason it is "fizzling out" is because of the extraordinary measures taken.
Viruses do just fizzle out, if they didn't the human race would not exist.
By running out of hosts, perhaps. Before then it's not going to do anything on its own.
Is that true?
I'm reliably informed by my NHS friends that plenty of viruses fizzle out despite the fact that there are large amounts of uninfected people to potentially infect. Some mutate into much less potent forms, for example.
Does that typically happen in a two month window? In any case, a mutation doesn't affect all of the viruses simultaneously, the more infectious/potent strains will still be out there.
I speculated on these pages weeks ago that this thing would peak in 60 days and fizzle out by 120.
Possibly that guess was about right?
What mechanism caused the 'fizzling out'. Could it be a combination of social distancing, shielding, working from home and maybe the nice weather?
complete amateur but I read its partly a self preservation thing by the virus...?? it tends not to survive on people it......er.......kills and so becomes less threatening to the host over time.
That would actually increase the incidence of the virus, as more people would be able to transmit it rather than die.
I hope excuses aren't found to continue to make people wear masks on public transport once Covid-19 is no longer around. I can almost hear someone arguing "people should carry on wearing facemasks in order to stop the spread of seasonal flu".
If "no longer around" means "having developed a vaccine" then I would agree with you. Till that point Covid-19 will most definitely still be around.
Ebola is still around but its not a pandemic in this country.
Well quite (and I agree with your post above about firemen not walking away from a spluttering fire).
I think we have ramped up fear of this thing to such a ludicrous degree that some people will advocate staying in lockdown or mask-wearing while-ever covid is present at all!
That is madness. Once it gets down to a manageable level – which might not be too far away – the aim should be a rapid return to normality.
And Ebola is only smouldering embers thanks to the continued determined efforts of contact tracing in Africa. Left alone, it could easily accelerate again from the handful of current cases.
I hope excuses aren't found to continue to make people wear masks on public transport once Covid-19 is no longer around. I can almost hear someone arguing "people should carry on wearing facemasks in order to stop the spread of seasonal flu".
If "no longer around" means "having developed a vaccine" then I would agree with you. Till that point Covid-19 will most definitely still be around.
It may fizzle out on its own.
By just deciding not to infect anyone? It's a virus, it will infect everyone it can. The only reason it is "fizzling out" is because of the extraordinary measures taken.
Viruses do just fizzle out, if they didn't the human race would not exist.
By running out of hosts, perhaps. Before then it's not going to do anything on its own.
Is that true?
I'm reliably informed by my NHS friends that plenty of viruses fizzle out despite the fact that there are large amounts of uninfected people to potentially infect. Some mutate into much less potent forms, for example.
Does that typically happen in a two month window? In any case, a mutation doesn't affect all of the viruses simultaneously, the more infectious/potent strains will still be out there.
You are backtracking. Massively.
You said viruses don't do anything on their own.
But they do.
Yes, I should have caveated that I was referring to this particular one, on the timescales in question.
I hope excuses aren't found to continue to make people wear masks on public transport once Covid-19 is no longer around. I can almost hear someone arguing "people should carry on wearing facemasks in order to stop the spread of seasonal flu".
If "no longer around" means "having developed a vaccine" then I would agree with you. Till that point Covid-19 will most definitely still be around.
It may fizzle out on its own.
By just deciding not to infect anyone? It's a virus, it will infect everyone it can. The only reason it is "fizzling out" is because of the extraordinary measures taken.
I agree. It is difficult to balance Prof Karl Friston's view that up to 80% of people may not be susceptible to Covid-19 with the Amsterdam choir experience where 78% became infected and the Skagit choir where 87% became infected.
Not nessasraly for 2 reasons.
1) If 50% are not susceptible that will not necessarily be equally distributed, some groups, perhaps a quire, could by chance have many more people who are sustainable.
2) not being susceptible, does not necessarily mean being totally immune. it might be that that somebody who is 'not sustainable', and could expect to not get it in monorail day to day activate, can still get the virus in extreme circumstances. where they are exposed to a palatially large viral load for a long time in a confined space.
Barnier's arrogance and attitude is going to collapse these talks
12 months ago I had this opinion and was considered extreme here for doing so. It seems to be becoming mainstream now.
....yet it is Johnson who hasn't stood by 4 statements he agreed to in the WA?....
Not true. Barnier is trying to get Boris to agree to things that were not agreed to in the PD.
Take Level Playing Field for instance, the PD says there should be LPF commitments commensurate with the type of free trade agreement agreed. Fair enough.
The UK have responded in this phase of negotiations saying basically "OK we want a Canadian style Trade Agreement with Canadian style LPF agreements as you've already agreed with Canada". That meets the LPF commitments agreed in the WA.
Barnier responds by saying "No" and trying to force something unprecedented that was never part of the PD.
The PD doesn't mean we're committed to whatever form of LPF that the EU wants us to agree to.
The reverse is equally possible - Canada is LPF lite i.e. far lighter than was anticipated within the PD.
The problem is that it wasn't explicitly defined in the PD only roughly sketched out which means it's likely both interpretations are valid.
Nothing in the PD says the LPF will be heavier than what Canada got
Really? 77. Given the Union and the United Kingdom's geographic proximity and economic interdependence, the future relationship must ensure open and fair competition, encompassing robust commitments to ensure a level playing field.
Yes we would need to agree a level playing field.
CETA LPF conditions were a pre-existing precedent when we agreed to that. Where does it rule out CETA LPF conditions? Where did we agree to go further than existing precedence?
Furthermore you've not even quoted the right paragraph and have missed some rather key words in the actual agreement.
XIV. LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR OPEN AND FAIR COMPETITION 77. Given the Union and the United Kingdom's geographic proximity and economic interdependence, the future relationship must ensure open and fair competition, encompassing robust commitments to ensure a level playing field. The precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship and the economic connectedness of the Parties. These commitments should prevent distortions of trade and unfair competitive advantages. To that end, the Parties should uphold the common high standards applicable in the Union and the United Kingdom at the end of the transition period in the areas of state aid, competition, social and employment standards, environment, climate change, and relevant tax matters. The Parties should in particular maintain a robust and comprehensive framework for competition and state aid control that prevents undue distortion of trade and competition; commit to the principles of good governance in the area of taxation and to the curbing of harmful tax practices; and maintain environmental, social and employment standards at the current high levels provided by the existing common standards. In so doing, they should rely on appropriate and relevant Union and international standards, and include appropriate mechanisms to ensure effective implementation domestically, enforcement and dispute settlement. The future relationship should also promote adherence to and effective implementation of relevant internationally agreed principles and rules in these domains, including the Paris Agreement.
The agreement specifically says that the precise nature of the commitments haven't been agreed yet and will need to be commensurate with the future relationship. The UK has opted for a future relationship akin to CETA so in the words of the Political Declaration the LPF would need to be commensurate with that.
You may choose to ignore geographic proximity and pre-existing economic interdependence as setting the context for any LPF arrangement. Their appearing in the first sentence means that others, including apparently Barnier, choose not to ignore them. If the U.K. did not intend to accept that geographic proximity and pre-existing economic interdependence were relevant factors, they should have insisted on them being removed from the PD.
Or demanded that the UK be towed to the South Atlantic. That would also have worked.
I speculated on these pages weeks ago that this thing would peak in 60 days and fizzle out by 120.
Possibly that guess was about right?
What mechanism caused the 'fizzling out'. Could it be a combination of social distancing, shielding, working from home and maybe the nice weather?
complete amateur but I read its partly a self preservation thing by the virus...?? it tends not to survive on people it......er.......kills and so becomes less threatening to the host over time.
That would actually increase the incidence of the virus, as more people would be able to transmit it rather than die.
it would increase the relative proportion of the more miles mutations of the virus that are perhaps more likely to be asymptomatic or miled symptions.
The bigger personality always wins... and it's 64-30 to Boris
Have we polling on this from previous leader clashes?
You mean like Clem Attlee versus Churchill at GE1945
Or Wilson versus Heath at GE1970
Or Kinnock versus Major at GE1992
No I mean in modern times, where reality tv is king.
Since 97 the personality has won every time except 2017, I'm checking the polling now to see if it backs up my theory
You might have something here. Perhaps we are more impressed with "big characters" in politics than we used to be - or (imo) ought to be.
But I detect a change in the air. The ultimate in electing somebody based on flamboyant bullshit was Trump in 2016. And given this was America it had an influence stretching far and wide.
So by the same token when he is rejected at the polls in November this too may have ramifications on political life elsewhere. His election in 2016 may prove the high watermark of "colourful" populist politicians winning elections. His defeat in 2020 the sign that the tide has turned.
I really think so. I can feel a new tomorrow coming on.
People said so in 2010. Brown seen as the competent, no frills man for a crisis. I thought so too, made that argument and voted for him.
Still lost though
I've made the argument a few times that a certain relatability has been the defining feature of all successful US presidential candidates perhaps as far back as 1976. Bush Sr. in 1988 is the one I'm least sure of in that respect. That has meant slightly different things on different occasions.
Bush Snr in 1988 was more charismatic and more of a personality than Dukakis.
You have to go back to 1968 when Nixon beat Humphrey for the time the lesser personality won the presidential election.
Here the least charismatic candidate won in 1945 and 1951 when Attlee beat Churchill, 1970 when Heath beat Wilson and 1992 when Major beat Kinnock as OGH stated earlier
Relatability is not quite the same as personality.
Major's quite laid back cricket and warm beer ordinary bloke brand was at its height and made him pretty relatable in 1992, and the soapbox was a thing of genius. He was up against a politician who was widely portrayed as a bit of a windbag.
Kinnock came within about 1,500 votes of depriving the Tories of their majority in 1992 if you look at the majorities in the 11 most marginal seats.
The MRC Biostatistics Unit COVID-19 Working Group estimates for the replication rate for Covid-19 in the UK is above 1 in the NW & very close to 1 everywhere else: https://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/now-casting/
Barnier's arrogance and attitude is going to collapse these talks
12 months ago I had this opinion and was considered extreme here for doing so. It seems to be becoming mainstream now.
....yet it is Johnson who hasn't stood by 4 statements he agreed to in the WA?....
That the Tories have lied consistently on Brexit for a number of years really shouldn't surprise anyone. Some things they wil get away with. Others will be less easy to explain away ... https://twitter.com/BBCCountryfile/status/1215284448129880066
I'm not surprised Barnier is pissed off with us. How can you negotiate with liars and cheats.
Barnier's problem, like many others, is he has not accepted we are leaving and wants to restrict the UK's ability to make it own laws and trade
So you believe that Britain should rat on commitments it signed up to last year?
The UK voted to leave, not to be tied to EU law on tax and state aid and were originally offered a Canada style deal
The EU in your words 'ratted' on it
There are no good outcomes here and as Germany takes over the EU presidency the word out of Germany that Merkel wants a deal and by September is promising
There is no point in extended the deadlock paying billions more into the EU
who offered a Canada style agreement\?
Barnier. On a number of occasions, right up until the day we said yes, that’s what we want too.
It is quite clear now that the EU will not do a Canada style FTA with us, even only for GB despite the concessions the Withdrawal Agreement made on our side for Northern Ireland.
The best we could get is a deal that leaves the customs union and ends free movement but keeps us under most of the single market rules otherwise.
Then walk away and not negotiate anything.
Then as independent equal partners we can start negotiations when they drop their hubris.
Independent does not mean equal. If the UK negotiates with Costa Rica, Costa Rica are not equals, the UK have more power.
I would have thought it a snub to all those out in the real world who considered his behaviour to be unacceptable.
For a small but significant part of the Brexit right the primary benefit is simply to annoy fellow citizens who they disagree with. You will hear it on here many times - "Its worth it just to wind up the liberal elite etc"
I can see it happening.
If Scummings tells Johnson to give him a K what choice does Johnson have?
He could give Cumming a GCMG instead.
It certainly would wind quite a few people up if that is the intention. Problem for Bozo is that it might wind up quite a few people who previously voted for him who are intelligent enough to realise he is unsuited to the role and may be wavering as whether to support him and his band of lightweights in the future.
I hope excuses aren't found to continue to make people wear masks on public transport once Covid-19 is no longer around. I can almost hear someone arguing "people should carry on wearing facemasks in order to stop the spread of seasonal flu".
If "no longer around" means "having developed a vaccine" then I would agree with you. Till that point Covid-19 will most definitely still be around.
It may fizzle out on its own.
By just deciding not to infect anyone? It's a virus, it will infect everyone it can. The only reason it is "fizzling out" is because of the extraordinary measures taken.
Viruses do just fizzle out, if they didn't the human race would not exist.
By running out of hosts, perhaps. Before then it's not going to do anything on its own.
Is that true?
I'm reliably informed by my NHS friends that plenty of viruses fizzle out despite the fact that there are large amounts of uninfected people to potentially infect. Some mutate into much less potent forms, for example.
Does that typically happen in a two month window? In any case, a mutation doesn't affect all of the viruses simultaneously, the more infectious/potent strains will still be out there.
You are backtracking. Massively.
You said viruses don't do anything on their own.
But they do.
Yes, I should have caveated that I was referring to this particular one, on the timescales in question.
To be a PBer (pedantic being oxymoronic), a virus does nothing on its own. It requires a host to replicate or do anything, including mutate and evolve.
I wonder if Britain will power back to economic health the way America is doing, with Rishi Sunak's oh so clever, oh so generous furlough scheme.
US unemployment is still higher than UK unemployment
Solely because of the differences between the way the two countries chose to direct financial support. Being such an expert, I am sure you don’t need me to spell out the detail.
I speculated on these pages weeks ago that this thing would peak in 60 days and fizzle out by 120.
Possibly that guess was about right?
What mechanism caused the 'fizzling out'. Could it be a combination of social distancing, shielding, working from home and maybe the nice weather?
complete amateur but I read its partly a self preservation thing by the virus...?? it tends not to survive on people it......er.......kills and so becomes less threatening to the host over time.
That would actually increase the incidence of the virus, as more people would be able to transmit it rather than die.
Yes, but if it's not as potent*, who cares? We live with influenza and the common cold.
(*as you know, I keep pointing out that Covid isn't as potent as most people think it is. For most people, it's a very low-risk experience even if they catch it in the first place. But, it's clearly riskier than many other viral infections)
Barnier's arrogance and attitude is going to collapse these talks
12 months ago I had this opinion and was considered extreme here for doing so. It seems to be becoming mainstream now.
....yet it is Johnson who hasn't stood by 4 statements he agreed to in the WA?....
That the Tories have lied consistently on Brexit for a number of years really shouldn't surprise anyone. Some things they wil get away with. Others will be less easy to explain away ... https://twitter.com/BBCCountryfile/status/1215284448129880066
I'm not surprised Barnier is pissed off with us. How can you negotiate with liars and cheats.
Barnier's problem, like many others, is he has not accepted we are leaving and wants to restrict the UK's ability to make it own laws and trade
So you believe that Britain should rat on commitments it signed up to last year?
The UK voted to leave, not to be tied to EU law on tax and state aid and were originally offered a Canada style deal
The EU in your words 'ratted' on it
There are no good outcomes here and as Germany takes over the EU presidency the word out of Germany that Merkel wants a deal and by September is promising
There is no point in extended the deadlock paying billions more into the EU
who offered a Canada style agreement\?
Barnier. On a number of occasions, right up until the day we said yes, that’s what we want too.
It is quite clear now that the EU will not do a Canada style FTA with us, even only for GB despite the concessions the Withdrawal Agreement made on our side for Northern Ireland.
The best we could get is a deal that leaves the customs union and ends free movement but keeps us under most of the single market rules otherwise.
Then walk away and not negotiate anything.
Then as independent equal partners we can start negotiations when they drop their hubris.
Independent does not mean equal. If the UK negotiates with Costa Rica, Costa Rica are not equals, the UK have more power.
Thucydides' observation 2,500 years ago, that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must, is still lost on Leavers.
I hope excuses aren't found to continue to make people wear masks on public transport once Covid-19 is no longer around. I can almost hear someone arguing "people should carry on wearing facemasks in order to stop the spread of seasonal flu".
If "no longer around" means "having developed a vaccine" then I would agree with you. Till that point Covid-19 will most definitely still be around.
It may fizzle out on its own.
By just deciding not to infect anyone? It's a virus, it will infect everyone it can. The only reason it is "fizzling out" is because of the extraordinary measures taken.
Viruses do just fizzle out, if they didn't the human race would not exist.
By running out of hosts, perhaps. Before then it's not going to do anything on its own.
Is that true?
I'm reliably informed by my NHS friends that plenty of viruses fizzle out despite the fact that there are large amounts of uninfected people to potentially infect. Some mutate into much less potent forms, for example.
Does that typically happen in a two month window? In any case, a mutation doesn't affect all of the viruses simultaneously, the more infectious/potent strains will still be out there.
You are backtracking. Massively.
You said viruses don't do anything on their own.
But they do.
Yes, I should have caveated that I was referring to this particular one, on the timescales in question.
There is some emerging evidence that this one also morphs, in the current timescale. Andy and I link to examples above.
Barnier's arrogance and attitude is going to collapse these talks
12 months ago I had this opinion and was considered extreme here for doing so. It seems to be becoming mainstream now.
....yet it is Johnson who hasn't stood by 4 statements he agreed to in the WA?....
That the Tories have lied consistently on Brexit for a number of years really shouldn't surprise anyone. Some things they wil get away with. Others will be less easy to explain away ... https://twitter.com/BBCCountryfile/status/1215284448129880066
I'm not surprised Barnier is pissed off with us. How can you negotiate with liars and cheats.
Barnier's problem, like many others, is he has not accepted we are leaving and wants to restrict the UK's ability to make it own laws and trade
So you believe that Britain should rat on commitments it signed up to last year?
The UK voted to leave, not to be tied to EU law on tax and state aid and were originally offered a Canada style deal
The EU in your words 'ratted' on it
There are no good outcomes here and as Germany takes over the EU presidency the word out of Germany that Merkel wants a deal and by September is promising
There is no point in extended the deadlock paying billions more into the EU
who offered a Canada style agreement\?
Barnier. On a number of occasions, right up until the day we said yes, that’s what we want too.
It is quite clear now that the EU will not do a Canada style FTA with us, even only for GB despite the concessions the Withdrawal Agreement made on our side for Northern Ireland.
The best we could get is a deal that leaves the customs union and ends free movement but keeps us under most of the single market rules otherwise.
Then walk away and not negotiate anything.
Then as independent equal partners we can start negotiations when they drop their hubris.
Independent does not mean equal. If the UK negotiates with Costa Rica, Costa Rica are not equals, the UK have more power.
Of course, Costa Rica choosing to negotiate as part of a bloc can help with that disparity:
I would have thought it a snub to all those out in the real world who considered his behaviour to be unacceptable.
For a small but significant part of the Brexit right the primary benefit is simply to annoy fellow citizens who they disagree with. You will hear it on here many times - "Its worth it just to wind up the liberal elite etc"
I can see it happening.
If Scummings tells Johnson to give him a K what choice does Johnson have?
The MRC Biostatistics Unit COVID-19 Working Group estimates for the replication rate for Covid-19 in the UK is above 1 in the NW & very close to 1 everywhere else: https://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/now-casting/
All we need now is big protests where 1000s of people cram together screaming and shouting for hours on end.
I wonder if Britain will power back to economic health the way America is doing, with Rishi Sunak's oh so clever, oh so generous furlough scheme.
US unemployment is still higher than UK unemployment
Solely because of the differences between the way the two countries chose to direct financial support. Being such an expert, I am sure you don’t need me to spell out the detail.
Hence proving the value of the furlough scheme to Contrarian
The bigger personality always wins... and it's 64-30 to Boris
Have we polling on this from previous leader clashes?
You mean like Clem Attlee versus Churchill at GE1945
Or Wilson versus Heath at GE1970
Or Kinnock versus Major at GE1992
No I mean in modern times, where reality tv is king.
Since 97 the personality has won every time except 2017, I'm checking the polling now to see if it backs up my theory
You might have something here. Perhaps we are more impressed with "big characters" in politics than we used to be - or (imo) ought to be.
But I detect a change in the air. The ultimate in electing somebody based on flamboyant bullshit was Trump in 2016. And given this was America it had an influence stretching far and wide.
So by the same token when he is rejected at the polls in November this too may have ramifications on political life elsewhere. His election in 2016 may prove the high watermark of "colourful" populist politicians winning elections. His defeat in 2020 the sign that the tide has turned.
I really think so. I can feel a new tomorrow coming on.
People said so in 2010. Brown seen as the competent, no frills man for a crisis. I thought so too, made that argument and voted for him.
Still lost though
I've made the argument a few times that a certain relatability has been the defining feature of all successful US presidential candidates perhaps as far back as 1976. Bush Sr. in 1988 is the one I'm least sure of in that respect. That has meant slightly different things on different occasions.
Bush Snr in 1988 was more charismatic and more of a personality than Dukakis.
You have to go back to 1968 when Nixon beat Humphrey for the time the lesser personality won the presidential election.
Here the least charismatic candidate won in 1945 and 1951 when Attlee beat Churchill, 1970 when Heath beat Wilson and 1992 when Major beat Kinnock as OGH stated earlier
Relatability is not quite the same as personality.
Major's quite laid back cricket and warm beer ordinary bloke brand was at its height and made him pretty relatable in 1992, and the soapbox was a thing of genius. He was up against a politician who was widely portrayed as a bit of a windbag.
John Major was also a fundamentally well balanced individual. I was also surprised to discover when I met him after he was no longer PM that he was in fact really quite charismatic . Most of us of that era were affected by his Spitting Image Puppet! The reality very different. He was also politically honest, and equally unlike the current incumbent, had a very good command of detail.
I hope excuses aren't found to continue to make people wear masks on public transport once Covid-19 is no longer around. I can almost hear someone arguing "people should carry on wearing facemasks in order to stop the spread of seasonal flu".
If "no longer around" means "having developed a vaccine" then I would agree with you. Till that point Covid-19 will most definitely still be around.
It may fizzle out on its own.
By just deciding not to infect anyone? It's a virus, it will infect everyone it can. The only reason it is "fizzling out" is because of the extraordinary measures taken.
Viruses do just fizzle out, if they didn't the human race would not exist.
By running out of hosts, perhaps. Before then it's not going to do anything on its own.
I wonder if Britain will power back to economic health the way America is doing, with Rishi Sunak's oh so clever, oh so generous furlough scheme.
Id be very surprised if UK furlough numbers are not already significantly lower than the peak, just like US unemployment numbers are.
I think that there is still a large number who are furloughed at the moment which will drop by a significant amount with the reopening of non-essential shops on the 15th of June (England only). At that point the people that will still be in furlough will be concentrated in the hospitality and tourism sectors. Unfortunately from them, it is possible that for many they will not have a job to go back to.
I wonder if Britain will power back to economic health the way America is doing, with Rishi Sunak's oh so clever, oh so generous furlough scheme.
US unemployment is still higher than UK unemployment
Solely because of the differences between the way the two countries chose to direct financial support. Being such an expert, I am sure you don’t need me to spell out the detail.
Hence proving the value of the furlough scheme to Contrarian
That depends. The US has chucked money at everyone and then allowed those who lost their jobs to sign up for the regular support, such as it is. We have kept people employed, at the government’s expense, then announced this will end in October. The true comparison won’t be possible until 2021.
The MRC Biostatistics Unit COVID-19 Working Group estimates for the replication rate for Covid-19 in the UK is above 1 in the NW & very close to 1 everywhere else: https://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/now-casting/
Rather similar to the German estimates. Frankly, I think this is the best we can hope for.
The MRC Biostatistics Unit COVID-19 Working Group estimates for the replication rate for Covid-19 in the UK is above 1 in the NW & very close to 1 everywhere else: https://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/now-casting/
I don't see how that's possible given the incidences are going down so dramatically.
As it happens, on another forum, I recently superimposed England-and-Wales daily death rate (from the ONS figures quoted up to 22 May) onto the Swedish figures.
The England and Wales ones have been scaled down by a factor of 5.9 to make them comparable on population scale. All figures are the 7-day average against date of death (rather than date of report)
We zoomed upwards faster initially; that's down to Sweden having a lower R0 thanks to population densities, connectivity, and social norms.
However, Sweden hasn't come down anywhere near as fast as us since the peak.
It would be interesting to model the Swedish figures if they'd followed a similar lockdown strategy. I would eyeball them as being bloody close to extinguishing the epidemic in their country had they done so, instead of now having a higher per capita death rate than us.
These also, of course, indicate the infection rate at c. 18-26 days prior to the deaths, so we should (assuming we kept our trajectory) have already "baked in" a further comfortable drop - as indicated by the encouraging ONS findings on infection proportions.
The EU is acting broadly as I expected it to do even before the referendum, assuming a vote to Leave. It is acting defensively; it has no interest in offering a good deal to the UK; it sees Brexit as damaging to both parties; as far as possible it will ensure the damage will fall on the UK side, not theirs. I don't think they are being completely reasonable, but reasonableness isn't a requirement for either party, and the UK is even less reasonable than the EU.
The question for the EU is whether their approach is the best one for their objective, which is to limit the damage to them. LPF is protection, so they won't concede much on that. No Deal will be a mess, but it's a mess that mainly falls on the UK - another objective met (albeit Ireland will also suffer). It's hard to see any resolution of that mess that doesn't eventually involve a deal with the EU, at which point LPF will come bounding back in.
Where I would question their approach in delivering their own objective is that a Brexit Britain will be in a permanent negotiation with the EU. The EU has plenty of opportunity to turn the screws on the UK later. So it could compromise a little for the zero quotas/zero tariffs deal and ratchet up its demands for all the other UK asks on data, financial services, professional qualifications etc,
I would have thought it a snub to all those out in the real world who considered his behaviour to be unacceptable.
For a small but significant part of the Brexit right the primary benefit is simply to annoy fellow citizens who they disagree with. You will hear it on here many times - "Its worth it just to wind up the liberal elite etc"
I can see it happening.
If Scummings tells Johnson to give him a K what choice does Johnson have?
He could give Cumming a GCMG instead.
God calls me God? I could see him going for that
The difference between Dominic Cummings and God, is that God doesn't believe he is Dominic Cummings.
I would have thought it a snub to all those out in the real world who considered his behaviour to be unacceptable.
For a small but significant part of the Brexit right the primary benefit is simply to annoy fellow citizens who they disagree with. You will hear it on here many times - "Its worth it just to wind up the liberal elite etc"
I can see it happening.
If Scummings tells Johnson to give him a K what choice does Johnson have?
He could give Cumming a GCMG instead.
God calls me God? I could see him going for that
The difference between Dominic Cummings and God, is that God doesn't believe he is Dominic Cummings.
The bigger personality always wins... and it's 64-30 to Boris
Have we polling on this from previous leader clashes?
You mean like Clem Attlee versus Churchill at GE1945
Or Wilson versus Heath at GE1970
Or Kinnock versus Major at GE1992
No I mean in modern times, where reality tv is king.
Since 97 the personality has won every time except 2017, I'm checking the polling now to see if it backs up my theory
You might have something here. Perhaps we are more impressed with "big characters" in politics than we used to be - or (imo) ought to be.
But I detect a change in the air. The ultimate in electing somebody based on flamboyant bullshit was Trump in 2016. And given this was America it had an influence stretching far and wide.
So by the same token when he is rejected at the polls in November this too may have ramifications on political life elsewhere. His election in 2016 may prove the high watermark of "colourful" populist politicians winning elections. His defeat in 2020 the sign that the tide has turned.
I really think so. I can feel a new tomorrow coming on.
People said so in 2010. Brown seen as the competent, no frills man for a crisis. I thought so too, made that argument and voted for him.
Still lost though
I've made the argument a few times that a certain relatability has been the defining feature of all successful US presidential candidates perhaps as far back as 1976. Bush Sr. in 1988 is the one I'm least sure of in that respect. That has meant slightly different things on different occasions.
Bush Snr in 1988 was more charismatic and more of a personality than Dukakis.
You have to go back to 1968 when Nixon beat Humphrey for the time the lesser personality won the presidential election.
Here the least charismatic candidate won in 1945 and 1951 when Attlee beat Churchill, 1970 when Heath beat Wilson and 1992 when Major beat Kinnock as OGH stated earlier
Relatability is not quite the same as personality.
Major's quite laid back cricket and warm beer ordinary bloke brand was at its height and made him pretty relatable in 1992, and the soapbox was a thing of genius. He was up against a politician who was widely portrayed as a bit of a windbag.
John Major was also a fundamentally well balanced individual. I was also surprised to discover when I met him after he was no longer PM that he was in fact really quite charismatic . Most of us of that era were affected by his Spitting Image Puppet! The reality very different. He was also politically honest, and equally unlike the current incumbent, had a very good command of detail.
Sir John Major is the most underrated politician in the postwar era.
He upturned political gravity to win a majority in 1992; and he was a key figure in the NI peace process and continues to offer insight long after he left parliament.
I was never a supporter of his. Indeed the first time I voted in a GE, I voted against him.
I would have thought it a snub to all those out in the real world who considered his behaviour to be unacceptable.
For a small but significant part of the Brexit right the primary benefit is simply to annoy fellow citizens who they disagree with. You will hear it on here many times - "Its worth it just to wind up the liberal elite etc"
I can see it happening.
If Scummings tells Johnson to give him a K what choice does Johnson have?
He could give Cumming a GCMG instead.
God calls me God? I could see him going for that
The difference between Dominic Cummings and God, is that God doesn't believe he is Dominic Cummings.
The MRC Biostatistics Unit COVID-19 Working Group estimates for the replication rate for Covid-19 in the UK is above 1 in the NW & very close to 1 everywhere else: https://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/now-casting/
I don't see how that's possible given the incidences are going down so dramatically.
So the ONS say the Covid-19 has fallen by half in a week and then you get this nonsense
I wonder if Britain will power back to economic health the way America is doing, with Rishi Sunak's oh so clever, oh so generous furlough scheme.
US unemployment is still higher than UK unemployment
Solely because of the differences between the way the two countries chose to direct financial support. Being such an expert, I am sure you don’t need me to spell out the detail.
Hence proving the value of the furlough scheme to Contrarian
That depends. The US has chucked money at everyone and then allowed those who lost their jobs to sign up for the regular support, such as it is. We have kept people employed, at the government’s expense, then announced this will end in October. The true comparison won’t be possible until 2021.
However for the moment we still have people in jobs who would be redundant and now on benefits if in America.
Hopefully as the lockdown eases gradually they will stay in jobs
As it happens, on another forum, I recently superimposed England-and-Wales daily death rate (from the ONS figures quoted up to 22 May) onto the Swedish figures.
The England and Wales ones have been scaled down by a factor of 5.9 to make them comparable on population scale. All figures are the 7-day average against date of death (rather than date of report)
We zoomed upwards faster initially; that's down to Sweden having a lower R0 thanks to population densities, connectivity, and social norms.
However, Sweden hasn't come down anywhere near as fast as us since the peak.
It would be interesting to model the Swedish figures if they'd followed a similar lockdown strategy. I would eyeball them as being bloody close to extinguishing the epidemic in their country had they done so, instead of now having a higher per capita death rate than us.
These also, of course, indicate the infection rate at c. 18-26 days prior to the deaths, so we should (assuming we kept our trajectory) have already "baked in" a further comfortable drop - as indicated by the encouraging ONS findings on infection proportions.
The correct question to ask here is why Sweden is on the decline at all, if total infection rates are still at such a low level.
Barnier's arrogance and attitude is going to collapse these talks
12 months ago I had this opinion and was considered extreme here for doing so. It seems to be becoming mainstream now.
....yet it is Johnson who hasn't stood by 4 statements he agreed to in the WA?....
That the Tories have lied consistently on Brexit for a number of years really shouldn't surprise anyone. Some things they wil get away with. Others will be less easy to explain away ... https://twitter.com/BBCCountryfile/status/1215284448129880066
I'm not surprised Barnier is pissed off with us. How can you negotiate with liars and cheats.
Barnier's problem, like many others, is he has not accepted we are leaving and wants to restrict the UK's ability to make it own laws and trade
So you believe that Britain should rat on commitments it signed up to last year?
The UK voted to leave, not to be tied to EU law on tax and state aid and were originally offered a Canada style deal
The EU in your words 'ratted' on it
There are no good outcomes here and as Germany takes over the EU presidency the word out of Germany that Merkel wants a deal and by September is promising
There is no point in extended the deadlock paying billions more into the EU
who offered a Canada style agreement\?
Barnier. On a number of occasions, right up until the day we said yes, that’s what we want too.
It is quite clear now that the EU will not do a Canada style FTA with us, even only for GB despite the concessions the Withdrawal Agreement made on our side for Northern Ireland.
The best we could get is a deal that leaves the customs union and ends free movement but keeps us under most of the single market rules otherwise.
Then walk away and not negotiate anything.
Then as independent equal partners we can start negotiations when they drop their hubris.
Independent does not mean equal. If the UK negotiates with Costa Rica, Costa Rica are not equals, the UK have more power.
Thucydides' observation 2,500 years ago, that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must, is still lost on Leavers.
But strength doesn't just mean larger.
I think an independent, nimble, agile England would be stronger than a sclerotic, behemoth, unwieldy European Union.
I'm happy for Scotland etc to decide whether they tag along with us or join the sclerotic Union.
I speculated on these pages weeks ago that this thing would peak in 60 days and fizzle out by 120.
Possibly that guess was about right?
What mechanism caused the 'fizzling out'. Could it be a combination of social distancing, shielding, working from home and maybe the nice weather?
complete amateur but I read its partly a self preservation thing by the virus...?? it tends not to survive on people it......er.......kills and so becomes less threatening to the host over time.
Viruses don’t think or plan ahead. They just are. It’s evolution happening in realtime right in front of us.
If a mutation happens to arise that enables that version of the virus to spread more effectively, then that’s what will happen. The original version of the virus will still be around, doing its thing, just as it was beforehand.
I wonder if Britain will power back to economic health the way America is doing, with Rishi Sunak's oh so clever, oh so generous furlough scheme.
US unemployment is still higher than UK unemployment
Solely because of the differences between the way the two countries chose to direct financial support. Being such an expert, I am sure you don’t need me to spell out the detail.
Hence proving the value of the furlough scheme to Contrarian
Well we'll see.
The facts of life are that there's nothing going on but the rent. Furlough for me sends out the wrong signals at a huge cost. Its a perverse incentive. One of many the government has in place
I only hope that people flock back to work, that we emerge quickly from this trough and that we still have a grip on our public finances.
I wonder if Britain will power back to economic health the way America is doing, with Rishi Sunak's oh so clever, oh so generous furlough scheme.
US unemployment is still higher than UK unemployment
Solely because of the differences between the way the two countries chose to direct financial support. Being such an expert, I am sure you don’t need me to spell out the detail.
Hence proving the value of the furlough scheme to Contrarian
That depends. The US has chucked money at everyone and then allowed those who lost their jobs to sign up for the regular support, such as it is. We have kept people employed, at the government’s expense, then announced this will end in October. The true comparison won’t be possible until 2021.
However for the moment we still have people in jobs who would be redundant and now on benefits if in America.
Hopefully as the lockdown eases gradually they will stay in jobs
Depends on how things turn out, as I said. Meanwhile they’re all depending upon handouts from the government, one way or another.
I would have thought it a snub to all those out in the real world who considered his behaviour to be unacceptable.
For a small but significant part of the Brexit right the primary benefit is simply to annoy fellow citizens who they disagree with. You will hear it on here many times - "Its worth it just to wind up the liberal elite etc"
I can see it happening.
If Scummings tells Johnson to give him a K what choice does Johnson have?
He could give Cumming a GCMG instead.
God calls me God? I could see him going for that
The difference between Dominic Cummings and God, is that God doesn't believe he is Dominic Cummings.
I speculated on these pages weeks ago that this thing would peak in 60 days and fizzle out by 120.
Possibly that guess was about right?
What mechanism caused the 'fizzling out'. Could it be a combination of social distancing, shielding, working from home and maybe the nice weather?
complete amateur but I read its partly a self preservation thing by the virus...?? it tends not to survive on people it......er.......kills and so becomes less threatening to the host over time.
Viruses don’t think or plan ahead. They just are. It’s evolution happening in realtime right in front of us.
If a mutation happens to arise that enables that version of the virus to spread more effectively, then that’s what will happen. The original version of the virus will still be around, doing its thing, just as it was beforehand.
Not necessarily.
If the mutation spreads better and if the two give cross-immunity then the mutation can lead to wiping out the original.
Barnier's arrogance and attitude is going to collapse these talks
12 months ago I had this opinion and was considered extreme here for doing so. It seems to be becoming mainstream now.
....yet it is Johnson who hasn't stood by 4 statements he agreed to in the WA?....
That the Tories have lied consistently on Brexit for a number of years really shouldn't surprise anyone. Some things they wil get away with. Others will be less easy to explain away ... https://twitter.com/BBCCountryfile/status/1215284448129880066
I'm not surprised Barnier is pissed off with us. How can you negotiate with liars and cheats.
Barnier's problem, like many others, is he has not accepted we are leaving and wants to restrict the UK's ability to make it own laws and trade
So you believe that Britain should rat on commitments it signed up to last year?
The UK voted to leave, not to be tied to EU law on tax and state aid and were originally offered a Canada style deal
The EU in your words 'ratted' on it
There are no good outcomes here and as Germany takes over the EU presidency the word out of Germany that Merkel wants a deal and by September is promising
There is no point in extended the deadlock paying billions more into the EU
who offered a Canada style agreement\?
Barnier. On a number of occasions, right up until the day we said yes, that’s what we want too.
It is quite clear now that the EU will not do a Canada style FTA with us, even only for GB despite the concessions the Withdrawal Agreement made on our side for Northern Ireland.
The best we could get is a deal that leaves the customs union and ends free movement but keeps us under most of the single market rules otherwise.
Then walk away and not negotiate anything.
Then as independent equal partners we can start negotiations when they drop their hubris.
Independent does not mean equal. If the UK negotiates with Costa Rica, Costa Rica are not equals, the UK have more power.
Thucydides' observation 2,500 years ago, that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must, is still lost on Leavers.
But strength doesn't just mean larger.
I think an independent, nimble, agile England would be stronger than a sclerotic, behemoth, unwieldy European Union.
I'm happy for Scotland etc to decide whether they tag along with us or join the sclerotic Union.
The polling though shows while the median British voter backed Brexit they also prefer staying in the single market or a single market type deal (maybe just without free movement) to WTO terms Brexit.
WTO terms Brexit will have to be a great success to change that view
I have trawled through google and Ipsos-Mori as best I can, and this is what I have found in terms of "has personality" polling. You can decide for yourself if it might be important or not.
I think it backs up my hypothesis that the dullard doesn't win the GE
Sep 03 Blair 23 IDS 3 Kennedy 16
Sep 04 Blair 22 Howard 7 Kennedy 11 (Tory led VI)
Aug 07 Brown 31 Cameron 42 Ming 9
Sep 13 Cameron 40 EdM 19 Clegg 25 (Lab led VI)
Sep 14 Cameron 39 EdM 20 Clegg 26
Sep 15 Cameron 41 Corbyn 41 Farron 18 Farage 66
Sep 16 May 37 Corbyn 32
Sep 17 May 21 Corbyn 47
Apr 18 May 16 Corbyn 39
Jun 19 Boris 79 Corbyn 22 Hunt 18 Farage 61 Sep 19 Boris 76 Corbyn 25
"Professor Karl Friston is a computer modelling expert, world-renowned for his contributions to neuroscience. He has been applying his "dynamic causal modelling" approach to the Covid-19 pandemic, and has reached some startling results.
- The differences between countries are not primarily down to government actions, but due to 'intrinsic' differences in the populations - We don't yet fully understand what is driving it, although there are theories ranging from levels of vitamin D to genetic differences - In each country, there appears to be a portion of the population that is 'not even in the game' - that is, not susceptible to Covid-19. This varies hugely between countries - In the UK, Professor Friston estimates that portion to be at least 50%, and probably more like 80% - The similar mortality results between Sweden (no lockdown) and the UK (lockdown) are best explained by the fact that in reality there was no difference - the impact of the legal lockdown in Professor Friston's models "literally goes away"."
There's a lot of maybes in the piece about Musk actually visiting, but it's true that Tesla are looking at the Somerset site. Would be a big win if another carmaker sets up in the UK.
Barnier's arrogance and attitude is going to collapse these talks
12 months ago I had this opinion and was considered extreme here for doing so. It seems to be becoming mainstream now.
....yet it is Johnson who hasn't stood by 4 statements he agreed to in the WA?....
That the Tories have lied consistently on Brexit for a number of years really shouldn't surprise anyone. Some things they wil get away with. Others will be less easy to explain away ... https://twitter.com/BBCCountryfile/status/1215284448129880066
I'm not surprised Barnier is pissed off with us. How can you negotiate with liars and cheats.
Barnier's problem, like many others, is he has not accepted we are leaving and wants to restrict the UK's ability to make it own laws and trade
So you believe that Britain should rat on commitments it signed up to last year?
The UK voted to leave, not to be tied to EU law on tax and state aid and were originally offered a Canada style deal
The EU in your words 'ratted' on it
There are no good outcomes here and as Germany takes over the EU presidency the word out of Germany that Merkel wants a deal and by September is promising
There is no point in extended the deadlock paying billions more into the EU
who offered a Canada style agreement\?
Barnier. On a number of occasions, right up until the day we said yes, that’s what we want too.
It is quite clear now that the EU will not do a Canada style FTA with us, even only for GB despite the concessions the Withdrawal Agreement made on our side for Northern Ireland.
The best we could get is a deal that leaves the customs union and ends free movement but keeps us under most of the single market rules otherwise.
Then walk away and not negotiate anything.
Then as independent equal partners we can start negotiations when they drop their hubris.
Independent does not mean equal. If the UK negotiates with Costa Rica, Costa Rica are not equals, the UK have more power.
Thucydides' observation 2,500 years ago, that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must, is still lost on Leavers.
But strength doesn't just mean larger.
I think an independent, nimble, agile England would be stronger than a sclerotic, behemoth, unwieldy European Union.
I'm happy for Scotland etc to decide whether they tag along with us or join the sclerotic Union.
The polling though shows while the median British voter backed Brexit they also prefer staying in the single market or a single market type deal (maybe just without free movement) to WTO terms Brexit.
WTO terms Brexit will have to be a great success to change that view
I couldn't care less what the polling says. We're 4 years to the General Election.
The government needs to do what it considers to be the right thing and seek the best for the nation as it sees it, then be judged accordingly. Quit harping on to polls as if they mean a single damned thing.
There's a lot of maybes in the piece about Musk actually visiting, but it's true that Tesla are looking at the Somerset site. Would be a big win if another carmaker sets up in the UK.
As I pointed out the other day -
- Tesla want to become a big car maker. - This means millions of cars per year, in Europe alone. - Each factory they build has a capacity in the 100ks of cars per year. - Their plan is to open factories in the countries/regions where the cars will be sold. - Therefore they will need multiple factories in Europe.
The MRC Biostatistics Unit COVID-19 Working Group estimates for the replication rate for Covid-19 in the UK is above 1 in the NW & very close to 1 everywhere else: https://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/now-casting/
I don't see how that's possible given the incidences are going down so dramatically.
They’re using the antibody testing from the blood donation service as a proxy for current infections. No-one who is actually ill is going to donate blood, so this is capturing people who are infected now, but not yet showing symptoms.
The incidence measurements lag behind this measure, since they’re measuring people who are showing symptoms & have therefore requested testing.
This is actually quite worrying, as it implies that even the partial lifting of lockdown measures we saw this week has raised R to almost 1 everywhere.
"Professor Karl Friston is a computer modelling expert, world-renowned for his contributions to neuroscience. He has been applying his "dynamic causal modelling" approach to the Covid-19 pandemic, and has reached some startling results.
- The differences between countries are not primarily down to government actions, but due to 'intrinsic' differences in the populations - We don't yet fully understand what is driving it, although there are theories ranging from levels of vitamin D to genetic differences - In each country, there appears to be a portion of the population that is 'not even in the game' - that is, not susceptible to Covid-19. This varies hugely between countries - In the UK, Professor Friston estimates that portion to be at least 50%, and probably more like 80% - The similar mortality results between Sweden (no lockdown) and the UK (lockdown) are best explained by the fact that in reality there was no difference - the impact of the legal lockdown in Professor Friston's models "literally goes away"."
The MRC Biostatistics Unit COVID-19 Working Group estimates for the replication rate for Covid-19 in the UK is above 1 in the NW & very close to 1 everywhere else: https://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/now-casting/
I don't see how that's possible given the incidences are going down so dramatically.
So the ONS say the Covid-19 has fallen by half in a week and then you get this nonsense
Bear in mind that the previous survey (released 28 May) showed virtually no fall from the week before. The error bars are pretty big, so the most likely answer is that last weeks numbers came out quite a bit higher than reality, and that halving in a week is more like halving in a fortnight. Which is roughly what's been happening to the deaths data since the mid-April, which is roughly when the effect of full lockdown kicked in.
So yes-it's reassuring that the infection numbers and death numbers are still falling, but it's still lack-of-business as usual.
As it happens, on another forum, I recently superimposed England-and-Wales daily death rate (from the ONS figures quoted up to 22 May) onto the Swedish figures.
The England and Wales ones have been scaled down by a factor of 5.9 to make them comparable on population scale. All figures are the 7-day average against date of death (rather than date of report)
We zoomed upwards faster initially; that's down to Sweden having a lower R0 thanks to population densities, connectivity, and social norms.
However, Sweden hasn't come down anywhere near as fast as us since the peak.
It would be interesting to model the Swedish figures if they'd followed a similar lockdown strategy. I would eyeball them as being bloody close to extinguishing the epidemic in their country had they done so, instead of now having a higher per capita death rate than us.
These also, of course, indicate the infection rate at c. 18-26 days prior to the deaths, so we should (assuming we kept our trajectory) have already "baked in" a further comfortable drop - as indicated by the encouraging ONS findings on infection proportions.
The correct question to ask here is why Sweden is on the decline at all, if total infection rates are still at such a low level.
Because they've got a large number of restrictions in place that support social distancing. Their "non-lockdown" isn't much less onerous than our "lockdown", especially as it stands today.
Add that to their lower base R0 rate, and that explains it.
Hmm, that's on the Level NE of Bridgwater, in a prima facie flood risk area - and a look on the Gmt webite confirms this, though it's not currently designated [edit] as a high risk area. Some engineering needed, especially to allow for sea level rise and climate change.
I speculated on these pages weeks ago that this thing would peak in 60 days and fizzle out by 120.
Possibly that guess was about right?
What mechanism caused the 'fizzling out'. Could it be a combination of social distancing, shielding, working from home and maybe the nice weather?
complete amateur but I read its partly a self preservation thing by the virus...?? it tends not to survive on people it......er.......kills and so becomes less threatening to the host over time.
Viruses don’t think or plan ahead. They just are. It’s evolution happening in realtime right in front of us.
If a mutation happens to arise that enables that version of the virus to spread more effectively, then that’s what will happen. The original version of the virus will still be around, doing its thing, just as it was beforehand.
Not necessarily.
If the mutation spreads better and if the two give cross-immunity then the mutation can lead to wiping out the original.
Obviously, but then we’re back to needing herd immunity...which for this virus seems like it’s incredibly costly. If we get lucky enough that the mutated version is both more infectious & no longer dangerous then great! We should all go out and catch it immediately...
(One form of vaccination (variolation IIRC) is in fact infection with a version of the virus which gives a very mild infection, but offers immunity to a more dangerous version. Using cowpox to immunise against smallpox was the original version of this approach!)
The bigger personality always wins... and it's 64-30 to Boris
Have we polling on this from previous leader clashes?
You mean like Clem Attlee versus Churchill at GE1945
Or Wilson versus Heath at GE1970
Or Kinnock versus Major at GE1992
No I mean in modern times, where reality tv is king.
Since 97 the personality has won every time except 2017, I'm checking the polling now to see if it backs up my theory
You might have something here. Perhaps we are more impressed with "big characters" in politics than we used to be - or (imo) ought to be.
But I detect a change in the air. The ultimate in electing somebody based on flamboyant bullshit was Trump in 2016. And given this was America it had an influence stretching far and wide.
So by the same token when he is rejected at the polls in November this too may have ramifications on political life elsewhere. His election in 2016 may prove the high watermark of "colourful" populist politicians winning elections. His defeat in 2020 the sign that the tide has turned.
I really think so. I can feel a new tomorrow coming on.
People said so in 2010. Brown seen as the competent, no frills man for a crisis. I thought so too, made that argument and voted for him.
Still lost though
I've made the argument a few times that a certain relatability has been the defining feature of all successful US presidential candidates perhaps as far back as 1976. Bush Sr. in 1988 is the one I'm least sure of in that respect. That has meant slightly different things on different occasions.
Bush Snr in 1988 was more charismatic and more of a personality than Dukakis.
You have to go back to 1968 when Nixon beat Humphrey for the time the lesser personality won the presidential election.
Here the least charismatic candidate won in 1945 and 1951 when Attlee beat Churchill, 1970 when Heath beat Wilson and 1992 when Major beat Kinnock as OGH stated earlier
Relatability is not quite the same as personality.
Major's quite laid back cricket and warm beer ordinary bloke brand was at its height and made him pretty relatable in 1992, and the soapbox was a thing of genius. He was up against a politician who was widely portrayed as a bit of a windbag.
John Major was also a fundamentally well balanced individual. I was also surprised to discover when I met him after he was no longer PM that he was in fact really quite charismatic . Most of us of that era were affected by his Spitting Image Puppet! The reality very different. He was also politically honest, and equally unlike the current incumbent, had a very good command of detail.
Sir John Major is the most underrated politician in the postwar era.
He upturned political gravity to win a majority in 1992; and he was a key figure in the NI peace process and continues to offer insight long after he left parliament.
I was never a supporter of his. Indeed the first time I voted in a GE, I voted against him.
But you have to hand it to him.
He lost the key political argument of our age - over Britain's relationship with Europe - so comprehensively within his own party that his successor as Conservative leader put hostility to the EU at the centre of his political campaign, and the next Conservative PM called a referendum that saw the UK vote to leave the EU.
His was a rearguard action, successful to a limited extent, but since the battle was lost in the long-term, ultimately completely irrelevant.
The bigger personality always wins... and it's 64-30 to Boris
Have we polling on this from previous leader clashes?
You mean like Clem Attlee versus Churchill at GE1945
Or Wilson versus Heath at GE1970
Or Kinnock versus Major at GE1992
No I mean in modern times, where reality tv is king.
Since 97 the personality has won every time except 2017, I'm checking the polling now to see if it backs up my theory
You might have something here. Perhaps we are more impressed with "big characters" in politics than we used to be - or (imo) ought to be.
But I detect a change in the air. The ultimate in electing somebody based on flamboyant bullshit was Trump in 2016. And given this was America it had an influence stretching far and wide.
So by the same token when he is rejected at the polls in November this too may have ramifications on political life elsewhere. His election in 2016 may prove the high watermark of "colourful" populist politicians winning elections. His defeat in 2020 the sign that the tide has turned.
I really think so. I can feel a new tomorrow coming on.
Leaving to one side the point about characters, you're saying that you think 'people' are about to 'change'. People are not about to change. We have not changed in the entire history of humanity. We're not going to start now because a country elected a boorish President.
OK. But descending from those rather lofty heights -
People's attitudes influence the success or failure of a politician and in turn are impacted by the success or failure of that politician.
And this is particularly true for Donald Trump and POTUS.
I have trawled through google and Ipsos-Mori as best I can, and this is what I have found in terms of "has personality" polling. You can decide for yourself if it might be important or not.
I think it backs up my hypothesis that the dullard doesn't win the GE
Sep 03 Blair 23 IDS 3 Kennedy 16
Sep 04 Blair 22 Howard 7 Kennedy 11 (Tory led VI)
Aug 07 Brown 31 Cameron 42 Ming 9
Sep 13 Cameron 40 EdM 19 Clegg 25 (Lab led VI)
Sep 14 Cameron 39 EdM 20 Clegg 26
Sep 15 Cameron 41 Corbyn 41 Farron 18 Farage 66
Sep 16 May 37 Corbyn 32
Sep 17 May 21 Corbyn 47
Apr 18 May 16 Corbyn 39
Jun 19 Boris 79 Corbyn 22 Hunt 18 Farage 61 Sep 19 Boris 76 Corbyn 25
Jun 20 Boris 64 Starmer 30
Except Attlee in 1945 and 1951, Heath in 1970 and Major in 1992 as stated
As it happens, on another forum, I recently superimposed England-and-Wales daily death rate (from the ONS figures quoted up to 22 May) onto the Swedish figures.
The England and Wales ones have been scaled down by a factor of 5.9 to make them comparable on population scale. All figures are the 7-day average against date of death (rather than date of report)
We zoomed upwards faster initially; that's down to Sweden having a lower R0 thanks to population densities, connectivity, and social norms.
However, Sweden hasn't come down anywhere near as fast as us since the peak.
It would be interesting to model the Swedish figures if they'd followed a similar lockdown strategy. I would eyeball them as being bloody close to extinguishing the epidemic in their country had they done so, instead of now having a higher per capita death rate than us.
These also, of course, indicate the infection rate at c. 18-26 days prior to the deaths, so we should (assuming we kept our trajectory) have already "baked in" a further comfortable drop - as indicated by the encouraging ONS findings on infection proportions.
The correct question to ask here is why Sweden is on the decline at all, if total infection rates are still at such a low level.
Because they've got a large number of restrictions in place that support social distancing. Their "non-lockdown" isn't much less onerous than our "lockdown", especially as it stands today.
Add that to their lower base R0 rate, and that explains it.
They didn't close their schools and allowed up to 50 people in shops, cafes, bars and restaurants. It will be interesting to compare how many go bust there as compared to here. If it's similar, I guess they may as well have forced them to lockdown
I have trawled through google and Ipsos-Mori as best I can, and this is what I have found in terms of "has personality" polling. You can decide for yourself if it might be important or not.
I think it backs up my hypothesis that the dullard doesn't win the GE
Sep 03 Blair 23 IDS 3 Kennedy 16
Sep 04 Blair 22 Howard 7 Kennedy 11 (Tory led VI)
Aug 07 Brown 31 Cameron 42 Ming 9
Sep 13 Cameron 40 EdM 19 Clegg 25 (Lab led VI)
Sep 14 Cameron 39 EdM 20 Clegg 26
Sep 15 Cameron 41 Corbyn 41 Farron 18 Farage 66
Sep 16 May 37 Corbyn 32
Sep 17 May 21 Corbyn 47
Apr 18 May 16 Corbyn 39
Jun 19 Boris 79 Corbyn 22 Hunt 18 Farage 61 Sep 19 Boris 76 Corbyn 25
Jun 20 Boris 64 Starmer 30
Except Attlee on 1945 and 1951, Heath in 1970 and Major in 1992 as stated
What were the IPSOS-MORI polls on those occassions?
And the whole point of my theory is that it applies to the reality tv watching, instant gratification seeking, modern age. It doesn't matter that it wasn't the case in the distant past, in fact that is kind of what I am getting at. Things have changed, and the personality wins
Hmm, that's on the Level NE of Bridgwater, in a prima facie flood risk area - and a look on the Gmt webite confirms this, though it's not currently designated [edit] as a high risk area. Some engineering needed, especially to allow for sea level rise and climate change.
I think Tesla are capable of some engineering if they do decide to go ahead though.
As it happens, on another forum, I recently superimposed England-and-Wales daily death rate (from the ONS figures quoted up to 22 May) onto the Swedish figures.
The England and Wales ones have been scaled down by a factor of 5.9 to make them comparable on population scale. All figures are the 7-day average against date of death (rather than date of report)
We zoomed upwards faster initially; that's down to Sweden having a lower R0 thanks to population densities, connectivity, and social norms.
However, Sweden hasn't come down anywhere near as fast as us since the peak.
It would be interesting to model the Swedish figures if they'd followed a similar lockdown strategy. I would eyeball them as being bloody close to extinguishing the epidemic in their country had they done so, instead of now having a higher per capita death rate than us.
These also, of course, indicate the infection rate at c. 18-26 days prior to the deaths, so we should (assuming we kept our trajectory) have already "baked in" a further comfortable drop - as indicated by the encouraging ONS findings on infection proportions.
The correct question to ask here is why Sweden is on the decline at all, if total infection rates are still at such a low level.
Because they've got a large number of restrictions in place that support social distancing. Their "non-lockdown" isn't much less onerous than our "lockdown", especially as it stands today.
Add that to their lower base R0 rate, and that explains it.
They didn't close their schools and allowed up to 50 people in shops, cafes, bars and restaurants. It will be interesting to compare how many go bust there as compared to here. If it's similar, I guess they may as well have forced them to lockdown
Yes this argument that Sweden’s no lockdown is similar in nature to our lockdown falls immediately foul of the ‘buying a pint or pair of socks’ test.
Hmm, that's on the Level NE of Bridgwater, in a prima facie flood risk area - and a look on the Gmt webite confirms this, though it's not currently designated [edit] as a high risk area. Some engineering needed, especially to allow for sea level rise and climate change.
I think Tesla are capable of some engineering if they do decide to go ahead though.
Oh yes indeed. They'd need some pretty heavy roadworks and rail link anyway, and decent foundations, so the extra wouldn't notice. But plenty of stone in the Mendip or even Dartmoor quarries such as Meldon (rail link).
I wonder if port access is intended - probably rail to Avonmouth rather than Bridgwater docks.
I have trawled through google and Ipsos-Mori as best I can, and this is what I have found in terms of "has personality" polling. You can decide for yourself if it might be important or not.
I think it backs up my hypothesis that the dullard doesn't win the GE
Sep 03 Blair 23 IDS 3 Kennedy 16
Sep 04 Blair 22 Howard 7 Kennedy 11 (Tory led VI)
Aug 07 Brown 31 Cameron 42 Ming 9
Sep 13 Cameron 40 EdM 19 Clegg 25 (Lab led VI)
Sep 14 Cameron 39 EdM 20 Clegg 26
Sep 15 Cameron 41 Corbyn 41 Farron 18 Farage 66
Sep 16 May 37 Corbyn 32
Sep 17 May 21 Corbyn 47
Apr 18 May 16 Corbyn 39
Jun 19 Boris 79 Corbyn 22 Hunt 18 Farage 61 Sep 19 Boris 76 Corbyn 25
Jun 20 Boris 64 Starmer 30
Except Attlee on 1945 and 1951, Heath in 1970 and Major in 1992 as stated
What were the IPSOS-MORI polls on those occassions?
And the whole point of my theory is that it applies to the reality tv watching, instant gratification seeking, modern age. It doesn't matter that it wasn't the case in the distant past, in fact that is kind of what I am getting at. Things have changed, and the personality wins
Heath won in 1970 in the TV age against the more charismatic Wilson as the economy was in an awful state, the pound devalued etc and Major won in 1992 over Kinnock as he was seen as more centrist and Kinnock not trusted on the economy, also in the TV age.
The personality usually wins agreed but if the personality is wrecking the economy or more extreme than their opponent they can lose
There's a lot of maybes in the piece about Musk actually visiting, but it's true that Tesla are looking at the Somerset site. Would be a big win if another carmaker sets up in the UK.
As I pointed out the other day -
- Tesla want to become a big car maker. - This means millions of cars per year, in Europe alone. - Each factory they build has a capacity in the 100ks of cars per year. - Their plan is to open factories in the countries/regions where the cars will be sold. - Therefore they will need multiple factories in Europe.
Yes, very much so.
To run a few numbers - UK car sales are around 2.5m per year, and the UK's largest plant (Nissan in Sunderland) produces around 300k cars per year.
If Tesla wants a 10% share of UK car sales, they can set up a plant the size of the one in Sunderland, just for the UK market. (In practice, they'll likely also make vehicles for export to other RHD markets such as RoI, Cyprus and Malta).
"Professor Karl Friston is a computer modelling expert, world-renowned for his contributions to neuroscience. He has been applying his "dynamic causal modelling" approach to the Covid-19 pandemic, and has reached some startling results.
- The differences between countries are not primarily down to government actions, but due to 'intrinsic' differences in the populations - We don't yet fully understand what is driving it, although there are theories ranging from levels of vitamin D to genetic differences - In each country, there appears to be a portion of the population that is 'not even in the game' - that is, not susceptible to Covid-19. This varies hugely between countries - In the UK, Professor Friston estimates that portion to be at least 50%, and probably more like 80% - The similar mortality results between Sweden (no lockdown) and the UK (lockdown) are best explained by the fact that in reality there was no difference - the impact of the legal lockdown in Professor Friston's models "literally goes away"."
Trigger warning, along with pretty much anything from Oxon.
On the measure of lockdown stringency also produced by Oxford researchers Sweden and the UK are much more similar than you would think from the simplistic binary narrative. We are not as locked down as many other locked down economies, and their de facto changes in behaviour aren't much smaller than ours. In general, I tend to be sceptical of people who say that a phenomenon isn't caused by the obvious causal factor but by something else that they haven't actually been able to identify or quantify.
Barnier's arrogance and attitude is going to collapse these talks
12 months ago I had this opinion and was considered extreme here for doing so. It seems to be becoming mainstream now.
....yet it is Johnson who hasn't stood by 4 statements he agreed to in the WA?....
That the Tories have lied consistently on Brexit for a number of years really shouldn't surprise anyone. Some things they wil get away with. Others will be less easy to explain away ... https://twitter.com/BBCCountryfile/status/1215284448129880066
I'm not surprised Barnier is pissed off with us. How can you negotiate with liars and cheats.
Barnier's problem, like many others, is he has not accepted we are leaving and wants to restrict the UK's ability to make it own laws and trade
So you believe that Britain should rat on commitments it signed up to last year?
The UK voted to leave, not to be tied to EU law on tax and state aid and were originally offered a Canada style deal
The EU in your words 'ratted' on it
There are no good outcomes here and as Germany takes over the EU presidency the word out of Germany that Merkel wants a deal and by September is promising
There is no point in extended the deadlock paying billions more into the EU
who offered a Canada style agreement\?
Barnier. On a number of occasions, right up until the day we said yes, that’s what we want too.
It is quite clear now that the EU will not do a Canada style FTA with us, even only for GB despite the concessions the Withdrawal Agreement made on our side for Northern Ireland.
The best we could get is a deal that leaves the customs union and ends free movement but keeps us under most of the single market rules otherwise.
Then walk away and not negotiate anything.
Then as independent equal partners we can start negotiations when they drop their hubris.
Independent does not mean equal. If the UK negotiates with Costa Rica, Costa Rica are not equals, the UK have more power.
Thucydides' observation 2,500 years ago, that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must, is still lost on Leavers.
But strength doesn't just mean larger.
I think an independent, nimble, agile England would be stronger than a sclerotic, behemoth, unwieldy European Union.
I'm happy for Scotland etc to decide whether they tag along with us or join the sclerotic Union.
I'm curious what your mental image is when you close your eyes and think of England.
Has anybody else being following the US state of Georgia and its COVID states?
For background Georgia ended it Lock-down on 1st May, and replaced it with a stay-at-home-if-venerable. People there started to return to closer to normality, slowly at first but more so over time.
the number of recorded cases was on a downwind trend, that continued for a few days before 'bottoming out' on 9th May, and then increased to a second peak on the 19 may and has since then desecrated.
Deaths, meanwhile have continued to decline steadily.
My take,:
1) There was a second wave, but much smaller than most were expecting because they got to the new heard immunity quickly.
2) by keeping the venerable at home, they have largely avoided infection and thus the death rate has not been affected, at lest not significantly.
Caveats:
a) The increase in testing may account for some of the second wave.
b) There is both a delay between infection and death and death to reporting. but I still think if there was going to be a second big wave of deaths there would be some indication in the statistics by now.
Comments
Then as independent equal partners we can start negotiations when they drop their hubris.
I demand that he receive the hereditary lordship of Barnard Castle - nothing less will do!
Is that true?
I'm reliably informed by my NHS friends that plenty of viruses fizzle out despite the fact that there are large amounts of uninfected people to potentially infect. Some mutate into much less potent forms, for example.
Starmer hasn't sealed the deal with the British voting public, but he has the potential to do so on these figures. Johnson doesn't have anywhere to go because his negatives are too high.
Major's quite laid back cricket and warm beer ordinary bloke brand was at its height and made him pretty relatable in 1992, and the soapbox was a thing of genius. He was up against a politician who was widely portrayed as a bit of a windbag.
You said viruses don't do anything on their own.
But they do.
https://twitter.com/bchadwickfrance/status/1268870606520541190?s=20
1) If 50% are not susceptible that will not necessarily be equally distributed, some groups, perhaps a quire, could by chance have many more people who are sustainable.
2) not being susceptible, does not necessarily mean being totally immune. it might be that that somebody who is 'not sustainable', and could expect to not get it in monorail day to day activate, can still get the virus in extreme circumstances. where they are exposed to a palatially large viral load for a long time in a confined space.
(*as you know, I keep pointing out that Covid isn't as potent as most people think it is. For most people, it's a very low-risk experience even if they catch it in the first place. But, it's clearly riskier than many other viral infections)
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-central-america-sign-continuity-agreement#:~:text=The UK and Costa Rica,UK-Central America Association Agreement.&text=The Agreement will ensure British,we leave the European Union.
They are talking about the nature of the virus – its potency etc.
They are saying that it's changed in, as are medical professionals in Ohio.
At that point the people that will still be in furlough will be concentrated in the hospitality and tourism sectors.
Unfortunately from them, it is possible that for many they will not have a job to go back to.
The England and Wales ones have been scaled down by a factor of 5.9 to make them comparable on population scale. All figures are the 7-day average against date of death (rather than date of report)
We zoomed upwards faster initially; that's down to Sweden having a lower R0 thanks to population densities, connectivity, and social norms.
However, Sweden hasn't come down anywhere near as fast as us since the peak.
It would be interesting to model the Swedish figures if they'd followed a similar lockdown strategy. I would eyeball them as being bloody close to extinguishing the epidemic in their country had they done so, instead of now having a higher per capita death rate than us.
These also, of course, indicate the infection rate at c. 18-26 days prior to the deaths, so we should (assuming we kept our trajectory) have already "baked in" a further comfortable drop - as indicated by the encouraging ONS findings on infection proportions.
The question for the EU is whether their approach is the best one for their objective, which is to limit the damage to them. LPF is protection, so they won't concede much on that. No Deal will be a mess, but it's a mess that mainly falls on the UK - another objective met (albeit Ireland will also suffer). It's hard to see any resolution of that mess that doesn't eventually involve a deal with the EU, at which point LPF will come bounding back in.
Where I would question their approach in delivering their own objective is that a Brexit Britain will be in a permanent negotiation with the EU. The EU has plenty of opportunity to turn the screws on the UK later. So it could compromise a little for the zero quotas/zero tariffs deal and ratchet up its demands for all the other UK asks on data, financial services, professional qualifications etc,
He upturned political gravity to win a majority in 1992; and he was a key figure in the NI peace process and continues to offer insight long after he left parliament.
I was never a supporter of his. Indeed the first time I voted in a GE, I voted against him.
But you have to hand it to him.
https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/elon-musk-tesla-uk-factory-4192165
Hopefully as the lockdown eases gradually they will stay in jobs
I think an independent, nimble, agile England would be stronger than a sclerotic, behemoth, unwieldy European Union.
I'm happy for Scotland etc to decide whether they tag along with us or join the sclerotic Union.
If a mutation happens to arise that enables that version of the virus to spread more effectively, then that’s what will happen. The original version of the virus will still be around, doing its thing, just as it was beforehand.
The facts of life are that there's nothing going on but the rent. Furlough for me sends out the wrong signals at a huge cost. Its a perverse incentive. One of many the government has in place
I only hope that people flock back to work, that we emerge quickly from this trough and that we still have a grip on our public finances.
But hmmn. I still have doubts. We shall see.
If the mutation spreads better and if the two give cross-immunity then the mutation can lead to wiping out the original.
WTO terms Brexit will have to be a great success to change that view
I think it backs up my hypothesis that the dullard doesn't win the GE
Sep 03
Blair 23 IDS 3 Kennedy 16
Sep 04
Blair 22 Howard 7 Kennedy 11 (Tory led VI)
Aug 07
Brown 31 Cameron 42 Ming 9
Sep 13
Cameron 40 EdM 19 Clegg 25 (Lab led VI)
Sep 14
Cameron 39 EdM 20 Clegg 26
Sep 15
Cameron 41 Corbyn 41 Farron 18 Farage 66
Sep 16
May 37 Corbyn 32
Sep 17
May 21 Corbyn 47
Apr 18
May 16 Corbyn 39
Jun 19
Boris 79 Corbyn 22 Hunt 18 Farage 61
Sep 19
Boris 76 Corbyn 25
Jun 20
Boris 64 Starmer 30
- The differences between countries are not primarily down to government actions, but due to 'intrinsic' differences in the populations
- We don't yet fully understand what is driving it, although there are theories ranging from levels of vitamin D to genetic differences
- In each country, there appears to be a portion of the population that is 'not even in the game' - that is, not susceptible to Covid-19. This varies hugely between countries
- In the UK, Professor Friston estimates that portion to be at least 50%, and probably more like 80%
- The similar mortality results between Sweden (no lockdown) and the UK (lockdown) are best explained by the fact that in reality there was no difference - the impact of the legal lockdown in Professor Friston's models "literally goes away"."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUOFeVIrOPg
The government needs to do what it considers to be the right thing and seek the best for the nation as it sees it, then be judged accordingly. Quit harping on to polls as if they mean a single damned thing.
- Tesla want to become a big car maker.
- This means millions of cars per year, in Europe alone.
- Each factory they build has a capacity in the 100ks of cars per year.
- Their plan is to open factories in the countries/regions where the cars will be sold.
- Therefore they will need multiple factories in Europe.
The incidence measurements lag behind this measure, since they’re measuring people who are showing symptoms & have therefore requested testing.
This is actually quite worrying, as it implies that even the partial lifting of lockdown measures we saw this week has raised R to almost 1 everywhere.
Is this the first hint of the data about to go in wrong direction after a long period of much better news?
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1268896189577035777/photo/1
So yes-it's reassuring that the infection numbers and death numbers are still falling, but it's still lack-of-business as usual.
Add that to their lower base R0 rate, and that explains it.
(One form of vaccination (variolation IIRC) is in fact infection with a version of the virus which gives a very mild infection, but offers immunity to a more dangerous version. Using cowpox to immunise against smallpox was the original version of this approach!)
His was a rearguard action, successful to a limited extent, but since the battle was lost in the long-term, ultimately completely irrelevant.
People's attitudes influence the success or failure of a politician and in turn are impacted by the success or failure of that politician.
And this is particularly true for Donald Trump and POTUS.
Watch the birdie. This is so obviously a distraction, there must be something else that the government wants to deprive of oxygen.
And the whole point of my theory is that it applies to the reality tv watching, instant gratification seeking, modern age. It doesn't matter that it wasn't the case in the distant past, in fact that is kind of what I am getting at. Things have changed, and the personality wins
Cummings revenge.
James Forsyth has the details in the Speccie.
I wouldn;t want to be working for Public Health England right now. Other parts of the civil service too.
I wonder if port access is intended - probably rail to Avonmouth rather than Bridgwater docks.
The personality usually wins agreed but if the personality is wrecking the economy or more extreme than their opponent they can lose
To run a few numbers - UK car sales are around 2.5m per year, and the UK's largest plant (Nissan in Sunderland) produces around 300k cars per year.
If Tesla wants a 10% share of UK car sales, they can set up a plant the size of the one in Sunderland, just for the UK market.
(In practice, they'll likely also make vehicles for export to other RHD markets such as RoI, Cyprus and Malta).
https://twitter.com/OwenPaterson/status/1268793560947621889
Is it a creature of some sort?
For background Georgia ended it Lock-down on 1st May, and replaced it with a stay-at-home-if-venerable. People there started to return to closer to normality, slowly at first but more so over time.
the number of recorded cases was on a downwind trend, that continued for a few days before 'bottoming out' on 9th May, and then increased to a second peak on the 19 may and has since then desecrated.
Deaths, meanwhile have continued to decline steadily.
My take,:
1) There was a second wave, but much smaller than most were expecting because they got to the new heard immunity quickly.
2) by keeping the venerable at home, they have largely avoided infection and thus the death rate has not been affected, at lest not significantly.
Caveats:
a) The increase in testing may account for some of the second wave.
b) There is both a delay between infection and death and death to reporting. but I still think if there was going to be a second big wave of deaths there would be some indication in the statistics by now.
Link:
https://dph.georgia.gov/covid-19-daily-status-report