In fairness Channel 4 news is a load of old nonsense. I'm sure if Corbyn had got in there would have been quite a few news organisations of other stripes not getting a look in.
Cathy Newman's comment is more disturbing than that of Will Hutton. Whilst there is no obligation for the Government to provide a representative for television or radio broadcasts, it seems an affront to democracy and accountability to be effectively censoring questions in this way.
Johnson's and Cummings's personalities soak through government: they don't like being questioned on their assumptions, policies, views, ways of working.
Cummings because he thinks that it is beneath his massive intergalactic intelligence to answer anything.
Johnson because he hasn't a clue what the answer is.
In fairness Channel 4 news is a load of old nonsense. I'm sure if Corbyn had got in there would have been quite a few news organisations of other stripes not getting a look in.
Does anyone else find the whole BoZo thing as tedious as the ZaNuLieBore people were in the 00s?
No. I find it is becoming a more accurate description with every passing day.
Whatever else he has, BoJo definitely lacks a mojo..
It's just boring.
If I referred to every post about Corbyn calling him Corby Trouser Press or Cor, what an antisemite, you'd get tired of it after the first few times.
Making fun of people's names is petty schoolground stuff. As others have pointed out, there are plenty of things to criticise about the man without making fun of his name.
I usually refer to him as Boris
I generally call him Johnson, but BoZo fits quite well.
His "Boris" act is a carefully staged persona, so BoZo works quite well when the lazy heffalump is running the circus.
Does anyone else find the whole BoZo thing as tedious as the ZaNuLieBore people were in the 00s?
No. I find it is becoming a more accurate description with every passing day.
Whatever else he has, BoJo definitely lacks a mojo..
It's just boring.
If I referred to every post about Corbyn calling him Corby Trouser Press or Cor, what an antisemite, you'd get tired of it after the first few times.
Making fun of people's names is petty schoolground stuff. As others have pointed out, there are plenty of things to criticise about the man without making fun of his name.
I usually refer to him as Boris
Apparently his real name in private life is Alexander or Alex.
It's not unusual for people to be referred to differently in different contexts, though the trend of flat out ignoring the first name for general public usage seems particularly common for politicians and actors of a certain age for some reason.
It would require a reconquest of Ireland to allow the shortest distance to be used though, which probably wouldn't go down so well for those arriving at the USA end of the bridge.
In fairness Channel 4 news is a load of old nonsense. I'm sure if Corbyn had got in there would have been quite a few news organisations of other stripes not getting a look in.
That's bollocks - but not unexpected.
Right or wrong, there is the expectation of some level of impartiality onthe TV news media (as opposed to the newspapers). The BBC (just about), Sky and ITV manage it, Channel 4 do not. Jon Snow's socks can be good though.
It's not unusual for people to be referred to differently in different contexts, though the trend of flat out ignoring the first name for general public usage seems particularly common for politicians and actors of a certain age for some reason.
I think it's because Boris is much more distinctive than Alex.
And so, finally, WHO say we should all wear masks or face coverings. The last to yield, have yielded
What a total fucking shitshow, and yes I am looking at you, Boris “handshake” Johnson
I bought my first masks in mid Feb and was much mocked on here for doing so, and for wearing them.
If we had all behaved like me, then, we wouldn’t be staring at the economic abyss and medical disaster, now.
I'm not sure how masks would be prevented any 'economic abyss', unless you think the rejuvenated mask industry was enough to pick up the slack.
I hate to swear so long before the lagershed, but JESUS H TWATTING CHRIST
if we’d had (nshallah) Czech style death rates (they wore masks, minimal deaths) or (Deus vult!) Korea style death rates (mandatory masks, basically no dead) we would now be able to confidently open our economy, with some careful restrictions.
As it happens, we have a moron political class advised by a cretinous scientific elite, and they told us not to wear masks for three months before completely changing their advice, so we are one of the most fucked countries in the world, still not taking minimal mask precautions, and our economy will now suffer thereby
Seems like masks reduce the spread of the disease although they are not a silver bullet.
It's interesting to speculate why we have been reluctant to go down this route.
UnBritish?
The most likely reason is a lack of supply.
Wearing masks in public might be useful to some extent, but not a fraction as useful as making sure hospitals and care homes have enough to go around.
Always seemed likely, whatever the other explanations on offer.
The Economist on how covid in the developing world is still gathering pace
"How to prevent new surges in cases? How to reopen businesses in an era of social distancing? How to revive prone economies? These are the questions preoccupying most of the rich world, where covid-19’s first wave, at least, is mercifully ebbing. But elsewhere the pandemic remains far from any crest. Brazil is adding around 25,000 new confirmed cases a day, more than the United States. Russia and India are not far behind, with 8,000 or so apiece. All told, poorer countries account for some three-quarters of the 100,000 or so new cases detected around the world each day.
These numbers are alarming, especially because they are grave underestimates...."
The Attorney General should stay off Twitter. That would be my advice.
MPs should stay off twitter. Few are any good with it and it just provides further opportunities to look foolish. Since they can get the benefits of checking news and updates from people without having an account themselves, or having one but not using it, there'd be no downside.
Enoch Powell was remarkably intelligent, but intelligence is no guarantee of empathy and compassion below PM level too.
Nor is intelligence any guarantee of judgement. In fact, from my experience, they are uncorrelated.
And people who are themselves intelligent in their area of expertise often have an entirely unjustified belief in their judgement in some area they know nothing about.
(I'm sure I'm like that too, before anybody says anything).
Does anyone else find the whole BoZo thing as tedious as the ZaNuLieBore people were in the 00s?
No. I find it is becoming a more accurate description with every passing day.
Whatever else he has, BoJo definitely lacks a mojo..
It's just boring.
If I referred to every post about Corbyn calling him Corby Trouser Press or Cor, what an antisemite, you'd get tired of it after the first few times.
Making fun of people's names is petty schoolground stuff. As others have pointed out, there are plenty of things to criticise about the man without making fun of his name.
I usually refer to him as Boris
Yes, but there are plenty of people who think calling him "BoZo" is the height of comedy. Just as people thought calling New Labour ZaNu LieBore was hilarious at one point.
Whatever happened to them? (I assume they joined UKIP).
Well done, you have just proved the British have an average IQ of 9, and that’s why we are dying
I'll carry on wearing my mask and you can go on contemplating all the S.K Tremayne novels gathering dust in the cheap bins of WH Smith.
You used to be witty, sharp even acerbic once.
Shame...
I have recently finished reading The Ice Twins by S K Tremayne. I enjoyed it. I also have a copy of "The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming" by one Nicholas Palmer on my bookshelf.
Blush. YoWhat other PB authors do you need to collect for a full set?
Mine? And I believe Mr Dancer has several ...
I own a Mr Dancer book and a Mr Tremayne. I do not own any Louise Bagshawe books.
Difficult not to think that US police forces are completely out of control.
All the US cop shows are going to be really weird come the new TV season. Either they'll ignore recent events or probably get really over the top in addressing it.
The Attorney General should stay off Twitter. That would be my advice.
MPs should stay off twitter. Few are any good with it and it just provides further opportunities to look foolish. Since they can get the benefits of checking news and updates from people without having an account themselves, or having one but not using it, there'd be no downside.
The world would be a far better place, or at least a calmer one, if everyone stayed off Twitter.
Difficult not to think that US police forces are completely out of control.
All the US cop shows are going to be really weird come the new TV season. Either they'll ignore recent events or probably get really over the top in addressing it.
FPT HYUFD said '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.'
In what way was the economy in an awful state in 1970? Wilson bequeathed a Balance of Payments surplus to Heath - and a Budget Surplus. When was the last time a Tory Government managed to do either - never mind both - tpoa Labour Government? The economy was in pretty good shape in 1970 - far better than in March 1974 when Wilson returned to office in the aftermath of the 3 Day Week.Far better than the economy left by Thatcher in November 1990 when inflation was circa 10%.
Inflation and unemployment was rising in 1970 and he had been forced to devalue the pound as the balance of payments was so bad.
The Thatcher Major governments cut inflation and Thatcher also cut the number of strikes and increased GDP per capita
Unemployment was actually falling in June 1970 and inflation was barely 5%. The pound was devalued in November 1967 to address the Balance of Payments problem and by 1970 the policy had clearly succeeded in that it delivered a substantial surplus. Inflation when Thatcher left office in 1990 was virtually unchanged from the level inherited in May 1979 - 9.7% compared with 10.2%. Unemployment was still high , the balance of payments was back in deficit despite the bonus of North Sea Oil and the Public Finances were in trouble notwithstanding the proceeds of Privatisation.. The position was far worse than what Heath had inherited from Wilson in June 1970.
Wilson left unemployment higher in 1970 than when he came in in 1964
The Attorney General should stay off Twitter. That would be my advice.
MPs should stay off twitter. Few are any good with it and it just provides further opportunities to look foolish. Since they can get the benefits of checking news and updates from people without having an account themselves, or having one but not using it, there'd be no downside.
The world would be a far better place, or at least a calmer one, if everyone stayed off Twitter.
I can see the appeal to a degree, but for politicians I don't see that any gain is worth the risks. Plus it leads to a pet peeve of mine where some ostensibly serious condemnation of a political opponent is undercut because the person tweeting it uses the twitter handle of their opponent, even if it is stupid. It's not very millenial of me, but '@realdonaldtrump is a disgrace' just looks dumb to me when being made as a serious statement from a serving senator or something.
And so, finally, WHO say we should all wear masks or face coverings. The last to yield, have yielded
What a total fucking shitshow, and yes I am looking at you, Boris “handshake” Johnson
I bought my first masks in mid Feb and was much mocked on here for doing so, and for wearing them.
If we had all behaved like me, then, we wouldn’t be staring at the economic abyss and medical disaster, now.
I'm not sure how masks would be prevented any 'economic abyss', unless you think the rejuvenated mask industry was enough to pick up the slack.
I hate to swear so long before the lagershed, but JESUS H TWATTING CHRIST
if we’d had (nshallah) Czech style death rates (they wore masks, minimal deaths) or (Deus vult!) Korea style death rates (mandatory masks, basically no dead) we would now be able to confidently open our economy, with some careful restrictions.
As it happens, we have a moron political class advised by a cretinous scientific elite, and they told us not to wear masks for three months before completely changing their advice, so we are one of the most fucked countries in the world, still not taking minimal mask precautions, and our economy will now suffer thereby
Seems like masks reduce the spread of the disease although they are not a silver bullet.
It's interesting to speculate why we have been reluctant to go down this route.
UnBritish?
Or just our particularly stupid political and scientific establishment advising us wrongly for months?
Imagine if Boris had started wearing a mask in early March. The optics would have been startling, and people would have taken notice. It would have been leadership, even if it embarrassed him. He did not do that. He preferred to joke about “handshaking corona patients” - then he got it and nearly died.
But the politicians - left and right - are not solely to blame. They were guided by the science and total fucking idiots like Van Tam and Harries were saying Don’t Wear Masks! until very recently
They should be sacked and their pensions should be taken away, and they should count themselves lucky they are not in jail. That is all there is to it.
God, I remember when some PBers said face coverings were unBritish and anyone who wore a face covering should be deported to Saudi Arabia.
There should be a German compound noun for this feeling: “the dismay upon discovering that you are governed by people much less intelligent than yourself, and you already consider yourself to be an idiot”
Being intelligent is no guarantee of being a good PM.
Of our post-war PMs with 1st class degrees, Eden, Macmillan, Wilson, Brown and Cameron it is a mixed bag in terms of record.
None of our best PMs in the last 100 years, Churchill, Attlee and Thatcher had a first class degree and Churchill did not even go to university
Macmillan did not graduate.
Macmillan got a first in the exams he did do but dropped out before completing his degree as so many of his contemporaries died in the Great War
This defund the police sweeping the American left is absolute insanity. What do they think will happen when they have defunded them? Have they not seen what has happened in areas over the past week where the police couldn't get to. It wasn't some sort of hippy commune. And of course the rich will just hire private police, while the poor get shafted. And what business is going to invest in a city with bugger all law enforcement.
Even bloody Jezza didn't come up with something as mental as this.
Difficult not to think that US police forces are completely out of control.
All the US cop shows are going to be really weird come the new TV season. Either they'll ignore recent events or probably get really over the top in addressing it.
I'd bet on the latter
So would I. It's not as though issues or race or police misconduct are never addressed on many such shows anyway (and I can think of only one I have watched regularly in the past which made me think, to the extent any show can be quantified such, that it was more right than left, though I could be wrong) but it's hard for TV writers to resist a 'very special episode' approach and get ham fisted in teaching the public.
Though I recall hearing that some entertainment media got pretty ridiculous after 9/11 in referencing events.
“Now Johnson has instructed civil servants to look at how the project can be delivered and is awaiting an official assessment on whether it is feasible.
A representative for Johnson said on Monday that "work is underway" on the project, adding that "it's an idea that the prime minister has expressed interest in in the past, and as he said at the time, 'Watch this space.'"
The Economist on how covid in the developing world is still gathering pace
"How to prevent new surges in cases? How to reopen businesses in an era of social distancing? How to revive prone economies? These are the questions preoccupying most of the rich world, where covid-19’s first wave, at least, is mercifully ebbing. But elsewhere the pandemic remains far from any crest. Brazil is adding around 25,000 new confirmed cases a day, more than the United States. Russia and India are not far behind, with 8,000 or so apiece. All told, poorer countries account for some three-quarters of the 100,000 or so new cases detected around the world each day.
These numbers are alarming, especially because they are grave underestimates...."
Several African countries continue to import Covid-Organics believing it will help combat the virus, but the World Health Organization has warned that no proven cure exists.
Difficult not to think that US police forces are completely out of control.
All the US cop shows are going to be really weird come the new TV season. Either they'll ignore recent events or probably get really over the top in addressing it.
I'd bet on the latter
So would I. It's not as though issues or race or police misconduct are never addressed on many such shows anyway (and I can think of only one I have watched regularly in the past which made me think, to the extent any show can be quantified such, that it was more right than left, though I could be wrong) but it's hard for TV writers to resist a 'very special episode' approach and get ham fisted in teaching the public.
Though I recall hearing that some entertainment media got pretty ridiculous after 9/11 in referencing events.
All Rise has already done an episode all on Zoom dealing with conditions of the incarcerated in CA during COVID and how to conduct court proceedings online.
The Economist on how covid in the developing world is still gathering pace
"How to prevent new surges in cases? How to reopen businesses in an era of social distancing? How to revive prone economies? These are the questions preoccupying most of the rich world, where covid-19’s first wave, at least, is mercifully ebbing. But elsewhere the pandemic remains far from any crest. Brazil is adding around 25,000 new confirmed cases a day, more than the United States. Russia and India are not far behind, with 8,000 or so apiece. All told, poorer countries account for some three-quarters of the 100,000 or so new cases detected around the world each day.
These numbers are alarming, especially because they are grave underestimates...."
Several African countries continue to import Covid-Organics believing it will help combat the virus, but the World Health Organization has warned that no proven cure exists.
As barely any African nations have an average life expectancy over 70 I doubt it
The prospect of people wearing masks to go about their daily lives is horrible. We’d better off segmenting groups based on risk and finding a way to live with the virus.
The Economist on how covid in the developing world is still gathering pace
"How to prevent new surges in cases? How to reopen businesses in an era of social distancing? How to revive prone economies? These are the questions preoccupying most of the rich world, where covid-19’s first wave, at least, is mercifully ebbing. But elsewhere the pandemic remains far from any crest. Brazil is adding around 25,000 new confirmed cases a day, more than the United States. Russia and India are not far behind, with 8,000 or so apiece. All told, poorer countries account for some three-quarters of the 100,000 or so new cases detected around the world each day.
These numbers are alarming, especially because they are grave underestimates...."
Several African countries continue to import Covid-Organics believing it will help combat the virus, but the World Health Organization has warned that no proven cure exists.
As barely any African nations have an average life expectancy over 70 I doubt it
If they have a lot of infant mortality, which they do, they'll also have a lot of over 70s
Enoch Powell was remarkably intelligent, but intelligence is no guarantee of empathy and compassion below PM level too.
Nor is intelligence any guarantee of judgement. In fact, from my experience, they are uncorrelated.
And people who are themselves intelligent in their area of expertise often have an entirely unjustified belief in their judgement in some area they know nothing about.
(I'm sure I'm like that too, before anybody says anything).
Yes. Intelligence in PM terms means can you read reams of documents and understand them quickly. Can you boil them down to the essential points? Thatcher and Wilson score highly. This does not mean you make the best decisions on the information gleaned. Otherwise we'd have had Stephen Hawking or Johnathan Miller running the country. You need a balance of intelligence, judgement, charisma, empathy and persuasion. John Major was probably the least academically inclined PM in living memory. He was better than the most recent 2. Arguably 4.
The Economist on how covid in the developing world is still gathering pace
"How to prevent new surges in cases? How to reopen businesses in an era of social distancing? How to revive prone economies? These are the questions preoccupying most of the rich world, where covid-19’s first wave, at least, is mercifully ebbing. But elsewhere the pandemic remains far from any crest. Brazil is adding around 25,000 new confirmed cases a day, more than the United States. Russia and India are not far behind, with 8,000 or so apiece. All told, poorer countries account for some three-quarters of the 100,000 or so new cases detected around the world each day.
These numbers are alarming, especially because they are grave underestimates...."
Several African countries continue to import Covid-Organics believing it will help combat the virus, but the World Health Organization has warned that no proven cure exists.
As barely any African nations have an average life expectancy over 70 I doubt it
If they have a lot of infant mortality, which they do, they'll also have a lot of over 70s
Percentage wise they have far fewer than in the developed world
Well done, you have just proved the British have an average IQ of 9, and that’s why we are dying
I'll carry on wearing my mask and you can go on contemplating all the S.K Tremayne novels gathering dust in the cheap bins of WH Smith.
You used to be witty, sharp even acerbic once.
Shame...
I have recently finished reading The Ice Twins by S K Tremayne. I enjoyed it. I also have a copy of "The Comprehensive Guide to Board Wargaming" by one Nicholas Palmer on my bookshelf.
Blush. YoWhat other PB authors do you need to collect for a full set?
Mine? And I believe Mr Dancer has several ...
I own a Mr Dancer book and a Mr Tremayne. I do not own any Louise Bagshawe books.
For clarification, I am not Louise Bagshawe
Brit who moved to America... check...
LOL
So you’re both Bagshawe, doing an eadric ?
Along with TimB
Yup. Me too
I thought the game was you’re supposed to deny it, Louise ?
Enoch Powell was remarkably intelligent, but intelligence is no guarantee of empathy and compassion below PM level too.
Nor is intelligence any guarantee of judgement. In fact, from my experience, they are uncorrelated.
And people who are themselves intelligent in their area of expertise often have an entirely unjustified belief in their judgement in some area they know nothing about.
(I'm sure I'm like that too, before anybody says anything).
Yes. Intelligence in PM terms means can you read reams of documents and understand them quickly. Can you boil them down to the essential points? Thatcher and Wilson score highly. This does not mean you make the best decisions on the information gleaned. Otherwise we'd have had Stephen Hawking or Johnathan Miller running the country. You need a balance of intelligence, judgement, charisma, empathy and persuasion. John Major was probably the least academically inclined PM in living memory. He was better than the most recent 2. Arguably 4.
All reports from the civil service were that Cameron was extremely good.at this & in general keeping the machinery of government moving.
Brown on the other hand, clogged the whole system up.
And i wouldn't say Cameron is some sort of genius or Brown a moron.
You can disagree with policies of coalition, but the quad were all intelligent individuals who were suited to the management of government.
The Economist on how covid in the developing world is still gathering pace
"How to prevent new surges in cases? How to reopen businesses in an era of social distancing? How to revive prone economies? These are the questions preoccupying most of the rich world, where covid-19’s first wave, at least, is mercifully ebbing. But elsewhere the pandemic remains far from any crest. Brazil is adding around 25,000 new confirmed cases a day, more than the United States. Russia and India are not far behind, with 8,000 or so apiece. All told, poorer countries account for some three-quarters of the 100,000 or so new cases detected around the world each day.
These numbers are alarming, especially because they are grave underestimates...."
Yet in terms of deaths only 3 developing countries, Brazil, Mexico and Iran are even in the top 10
Most poor countries have few old or obese people. Brazil and Mexico, on the other hand, have a lot of overweight people. They're more like middle-income countries.
FPT HYUFD said '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.'
In what way was the economy in an awful state in 1970? Wilson bequeathed a Balance of Payments surplus to Heath - and a Budget Surplus. When was the last time a Tory Government managed to do either - never mind both - tpoa Labour Government? The economy was in pretty good shape in 1970 - far better than in March 1974 when Wilson returned to office in the aftermath of the 3 Day Week.Far better than the economy left by Thatcher in November 1990 when inflation was circa 10%.
Inflation and unemployment was rising in 1970 and he had been forced to devalue the pound as the balance of payments was so bad.
The Thatcher Major governments cut inflation and Thatcher also cut the number of strikes and increased GDP per capita
Unemployment was actually falling in June 1970 and inflation was barely 5%. The pound was devalued in November 1967 to address the Balance of Payments problem and by 1970 the policy had clearly succeeded in that it delivered a substantial surplus. Inflation when Thatcher left office in 1990 was virtually unchanged from the level inherited in May 1979 - 9.7% compared with 10.2%. Unemployment was still high , the balance of payments was back in deficit despite the bonus of North Sea Oil and the Public Finances were in trouble notwithstanding the proceeds of Privatisation.. The position was far worse than what Heath had inherited from Wilson in June 1970.
Wilson left unemployment higher in 1970 than when he came in in 1964
Enoch Powell was remarkably intelligent, but intelligence is no guarantee of empathy and compassion below PM level too.
Nor is intelligence any guarantee of judgement. In fact, from my experience, they are uncorrelated.
And people who are themselves intelligent in their area of expertise often have an entirely unjustified belief in their judgement in some area they know nothing about.
(I'm sure I'm like that too, before anybody says anything).
Yes. Intelligence in PM terms means can you read reams of documents and understand them quickly. Can you boil them down to the essential points? Thatcher and Wilson score highly. This does not mean you make the best decisions on the information gleaned. Otherwise we'd have had Stephen Hawking or Johnathan Miller running the country. You need a balance of intelligence, judgement, charisma, empathy and persuasion. John Major was probably the least academically inclined PM in living memory. He was better than the most recent 2. Arguably 4.
All reports from the civil service were that Cameron was extremely good.at this & in general keeping the machinery of government moving.
Brown on the other hand, clogged the whole system up.
And i wouldn't say Cameron is some sort of genius or Brown a moron.
You can disagree with policies of coalition, but the quad were all intelligent individuals who were suited to the management of government.
Which sort of proves my point. Simply having great intelligence is neither a necessary or sufficient qualification. It is one of a range of skills. All other things being equal you'd choose the more intelligent. Brown was smarter than Blair. Johnson more intelligent than Major. Wilson than Attlee. Etc. All other factors weren't equal.
Enoch Powell was remarkably intelligent, but intelligence is no guarantee of empathy and compassion below PM level too.
Nor is intelligence any guarantee of judgement. In fact, from my experience, they are uncorrelated.
And people who are themselves intelligent in their area of expertise often have an entirely unjustified belief in their judgement in some area they know nothing about.
(I'm sure I'm like that too, before anybody says anything).
Yes. Intelligence in PM terms means can you read reams of documents and understand them quickly. Can you boil them down to the essential points? Thatcher and Wilson score highly. This does not mean you make the best decisions on the information gleaned. Otherwise we'd have had Stephen Hawking or Johnathan Miller running the country. You need a balance of intelligence, judgement, charisma, empathy and persuasion. John Major was probably the least academically inclined PM in living memory. He was better than the most recent 2. Arguably 4.
All reports from the civil service were that Cameron was extremely good.at this & in general keeping the machinery of government moving.
Brown on the other hand, clogged the whole system up.
And i wouldn't say Cameron is some sort of genius or Brown a moron.
You can disagree with policies of coalition, but the quad were all intelligent individuals who were suited to the management of government.
Which sort of proves my point. Simply having great intelligence is neither a necessary or sufficient qualification. It is one of a range of skills. All other things being equal you'd choose the more intelligent. Brown was smarter than Blair. Johnson more intelligent than Major. Wilson than Attlee. Etc. All other factors weren't equal.
Is Johnson smarter than Major?
I suspect, had Major been sent to Eton, he would have had a glittering academic career.
Enoch Powell was remarkably intelligent, but intelligence is no guarantee of empathy and compassion below PM level too.
Nor is intelligence any guarantee of judgement. In fact, from my experience, they are uncorrelated.
And people who are themselves intelligent in their area of expertise often have an entirely unjustified belief in their judgement in some area they know nothing about.
(I'm sure I'm like that too, before anybody says anything).
Yes. Intelligence in PM terms means can you read reams of documents and understand them quickly. Can you boil them down to the essential points? Thatcher and Wilson score highly. This does not mean you make the best decisions on the information gleaned. Otherwise we'd have had Stephen Hawking or Johnathan Miller running the country. You need a balance of intelligence, judgement, charisma, empathy and persuasion. John Major was probably the least academically inclined PM in living memory. He was better than the most recent 2. Arguably 4.
All reports from the civil service were that Cameron was extremely good.at this & in general keeping the machinery of government moving.
Brown on the other hand, clogged the whole system up.
And i wouldn't say Cameron is some sort of genius or Brown a moron.
You can disagree with policies of coalition, but the quad were all intelligent individuals who were suited to the management of government.
Which sort of proves my point. Simply having great intelligence is neither a necessary or sufficient qualification. It is one of a range of skills. All other things being equal you'd choose the more intelligent. Brown was smarter than Blair. Johnson more intelligent than Major. Wilson than Attlee. Etc. All other factors weren't equal.
Is Johnson smarter than Major?
I suspect, had Major been sent to Eton, he would have had a glittering academic career.
Enoch Powell was remarkably intelligent, but intelligence is no guarantee of empathy and compassion below PM level too.
Nor is intelligence any guarantee of judgement. In fact, from my experience, they are uncorrelated.
And people who are themselves intelligent in their area of expertise often have an entirely unjustified belief in their judgement in some area they know nothing about.
(I'm sure I'm like that too, before anybody says anything).
Yes. Intelligence in PM terms means can you read reams of documents and understand them quickly. Can you boil them down to the essential points? Thatcher and Wilson score highly. This does not mean you make the best decisions on the information gleaned. Otherwise we'd have had Stephen Hawking or Johnathan Miller running the country. You need a balance of intelligence, judgement, charisma, empathy and persuasion. John Major was probably the least academically inclined PM in living memory. He was better than the most recent 2. Arguably 4.
All reports from the civil service were that Cameron was extremely good.at this & in general keeping the machinery of government moving.
Brown on the other hand, clogged the whole system up.
And i wouldn't say Cameron is some sort of genius or Brown a moron.
You can disagree with policies of coalition, but the quad were all intelligent individuals who were suited to the management of government.
Which sort of proves my point. Simply having great intelligence is neither a necessary or sufficient qualification. It is one of a range of skills. All other things being equal you'd choose the more intelligent. Brown was smarter than Blair. Johnson more intelligent than Major. Wilson than Attlee. Etc. All other factors weren't equal.
Is Johnson smarter than Major?
I suspect, had Major been sent to Eton, he would have had a glittering academic career.
Boris strikes me as the kid who is seen as smart at school, while winging their homework and has a way with words, but that is their peak. However, still think they are a lot smarter than they really are as an adult, because they were top of the class when they were 15.
Enoch Powell was remarkably intelligent, but intelligence is no guarantee of empathy and compassion below PM level too.
Nor is intelligence any guarantee of judgement. In fact, from my experience, they are uncorrelated.
And people who are themselves intelligent in their area of expertise often have an entirely unjustified belief in their judgement in some area they know nothing about.
(I'm sure I'm like that too, before anybody says anything).
Yes. Intelligence in PM terms means can you read reams of documents and understand them quickly. Can you boil them down to the essential points? Thatcher and Wilson score highly. This does not mean you make the best decisions on the information gleaned. Otherwise we'd have had Stephen Hawking or Johnathan Miller running the country. You need a balance of intelligence, judgement, charisma, empathy and persuasion. John Major was probably the least academically inclined PM in living memory. He was better than the most recent 2. Arguably 4.
All reports from the civil service were that Cameron was extremely good.at this & in general keeping the machinery of government moving.
Brown on the other hand, clogged the whole system up.
And i wouldn't say Cameron is some sort of genius or Brown a moron.
You can disagree with policies of coalition, but the quad were all intelligent individuals who were suited to the management of government.
Which sort of proves my point. Simply having great intelligence is neither a necessary or sufficient qualification. It is one of a range of skills. All other things being equal you'd choose the more intelligent. Brown was smarter than Blair. Johnson more intelligent than Major. Wilson than Attlee. Etc. All other factors weren't equal.
Is Johnson smarter than Major?
I suspect, had Major been sent to Eton, he would have had a glittering academic career.
Boris strikes me as the kid who is seen as smart at school, while winging their homework and has a way with words, but that is their peak. However, still think they are a lot smarter than they really are as an adult, because they were top of the class when they were 15.
Enoch Powell was remarkably intelligent, but intelligence is no guarantee of empathy and compassion below PM level too.
Nor is intelligence any guarantee of judgement. In fact, from my experience, they are uncorrelated.
And people who are themselves intelligent in their area of expertise often have an entirely unjustified belief in their judgement in some area they know nothing about.
(I'm sure I'm like that too, before anybody says anything).
Yes. Intelligence in PM terms means can you read reams of documents and understand them quickly. Can you boil them down to the essential points? Thatcher and Wilson score highly. This does not mean you make the best decisions on the information gleaned. Otherwise we'd have had Stephen Hawking or Johnathan Miller running the country. You need a balance of intelligence, judgement, charisma, empathy and persuasion. John Major was probably the least academically inclined PM in living memory. He was better than the most recent 2. Arguably 4.
All reports from the civil service were that Cameron was extremely good.at this & in general keeping the machinery of government moving.
Brown on the other hand, clogged the whole system up.
And i wouldn't say Cameron is some sort of genius or Brown a moron.
You can disagree with policies of coalition, but the quad were all intelligent individuals who were suited to the management of government.
Which sort of proves my point. Simply having great intelligence is neither a necessary or sufficient qualification. It is one of a range of skills. All other things being equal you'd choose the more intelligent. Brown was smarter than Blair. Johnson more intelligent than Major. Wilson than Attlee. Etc. All other factors weren't equal.
Is Johnson smarter than Major?
I suspect, had Major been sent to Eton, he would have had a glittering academic career.
Yeah. I'm using intelligence in the academic qualifications sense. This arising from "Thatcher had a first therefore was the brightest PM in living memory." And me pointing out Wilson was a Don at 21. So yes. There are plenty who would have done much better had they been to Eton. Sadly increasingly few of them get anywhere near PM.
Enoch Powell was remarkably intelligent, but intelligence is no guarantee of empathy and compassion below PM level too.
Nor is intelligence any guarantee of judgement. In fact, from my experience, they are uncorrelated.
And people who are themselves intelligent in their area of expertise often have an entirely unjustified belief in their judgement in some area they know nothing about.
(I'm sure I'm like that too, before anybody says anything).
Yes. Intelligence in PM terms means can you read reams of documents and understand them quickly. Can you boil them down to the essential points? Thatcher and Wilson score highly. This does not mean you make the best decisions on the information gleaned. Otherwise we'd have had Stephen Hawking or Johnathan Miller running the country. You need a balance of intelligence, judgement, charisma, empathy and persuasion. John Major was probably the least academically inclined PM in living memory. He was better than the most recent 2. Arguably 4.
All reports from the civil service were that Cameron was extremely good.at this & in general keeping the machinery of government moving.
Brown on the other hand, clogged the whole system up.
And i wouldn't say Cameron is some sort of genius or Brown a moron.
You can disagree with policies of coalition, but the quad were all intelligent individuals who were suited to the management of government.
Which sort of proves my point. Simply having great intelligence is neither a necessary or sufficient qualification. It is one of a range of skills. All other things being equal you'd choose the more intelligent. Brown was smarter than Blair. Johnson more intelligent than Major. Wilson than Attlee. Etc. All other factors weren't equal.
Is Johnson smarter than Major?
I suspect, had Major been sent to Eton, he would have had a glittering academic career.
Yeah. I'm using intelligence in the academic qualifications sense. This arising from "Thatcher had a first therefore was the brightest PM in living memory." And me pointing out Wilson was a Don at 21. So yes. There are plenty who would have done much better had they been to Eton. Sadly increasingly few of them get anywhere near PM.
Eton does not automatically guarantee academic brilliance, see Prince Harry
Starmer may block all the next PM's appointments, because that's how it will be from now on.
How does that work? I speak as one who thinks the honours system as a whole is baloney. Get rid of honours for 1) Donating money to a political party. 2) Having done the job you are paid to do without scandal. Civil servants, MPs voted out. 3) Being a mate of a Royal/PM. 4) Being a celeb. Rock star, TV person, sporty bod and the like who has been popular for a few months. 5) Having toed the Party line for decades without an original thought. Leave it for the genuinely brave, extraordinary individuals who have pushed humanity forward without seeking reward. And limit it to maybe 50 living recipients. When one dies a national debate could be had about who should replace them. Would be a good metric to judge a government by in who they choose.
"Was Covid-19 created in a lab? China has some urgent questions to answer Given the regime’s history of lying, we should take seriously the theory that the virus may be man-made
"Was Covid-19 created in a lab? China has some urgent questions to answer Given the regime’s history of lying, we should take seriously the theory that the virus may be man-made
It may have been studied in a lab, and then escaped through an accident (or worse).
But this is not a human designed virus.
How do we know this? Well, this is best described by a Cambridge geneticist:
We can "make" viruses in a lab, including modifying their genetic code. through techniques like CRISPR. We can also determine the full genetic code for existing viruses. So we have the capacity to make a new virus.
What we can't do is model the effect of that virus without releasing it into the wild. There are too many different factors that make a successful virus; species it originates in and species to species transmission plus transmission within a species, lethality, infectiousness (the R0 factor), vectors of transmission and so on. We have very little understanding of how the genetic code relates directly to all those different aspects of behaviour. So we could make a new virus, but what it would do would be a complete mystery.
Nature solves this problem by trying thousands and millions of variants. Most variations either don't work or are effectively the same. But if you try millions eventually you'll find a new "good one".
That's something nature can do that we can't. We couldn't cook up COVID-19 in a lab without also trying another million duds. Nobody can, or wants to or is trying to do that.
We know that government agencies sponsor research and follow research, but it's rare that they're actually doing state of the art science. Research labs publish papers, so it's possible to know the state of the art in a field if you are willing to read the papers or find someone who does. We're just not making viruses like that and it's not possible. It's a fantasy, and unfortunately a fantasy that because you can't prove it's not true will prey on your anxiety and rot your brain. Don't give over your mind to conspiracy theories.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/06/covid-19-coronavirus-longterm-symptoms-months/612679/ ... I interviewed nine of them for this story, all of whom share commonalities. Most have never been admitted to an ICU or gone on a ventilator, so their cases technically count as “mild.” But their lives have nonetheless been flattened by relentless and rolling waves of symptoms that make it hard to concentrate, exercise, or perform simple physical tasks. Most are young. Most were previously fit and healthy. “It is mild relative to dying in a hospital, but this virus has ruined my life,” LeClerc said. “Even reading a book is challenging and exhausting. What small joys other people are experiencing in lockdown—yoga, bread baking—are beyond the realms of possibility for me.”...
"Was Covid-19 created in a lab? China has some urgent questions to answer Given the regime’s history of lying, we should take seriously the theory that the virus may be man-made
It may have been studied in a lab, and then escaped through an accident (or worse).
But this is not a human designed virus.
How do we know this? Well, this is best described by a Cambridge geneticist:
We can "make" viruses in a lab, including modifying their genetic code. through techniques like CRISPR. We can also determine the full genetic code for existing viruses. So we have the capacity to make a new virus.
What we can't do is model the effect of that virus without releasing it into the wild. There are too many different factors that make a successful virus; species it originates in and species to species transmission plus transmission within a species, lethality, infectiousness (the R0 factor), vectors of transmission and so on. We have very little understanding of how the genetic code relates directly to all those different aspects of behaviour. So we could make a new virus, but what it would do would be a complete mystery.
Nature solves this problem by trying thousands and millions of variants. Most variations either don't work or are effectively the same. But if you try millions eventually you'll find a new "good one".
That's something nature can do that we can't. We couldn't cook up COVID-19 in a lab without also trying another million duds. Nobody can, or wants to or is trying to do that.
We know that government agencies sponsor research and follow research, but it's rare that they're actually doing state of the art science. Research labs publish papers, so it's possible to know the state of the art in a field if you are willing to read the papers or find someone who does. We're just not making viruses like that and it's not possible. It's a fantasy, and unfortunately a fantasy that because you can't prove it's not true will prey on your anxiety and rot your brain. Don't give over your mind to conspiracy theories.
Opinion journalists like Moore, who don’t bother to educate themselves on a topic before telling us that “we should take seriously” a wild speculation, should not be taken seriously.
"Was Covid-19 created in a lab? China has some urgent questions to answer Given the regime’s history of lying, we should take seriously the theory that the virus may be man-made
It may have been studied in a lab, and then escaped through an accident (or worse).
But this is not a human designed virus.
How do we know this? Well, this is best described by a Cambridge geneticist:
We can "make" viruses in a lab, including modifying their genetic code. through techniques like CRISPR. We can also determine the full genetic code for existing viruses. So we have the capacity to make a new virus.
What we can't do is model the effect of that virus without releasing it into the wild. There are too many different factors that make a successful virus; species it originates in and species to species transmission plus transmission within a species, lethality, infectiousness (the R0 factor), vectors of transmission and so on. We have very little understanding of how the genetic code relates directly to all those different aspects of behaviour. So we could make a new virus, but what it would do would be a complete mystery.
Nature solves this problem by trying thousands and millions of variants. Most variations either don't work or are effectively the same. But if you try millions eventually you'll find a new "good one".
That's something nature can do that we can't. We couldn't cook up COVID-19 in a lab without also trying another million duds. Nobody can, or wants to or is trying to do that.
We know that government agencies sponsor research and follow research, but it's rare that they're actually doing state of the art science. Research labs publish papers, so it's possible to know the state of the art in a field if you are willing to read the papers or find someone who does. We're just not making viruses like that and it's not possible. It's a fantasy, and unfortunately a fantasy that because you can't prove it's not true will prey on your anxiety and rot your brain. Don't give over your mind to conspiracy theories.
That's what I've been saying for the last 15 years. It has not been a popular view in the biosecurity world, which gets more money the more fear it generates.
I have modified my opinion to be somewhat more pessimistic with the vast improvements in the last 5-10 years in genomics, proteomics and metabolomics on the one hand, and high throughput biology combined with directed evolution on the other. But even with these, we cannot 'design for purpose' 'better' biological warfare agents, but rather tinker with recombination and select for 'desirable' characteristics that this tinkering might throw up.
But we are getting closer to 'design for purpose' in biological systems. There is software out there that allows you to select input chemicals, select an output chemical, and it will scan the genetic databases for metabolic reactions across all species to create a pathway to produce the desired output. It will then tell you which genes from which species to insert into your synthetic chassis to create a modified organism to, at least in theory, create the desired metabolic pathways.
This can work for creating specific chemicals biologically (but not without significant engineering, scaling, and stability issues - living organisms are very energy conservative, and if you insert genes to do things which do not directly benefit reproduction and survival, they tend to like to evolve out the inserts).
But that is a far cry from creating a new live biological warfare agent, which requires an understanding of what creates pathogenicity. There we certainly do get into the issues the author raises above. This is where the work of virus hunters combined with gain of function work gets scary. By overlaying genetic evolution maps with antigen expression evolution maps (such as the spike protein), we are getting far closer to at least understanding the genetic component of transmissibility. I have to wonder how far behind pathogenicity will be.
That's what I've been saying for the last 15 years. It has not been a popular view in the biosecurity world, which gets more money the more fear it generates.
I have modified my opinion to be somewhat more pessimistic with the vast improvements in the last 5-10 years in genomics, proteomics and metabolomics on the one hand, and high throughput biology combined with directed evolution on the other. But even with these, we cannot 'design for purpose' 'better' biological warfare agents, but rather tinker with recombination and select for 'desirable' characteristics that this tinkering might throw up.
But we are getting closer to 'design for purpose' in biological systems. There is software out there that allows you to select input chemicals, select an output chemical, and it will scan the genetic databases for metabolic reactions across all species to create a pathway to produce the desired output. It will then tell you which genes from which species to insert into your synthetic chassis to create a modified organism to, at least in theory, create the desired metabolic pathways.
This can work for creating specific chemicals biologically (but not without significant engineering, scaling, and stability issues - living organisms are very energy conservative, and if you insert genes to do things which do not directly benefit reproduction and survival, they tend to like to evolve out the inserts).
But that is a far cry from creating a new live biological warfare agent, which requires an understanding of what creates pathogenicity. There we certainly do get into the issues the author raises above. This is where the work of virus hunters combined with gain of function work gets scary. By overlaying genetic evolution maps with antigen expression evolution maps (such as the spike protein), we are getting far closer to at least understanding the genetic component of transmissibility. I have to wonder how far behind pathogenicity will be.
Isn’t there also the point that the resources allocated to understanding pathogens, and their interaction with the immune system are orders of magnitude larger in the open scientific/medical world ? As are the returns on investment, and benefits to both governments and society ?
I’m struggling to see how any of this could happen in complete secrecy, while also keeping up with, let alone outstripping, ethical medical research.
That's what I've been saying for the last 15 years. It has not been a popular view in the biosecurity world, which gets more money the more fear it generates.
I have modified my opinion to be somewhat more pessimistic with the vast improvements in the last 5-10 years in genomics, proteomics and metabolomics on the one hand, and high throughput biology combined with directed evolution on the other. But even with these, we cannot 'design for purpose' 'better' biological warfare agents, but rather tinker with recombination and select for 'desirable' characteristics that this tinkering might throw up.
But we are getting closer to 'design for purpose' in biological systems. There is software out there that allows you to select input chemicals, select an output chemical, and it will scan the genetic databases for metabolic reactions across all species to create a pathway to produce the desired output. It will then tell you which genes from which species to insert into your synthetic chassis to create a modified organism to, at least in theory, create the desired metabolic pathways.
This can work for creating specific chemicals biologically (but not without significant engineering, scaling, and stability issues - living organisms are very energy conservative, and if you insert genes to do things which do not directly benefit reproduction and survival, they tend to like to evolve out the inserts).
But that is a far cry from creating a new live biological warfare agent, which requires an understanding of what creates pathogenicity. There we certainly do get into the issues the author raises above. This is where the work of virus hunters combined with gain of function work gets scary. By overlaying genetic evolution maps with antigen expression evolution maps (such as the spike protein), we are getting far closer to at least understanding the genetic component of transmissibility. I have to wonder how far behind pathogenicity will be.
Isn’t there also the point that the resources allocated to understanding pathogens, and their interaction with the immune system are orders of magnitude larger in the open scientific/medical world ? As are the returns on investment, and benefits to both governments and society ?
I’m struggling to see how any of this could happen in complete secrecy, while also keeping up with, let alone outstripping, ethical medical research.
Two very good books on this subject matter: - Ray Zilinskas and Milton Friedman's book The Soviet Biological Weapons Program talks about how the requirements for secrecy and legends 1. reduced the understanding on the part of scientists of what they were trying to achieve as most were not fully briefed on the big picture, 2. prevented the sharing of information and cross-disciplinary learning so necessary for effective research and 3. sapped energy and resources
- Barriers to Bioweapons: Intangible Obstacles to Proliferation by Sonia Ben Ouagrham-Gormley. She looks at the US, Soviet, Iraqi, and South African BW programs and why none of them were successful. Secrecy silos feature strongly as a reason.
My concerns about biosecurity are still mostly centred on the natural world of emerging diseases (and hence I am focusing evermore on One Health type issues), but I am quite concerned about the accidental release possibilities with virus hunting.
So far, I still don't think deliberate design of a live agent is something to worry much about - it is not just the technical difficulties, it is also I have a hard time understanding why any rational actor would conclude live BW agents for mass destruction were a good way to meet their goals (with the possible exception of doomsday sects and eco-terrorists who believe humanity is the problem and therefore needs eradication).
That said, we cannot assume noone will try to use biology as a weapon, and technology and knowledge are improving fast. So we horizon scan.
One of the advantages Australia has is that their lockdown and quarantine programme has been so successful. It looked at one point that they were going to have real problems. Normal life can resume there, including mass demonstrations*.
Wigan has nearly 3 times as many Covid-19 deaths as the entirety of Australia. That is a stark contrast and why we are in nowhere near the same position ourselves.
*and they have good cause to do so. 400 aborigines have died in police custody in the last 30 years, with no policeman ever charged. It isnt just deaths either, the levels of alcohol, drug, domestic violence, rape, murder and economic marginalisation in aboriginal settings are shocking.
One of the advantages Australia has is that their lockdown and quarantine programme has been so successful. It looked at one point that they were going to have real problems. Normal life can resume there, including mass demonstrations*.
Wigan has nearly 3 times as many Covid-19 deaths as the entirety of Australia. That is a stark contrast and why we are in nowhere near the same position ourselves.
*and they have good cause to do so. 400 aborigines have died in police custody in the last 30 years, with no policeman ever charged. It isnt just deaths either, the levels of alcohol, drug, domestic violence, rape, murder and economic marginalisation in aboriginal settings are shocking.
Absolutely. They also have the advantage of not having the exacerbating effects of tear gas and large scale lockups as in the US. And a very effective contact tracing system which isn’t overburdened.
It would be absurd to argue that the US protests shouldn’t have happened, though - albeit equally absurd to ignore the likelihood that they will have contributed to the spread of infection.
Comments
This is the cleverest thing I've seen for a long time.
https://twitter.com/richard_littler/status/1269019044348387329
Cummings because he thinks that it is beneath his massive intergalactic intelligence to answer anything.
Johnson because he hasn't a clue what the answer is.
His "Boris" act is a carefully staged persona, so BoZo works quite well when the lazy heffalump is running the circus.
It would require a reconquest of Ireland to allow the shortest distance to be used though, which probably wouldn't go down so well for those arriving at the USA end of the bridge.
Same reason he ruffles his hair - to stand out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT9Eh8wNMkw
And people who are themselves intelligent in their area of expertise often have an entirely unjustified belief in their judgement in some area they know nothing about.
(I'm sure I'm like that too, before anybody says anything).
https://twitter.com/doctor_eon/status/1263259827473506304
Even bloody Jezza didn't come up with something as mental as this.
Though I recall hearing that some entertainment media got pretty ridiculous after 9/11 in referencing events.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Bridge#/media/File:Claude_de_Jongh_-_View_of_London_Bridge_-_Google_Art_Project_bridge.jpg
Now that's a serious bridge.
https://mashable.com/article/twitter-donald-trump-suspend-tweets-policy-violence/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-52929925
Several African countries continue to import Covid-Organics believing it will help combat the virus, but the World Health Organization has warned that no proven cure exists.
Thatcher and Wilson score highly.
This does not mean you make the best decisions on the information gleaned.
Otherwise we'd have had Stephen Hawking or Johnathan Miller running the country.
You need a balance of intelligence, judgement, charisma, empathy and persuasion.
John Major was probably the least academically inclined PM in living memory.
He was better than the most recent 2. Arguably 4.
Brown on the other hand, clogged the whole system up.
And i wouldn't say Cameron is some sort of genius or Brown a moron.
You can disagree with policies of coalition, but the quad were all intelligent individuals who were suited to the management of government.
https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/brazil,mexico/
https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1268982204404817920?s=19
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1269008814193475590?s=19
All other things being equal you'd choose the more intelligent. Brown was smarter than Blair. Johnson more intelligent than Major. Wilson than Attlee. Etc.
All other factors weren't equal.
I suspect, had Major been sent to Eton, he would have had a glittering academic career.
https://twitter.com/LettersOfNote/status/1176438451694166018?s=20
So yes. There are plenty who would have done much better had they been to Eton.
Sadly increasingly few of them get anywhere near PM.
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-06-05/racism-is-deeply-entrenched-in-our-soil-bishop-michael-curry-tells-itv-news/
Get rid of honours for
1) Donating money to a political party.
2) Having done the job you are paid to do without scandal. Civil servants, MPs voted out.
3) Being a mate of a Royal/PM.
4) Being a celeb. Rock star, TV person, sporty bod and the like who has been popular for a few months.
5) Having toed the Party line for decades without an original thought.
Leave it for the genuinely brave, extraordinary individuals who have pushed humanity forward without seeking reward.
And limit it to maybe 50 living recipients. When one dies a national debate could be had about who should replace them.
Would be a good metric to judge a government by in who they choose.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1269010215850119171?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1269014617319247876?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1269017516732538885?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1269010301673967618?s=20
A shame we focus more on the former and less on the latter these days.
Given the regime’s history of lying, we should take seriously the theory that the virus may be man-made
Charles Moore"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/05/covid-19-created-lab-china-has-urgent-questions-answer/
It may have been studied in a lab, and then escaped through an accident (or worse).
But this is not a human designed virus.
How do we know this? Well, this is best described by a Cambridge geneticist:
We can "make" viruses in a lab, including modifying their genetic code. through techniques like CRISPR. We can also determine the full genetic code for existing viruses. So we have the capacity to make a new virus.
What we can't do is model the effect of that virus without releasing it into the wild. There are too many different factors that make a successful virus; species it originates in and species to species transmission plus transmission within a species, lethality, infectiousness (the R0 factor), vectors of transmission and so on. We have very little understanding of how the genetic code relates directly to all those different aspects of behaviour. So we could make a new virus, but what it would do would be a complete mystery.
Nature solves this problem by trying thousands and millions of variants. Most variations either don't work or are effectively the same. But if you try millions eventually you'll find a new "good one".
That's something nature can do that we can't. We couldn't cook up COVID-19 in a lab without also trying another million duds. Nobody can, or wants to or is trying to do that.
We know that government agencies sponsor research and follow research, but it's rare that they're actually doing state of the art science. Research labs publish papers, so it's possible to know the state of the art in a field if you are willing to read the papers or find someone who does. We're just not making viruses like that and it's not possible. It's a fantasy, and unfortunately a fantasy that because you can't prove it's not true will prey on your anxiety and rot your brain. Don't give over your mind to conspiracy theories.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/06/covid-19-coronavirus-longterm-symptoms-months/612679/
... I interviewed nine of them for this story, all of whom share commonalities. Most have never been admitted to an ICU or gone on a ventilator, so their cases technically count as “mild.” But their lives have nonetheless been flattened by relentless and rolling waves of symptoms that make it hard to concentrate, exercise, or perform simple physical tasks. Most are young. Most were previously fit and healthy. “It is mild relative to dying in a hospital, but this virus has ruined my life,” LeClerc said. “Even reading a book is challenging and exhausting. What small joys other people are experiencing in lockdown—yoga, bread baking—are beyond the realms of possibility for me.”...
https://twitter.com/jessvanvonderen/status/1269096972494888960
I have modified my opinion to be somewhat more pessimistic with the vast improvements in the last 5-10 years in genomics, proteomics and metabolomics on the one hand, and high throughput biology combined with directed evolution on the other. But even with these, we cannot 'design for purpose' 'better' biological warfare agents, but rather tinker with recombination and select for 'desirable' characteristics that this tinkering might throw up.
But we are getting closer to 'design for purpose' in biological systems. There is software out there that allows you to select input chemicals, select an output chemical, and it will scan the genetic databases for metabolic reactions across all species to create a pathway to produce the desired output. It will then tell you which genes from which species to insert into your synthetic chassis to create a modified organism to, at least in theory, create the desired metabolic pathways.
This can work for creating specific chemicals biologically (but not without significant engineering, scaling, and stability issues - living organisms are very energy conservative, and if you insert genes to do things which do not directly benefit reproduction and survival, they tend to like to evolve out the inserts).
But that is a far cry from creating a new live biological warfare agent, which requires an understanding of what creates pathogenicity. There we certainly do get into the issues the author raises above. This is where the work of virus hunters combined with gain of function work gets scary. By overlaying genetic evolution maps with antigen expression evolution maps (such as the spike protein), we are getting far closer to at least understanding the genetic component of transmissibility. I have to wonder how far behind pathogenicity will be.
As are the returns on investment, and benefits to both governments and society ?
I’m struggling to see how any of this could happen in complete secrecy, while also keeping up with, let alone outstripping, ethical medical research.
https://twitter.com/arambaut/status/1268693659257581569
Study identifies potential approach to treat severe respiratory distress in patients with COVID-19
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/study-identifies-potential-approach-treat-severe-respiratory-distress-patients-covid-19
https://twitter.com/jessvanvonderen/status/1269117251963125760
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/500701-biden-formally-clinches-democratic-nomination
- Ray Zilinskas and Milton Friedman's book The Soviet Biological Weapons Program talks about how the requirements for secrecy and legends 1. reduced the understanding on the part of scientists of what they were trying to achieve as most were not fully briefed on the big picture, 2. prevented the sharing of information and cross-disciplinary learning so necessary for effective research and 3. sapped energy and resources
- Barriers to Bioweapons: Intangible Obstacles to Proliferation by Sonia Ben Ouagrham-Gormley. She looks at the US, Soviet, Iraqi, and South African BW programs and why none of them were successful. Secrecy silos feature strongly as a reason.
My concerns about biosecurity are still mostly centred on the natural world of emerging diseases (and hence I am focusing evermore on One Health type issues), but I am quite concerned about the accidental release possibilities with virus hunting.
So far, I still don't think deliberate design of a live agent is something to worry much about - it is not just the technical difficulties, it is also I have a hard time understanding why any rational actor would conclude live BW agents for mass destruction were a good way to meet their goals (with the possible exception of doomsday sects and eco-terrorists who believe humanity is the problem and therefore needs eradication).
That said, we cannot assume noone will try to use biology as a weapon, and technology and knowledge are improving fast. So we horizon scan.
https://www.nature.com/articles/489364a
Wigan has nearly 3 times as many Covid-19 deaths as the entirety of Australia. That is a stark contrast and why we are in nowhere near the same position ourselves.
*and they have good cause to do so. 400 aborigines have died in police custody in the last 30 years, with no policeman ever charged. It isnt just deaths either, the levels of alcohol, drug, domestic violence, rape, murder and economic marginalisation in aboriginal settings are shocking.
They also have the advantage of not having the exacerbating effects of tear gas and large scale lockups as in the US. And a very effective contact tracing system which isn’t overburdened.
It would be absurd to argue that the US protests shouldn’t have happened, though - albeit equally absurd to ignore the likelihood that they will have contributed to the spread of infection.