I know we have some of those people who take an interest in football. I have a question.
Looking at the announcement of Chelsea winning one of the Womens' Leagues, in the report they all seemed to be all over each other like teens in a mosh pit in the celebratory footage.
Was that an old report, or is the aspiration to Social Distancing over in professional football?
I know we have some of those people who take an interest in football. I have a question.
Looking at the announcement of Chelsea winning one of the Womens' Leagues, in the report they all seemed to be all over each other like teens in a mosh pit in the celebratory footage.
Was that an old report, or is the aspiration to Social Distancing over in professional football?
I thought they won it without playing out the games resulting in Liverpool being relegated
Not raining here (Dundee) but very windy once again. Going to do some bracing gardening this afternoon. Am I alone in finding protests in the UK about truly dreadful things in America over which we have no say, no influence and no authority just a bit weird?
No. Just a bit weird is a flattering description. Imbecilic is a more fitting one.
The British protests essentially say that dicriumination and indifference towards black people is endemic in the UK as well, and the US events are simply the latest example of a general phenomenon. The examples that a couple of us have given here of black drivers being routinely stopped by police and asked to show proof that they have a right to drive their cars are a small illustration. I could give more, but suspect you would either not believe me or dismiss them as anecdotal.
I think the demos are a stretch, because the position in the US is xlearly worse, but they're not imbecilic, and I know two people who have said that it's made them have a think about their own attitudes and how they might improve them.
Indifference toward all shades of melanin should be welcomed, not condemned. The general tenor of these protests is to foster a sense of injustice and grievance that is corrosive to the individual in which they are fostered, and has a harmfully divisive effect on society in general. It is a road to nowhere. The risibly imported 'trigger' to the protests is not the only objection.
No, being colour blind is not enough, though clearly better than overt bigotry. Being colour blind means not being willing to accept the history and culture of black people, nor the part of British culture in generating that history.
No, it is enough - not just enough, essential. If somebody remains beholden to an inherited sense of loss, sorrow, and anger, it will poison their life. Telling black people that they've started life with a handicap is simply an appalling and counterproductive thing to do.
Denying or ignoring our role in past oppression of BAME communities is in itself racist.
Being Anti-racist is a more active position than being colour blind. It means challenging racism, both direct and indirect when we encounter it, and that includes a certain amount of uncomfortable self reflection on our own attitudes.
That's right. You can be both racist and an anti-racist. In fact, recognizing and fighting the racism in yourself arguably makes for a more authentic anti-racist than being utterly free of it, as in "colour blind". Which imo very few people of middle age and upwards are. Indeed if I hear the phrase "haven't got a racist bone in my body" from any such individual I tend to form the opposite conclusion.
In my experience people who aren't racist have no need to advertise that fact.
As a general rule I think people should be judged on behaviour only. What they think and feel does not matter if it stays within.
For example -
Mr A - a politician who has no racist feelings or beliefs but who dog whistles like crazy to attract the racist vote.
Mr B - a politician who believes in white supremacy but never says so, never writes so, never indicates so externally in any way.
A is a racist. B is not.
Mr A is what Peter Hitchens thinks Enoch Powell was.
If Mr B believed in God rather than White Supremacism, but never says so, never writes so, never indicates so externally in any way. would that mean he wasn't religious?
Great question. I'd say he is religious because it's the belief that counts in this case. Conversely a regular church goer who does not believe is not religious.
So I'm dropping this as a general rule now because it doesn't 100% work either philosophically or in practice.
But it does for racism - behaviour trumps belief - actions speak louder than words and words speak louder than thoughts.
Again its a language problem. Racism means different things to different people. It doesnt matter if kinabulu's descriptive logic is right or wrong if its not widely shared. We need distinct words that cover both those scenarios, and many of the other types of behaviour that some consider racist, and others dont, so we can be clear about exactly what we are talking about.
Yes. OTOH it's easy to get bogged down with that. There is a lot to be said for "I know it when I see it".
I have tried in the past to work out rules and definitions around racism and I always end up with something too convoluted to add much value. Indeed it can obscure rather than illuminate.
So I just judge every case individually as I see it.
Your observation in your other post that racism is ingrained in most people and what's key is to recognize this and resist, rather than succumb and let it bleed into words and deeds is (imo) absolutely key.
Not raining here (Dundee) but very windy once again. Going to do some bracing gardening this afternoon. Am I alone in finding protests in the UK about truly dreadful things in America over which we have no say, no influence and no authority just a bit weird?
No. Just a bit weird is a flattering description. Imbecilic is a more fitting one.
The British protests essentially say that dicriumination and indifference towards black people is endemic in the UK as well, and the US events are simply the latest example of a general phenomenon. The examples that a couple of us have given here of black drivers being routinely stopped by police and asked to show proof that they have a right to drive their cars are a small illustration. I could give more, but suspect you would either not believe me or dismiss them as anecdotal.
I think the demos are a stretch, because the position in the US is xlearly worse, but they're not imbecilic, and I know two people who have said that it's made them have a think about their own attitudes and how they might improve them.
Indifference toward all shades of melanin should be welcomed, not condemned. The general tenor of these protests is to foster a sense of injustice and grievance that is corrosive to the individual in which they are fostered, and has a harmfully divisive effect on society in general. It is a road to nowhere. The risibly imported 'trigger' to the protests is not the only objection.
No, being colour blind is not enough, though clearly better than overt bigotry. Being colour blind means not being willing to accept the history and culture of black people, nor the part of British culture in generating that history.
No, it is enough - not just enough, essential. If somebody remains beholden to an inherited sense of loss, sorrow, and anger, it will poison their life. Telling black people that they've started life with a handicap is simply an appalling and counterproductive thing to do.
Denying or ignoring our role in past oppression of BAME communities is in itself racist.
Being Anti-racist is a more active position than being colour blind. It means challenging racism, both direct and indirect when we encounter it, and that includes a certain amount of uncomfortable self reflection on our own attitudes.
That's right. You can be both racist and an anti-racist. In fact, recognizing and fighting the racism in yourself arguably makes for a more authentic anti-racist than being utterly free of it, as in "colour blind". Which imo very few people of middle age and upwards are. Indeed if I hear the phrase "haven't got a racist bone in my body" from any such individual I tend to form the opposite conclusion.
In my experience people who aren't racist have no need to advertise that fact.
As a general rule I think people should be judged on behaviour only. What they think and feel does not matter if it stays within.
For example -
Mr A - a politician who has no racist feelings or beliefs but who dog whistles like crazy to attract the racist vote.
Mr B - a politician who believes in white supremacy but never says so, never writes so, never indicates so externally in any way.
A is a racist. B is not.
I would argue actually both are racist, but only one deserves sanctioning.
This is getting a bit wormhole but if something remains wholly within does it meaningfully exist without?
I suppose you can only judge on what's put in front of you. If an impeccably mediocre and uncontroversial politician was discovered to enjoy wearing a bedsheet and pointy white hat while watching Birth of a Nation over & over again in the privacy of their own home, it would probably be game over for them. Until that point, they remain an impeccably mediocre and uncontroversial politician, probaby with a good chance of being in a BJ cabinet.
This is utterly meant without prejudice or mischief and I say it only because it happened and it surprised me -
As I read that I pictured Michael Gove.
Tbf Govey seems to be about the coke and the hardcore porn rather than the KKK-ing. Can't rule anything out though..
And TB even F he's not really mediocre or uncontroversial as per your case study.
The worst / most misleading initial stat report was 80% only get mild symptoms. The author of the report that is taken from now regrets using it. Mild includes everything up to the worst thing you ever had that didn't require the hospital to save you. On top of that, we now know how this virus can f##k all your vital organs, but away i don't think this is widely known.
Exactly, it's not just a fever and cough. I'm sure that people would be more wary if they thought that catching it might lead to a lifetime of heart or kidney problems.
Set against that, of course, is the tremendous problem of not knowing how long this is going to drag on for. A vaccine or an effective treatment might take years to develop or might never come along at all - and in the meantime people are being entreated to be so afraid of the virus that they hide in their individual brick boxes and don't come out unless it's unavoidable. That just isn't sustainable.
There will be a significant fraction of the population that, for whatever reason (be it that they are shielding, or very old, or just very afraid,) will tough this out for as long as possible. But there'll also be an awful lot of people - including some older and more vulnerable ones - who will be thinking that they would rather like to live a little before they die, and would prefer to get out there and take their chances than endure a mere existence, by permission of anxious healthcare practitioners, that might continue forever.
Spending ten weeks holed up in your flat waiting patiently to escape is one thing. The prospect of spending ten years incarcerated and wondering if you're going to die, whether of a non-Covid ailment or from the effects of advanced old age, before it's "safe" to start living a full life again is another prospect entirely.
A life-altering illness is a big deal, but so is imprisonment. It's society's weapon of choice against serious convicted criminals for a reason. And at least most of them have some idea of when they're going to be released.
Set against that is the knowledge that a vaccine or effective treatment (or effective immediate and local test) could be available soon.
There's at least a 50% chance we could have a vaccine available (large scale, as well) by late September/early October. Better treatments are being improved all the time. An on-the-spot 20-minute reliable test is two-and-a-half weeks into a 6 week trial.
It's a bit soon to be opting for a dichotomy of either assuming 10 years of incarceration, or accepting a high chance of infection.
Assuming that there's a high chance of infection to begin with.
Progress on treatments appears so far to have been extremely limited. That on testing is somewhat better, but that in and of itself doesn't get us closer to taming the disease itself, even if it feeds in to mechanisms to suppress its prevalence and transmission. Like you I hope that a vaccine will ride to the rescue, but we have to balance that possibility against the warnings we keep being fed that it may in fact take a year or eighteen months to get to mass immunisation, or that the various vaccine projects might come to nothing and we may be living with this plague for many years or forever.
I'm honestly not trying to be blase or dismissive of the virus, it's simply that we need always to weigh the risks of contracting it against those inherent in living a very restricted way of life indefinitely. For the time being I'm not doing anything radically different from what I did in April, but the thought of carrying on in this sort of twilight existence for years on end fills me with dread.
Not raining here (Dundee) but very windy once again. Going to do some bracing gardening this afternoon. Am I alone in finding protests in the UK about truly dreadful things in America over which we have no say, no influence and no authority just a bit weird?
No. Just a bit weird is a flattering description. Imbecilic is a more fitting one.
The British protests essentially say that dicriumination and indifference towards black people is endemic in the UK as well, and the US events are simply the latest example of a general phenomenon. The examples that a couple of us have given here of black drivers being routinely stopped by police and asked to show proof that they have a right to drive their cars are a small illustration. I could give more, but suspect you would either not believe me or dismiss them as anecdotal.
I think the demos are a stretch, because the position in the US is xlearly worse, but they're not imbecilic, and I know two people who have said that it's made them have a think about their own attitudes and how they might improve them.
Indifference toward all shades of melanin should be welcomed, not condemned. The general tenor of these protests is to foster a sense of injustice and grievance that is corrosive to the individual in which they are fostered, and has a harmfully divisive effect on society in general. It is a road to nowhere. The risibly imported 'trigger' to the protests is not the only objection.
No, being colour blind is not enough, though clearly better than overt bigotry. Being colour blind means not being willing to accept the history and culture of black people, nor the part of British culture in generating that history.
No, it is enough - not just enough, essential. If somebody remains beholden to an inherited sense of loss, sorrow, and anger, it will poison their life. Telling black people that they've started life with a handicap is simply an appalling and counterproductive thing to do.
Denying or ignoring our role in past oppression of BAME communities is in itself racist.
Being Anti-racist is a more active position than being colour blind. It means challenging racism, both direct and indirect when we encounter it, and that includes a certain amount of uncomfortable self reflection on our own attitudes.
That's right. You can be both racist and an anti-racist. In fact, recognizing and fighting the racism in yourself arguably makes for a more authentic anti-racist than being utterly free of it, as in "colour blind". Which imo very few people of middle age and upwards are. Indeed if I hear the phrase "haven't got a racist bone in my body" from any such individual I tend to form the opposite conclusion.
In my experience people who aren't racist have no need to advertise that fact.
As a general rule I think people should be judged on behaviour only. What they think and feel does not matter if it stays within.
For example -
Mr A - a politician who has no racist feelings or beliefs but who dog whistles like crazy to attract the racist vote.
Mr B - a politician who believes in white supremacy but never says so, never writes so, never indicates so externally in any way.
A is a racist. B is not.
I would argue actually both are racist, but only one deserves sanctioning.
This is getting a bit wormhole but if something remains wholly within does it meaningfully exist without?
I suppose you can only judge on what's put in front of you. If an impeccably mediocre and uncontroversial politician was discovered to enjoy wearing a bedsheet and pointy white hat while watching Birth of a Nation over & over again in the privacy of their own home, it would probably be game over for them. Until that point, they remain an impeccably mediocre and uncontroversial politician, probaby with a good chance of being in a BJ cabinet.
This is utterly meant without prejudice or mischief and I say it only because it happened and it surprised me -
As I read that I pictured Michael Gove.
Tbf Govey seems to be about the coke and the hardcore porn rather than the KKK-ing. Can't rule anything out though..
And TB even F he's not really mediocre or uncontroversial as per your case study.
But what can I say? - Mikey G is who popped up.
He’s not uncontroversial, certainly.
I could have done without the image your second sentence conjured...
The last three times PBers called a new spike (April warm spell, both May warm spells), it didn’t happen.
The continual predictions of the second wave do take on something of the appearance of one of these American preachers trying continually, with regular failures along the way, to forecast the Apocalypse. The faithful will, we are confidently told, be Raptured on such and such a date, and when each date has come and gone without any miraculous vanishings a new one is plucked out of thin air to succeed it.
So far we've had the sunniest Spring on record, people invading the parks in London and then the beaches on the South Coast, more people starting to go back to work, the lifting of restrictions on outdoor exercise, the VE Day parties, businesses like B&Q, Ikea and takeaway restaurant chains gradually opening back up, the unshuttering of the garden centres, and, most recently, the partial re-opening of the schools.
And still, the numbers of positive tests, hospitalisations and deaths all trend steadily downwards. So all these things which we were told to be terrified of because they might be the doorway to disaster are quickly forgotten, and whatever the next measure in the sequence is (presumably the general re-opening of shops on June 15th) becomes the latest point at which the Apocalypse is bound to be initiated.
Why the latest batch of warnings should be any more valid than all of those which came before them is never adequately explained. All we can do is simply try these measures and see what happens. If the doom-mongers are right then eventually the second wave will show some signs of turning up, and then we try to decide how bad it is likely to be and how best to counter it. If it doesn't then we just keep on going.
If you can be bothered, it’s worth looking back at threads during said times. The sheer certainty that a bunch of 25 year old canoodling Londoners were going to lead us into said apocalypse is quite something to behold.
Not raining here (Dundee) but very windy once again. Going to do some bracing gardening this afternoon. Am I alone in finding protests in the UK about truly dreadful things in America over which we have no say, no influence and no authority just a bit weird?
No. Just a bit weird is a flattering description. Imbecilic is a more fitting one.
The British protests essentially say that dicriumination and indifference towards black people is endemic in the UK as well, and the US events are simply the latest example of a general phenomenon. The examples that a couple of us have given here of black drivers being routinely stopped by police and asked to show proof that they have a right to drive their cars are a small illustration. I could give more, but suspect you would either not believe me or dismiss them as anecdotal.
I think the demos are a stretch, because the position in the US is xlearly worse, but they're not imbecilic, and I know two people who have said that it's made them have a think about their own attitudes and how they might improve them.
Indifference toward all shades of melanin should be welcomed, not condemned. The general tenor of these protests is to foster a sense of injustice and grievance that is corrosive to the individual in which they are fostered, and has a harmfully divisive effect on society in general. It is a road to nowhere. The risibly imported 'trigger' to the protests is not the only objection.
No, being colour blind is not enough, though clearly better than overt bigotry. Being colour blind means not being willing to accept the history and culture of black people, nor the part of British culture in generating that history.
No, it is enough - not just enough, essential. If somebody remains beholden to an inherited sense of loss, sorrow, and anger, it will poison their life. Telling black people that they've started life with a handicap is simply an appalling and counterproductive thing to do.
Denying or ignoring our role in past oppression of BAME communities is in itself racist.
Being Anti-racist is a more active position than being colour blind. It means challenging racism, both direct and indirect when we encounter it, and that includes a certain amount of uncomfortable self reflection on our own attitudes.
That's right. You can be both racist and an anti-racist. In fact, recognizing and fighting the racism in yourself arguably makes for a more authentic anti-racist than being utterly free of it, as in "colour blind". Which imo very few people of middle age and upwards are. Indeed if I hear the phrase "haven't got a racist bone in my body" from any such individual I tend to form the opposite conclusion.
In my experience people who aren't racist have no need to advertise that fact.
As a general rule I think people should be judged on behaviour only. What they think and feel does not matter if it stays within.
For example -
Mr A - a politician who has no racist feelings or beliefs but who dog whistles like crazy to attract the racist vote.
Mr B - a politician who believes in white supremacy but never says so, never writes so, never indicates so externally in any way.
A is a racist. B is not.
I would argue actually both are racist, but only one deserves sanctioning.
This is getting a bit wormhole but if something remains wholly within does it meaningfully exist without?
I suppose you can only judge on what's put in front of you. If an impeccably mediocre and uncontroversial politician was discovered to enjoy wearing a bedsheet and pointy white hat while watching Birth of a Nation over & over again in the privacy of their own home, it would probably be game over for them. Until that point, they remain an impeccably mediocre and uncontroversial politician, probaby with a good chance of being in a BJ cabinet.
This is utterly meant without prejudice or mischief and I say it only because it happened and it surprised me -
As I read that I pictured Michael Gove.
Tbf Govey seems to be about the coke and the hardcore porn rather than the KKK-ing. Can't rule anything out though..
And TB even F he's not really mediocre or uncontroversial as per your case study.
But what can I say? - Mikey G is who popped up.
He’s not uncontroversial, certainly.
I could have done without the image your second sentence conjured...
Boris drops 20 points in ConHome survey to fourth behind Sunak, Gove, and Raab
Time for him to consider standing down and spending time with Carrie and his young son ?
Given the Tories still have a comfortable poll lead of course not and you omitted to mention Boris still has a +63% rating with ConHome readers
You omitted to mention:
It’s a steep slide for the Prime Minister, who sees his net positive ranking slide from +83 to +63 in one month and loses his place on the podium. This beats his previous low score as Prime Minister, from September, by six points.
Johnson's one asset is he's seen as an election winner - he has no great group of friends in the HoC, just colleagues seizing the main chance for personal advancement. There is no "Johnsonism" to form a coherent rallying point. Once his MPs judge he's gone from an asset to a liability he'll be gone in a trice.
I was interested to see that Mr Carlaw is bottom of the class - apparently not just because of DKs. "Amongst the minority of respondents who have a view on the Scottish leader, his net approval has halved from +23 to +11. His colleagues are reportedly angry at his handling of the Cummings row."
Carlaw is fumbling about in the dark. Nobody in Westminster or Whitehall knows who he is.
He is in dire straits if he is overtaken by nonentity Leonard next May.
Actually, what still puzzles me about that comment is why Mr Carlaw's colleagues are angry at him. Was it because he wasn't quick to condemn Mr Cummings? or to support him? If he condemned Mr C at once, he might as well join Mr Fraser in going for a separate Unionist Party in Scotland and cutting organizational links with the mob in London, ie going back to the pre-1955 arrangement [edit]. If he didn't condemn Mr C (except in the most mealymouthed terms, at least initially) then he was only being a good Unionist in following the Johnsonian party line. It all seems terribly unfair to the poor chap.
His colleagues are angry at him for not being sycophantic to The Great Buffoon.
(1965 by the way, not 55.)
Fairness never has and never will be an attribute of the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I'm no fan of Sunak, but it would be excellent trolling to the BLM crowd if the Conservatives elected our first non-white Party Leader and PM.
Do you think the BLM "crowd" need to be trolled?
As opposed to being listened to, for instance?
Crowds are not a homogenous mass. Some of them absolutely will need listening to. Others may be gently trolled without feeling guilty about it. Nor would poking fun at or criticising elements of such a crowd be the same as not listening to genuine and legitimate concerns (though, of course, some will indeed ignore them).
Interestingly, no obvioius reports of large (ifany?) BLM demos in Scotland today - and it's a nice sunny day for many after earlier showers. The appeals by Ms Sturgeon and her SNP and Green and Labour colleagues may have had some impact in terms of people respecting the ongoing ban on large gatherings.
And we are now seeing covid stowaways in the ferries ...
I know we have some of those people who take an interest in football. I have a question.
Looking at the announcement of Chelsea winning one of the Womens' Leagues, in the report they all seemed to be all over each other like teens in a mosh pit in the celebratory footage.
Was that an old report, or is the aspiration to Social Distancing over in professional football?
I thought they won it without playing out the games resulting in Liverpool being relegated
Yes - it was on average points per game for the portion of the season played (which seems reasonable).
But there was a clip of essentially a 30 person Chelsea Squad group hug, and that was what I was querying(?) It may have been old footage (?)
Reading this pretty awful story about Kate Garraway's husband, it does make me wonder if Boris Johnson has also been physically irreperably damaged. Clearly he wasn't as ill as Derek but he still doesn't look well to me.
Certainly, the one area where I had felt confident Boris would be at his strongest was at the Despatch Box for PMQs on account of his sheer intelligence and mental agility, but he does seem to have been really struggling recently at this weekly encounter. Possibly he is still suffering from his recent illness but he definitely needs to up his game and soon.
Johnson seems to have had the fairly typical slow post virus recovery syndrome, but was never a good parliamentarian. His style makes for an entertaining after dinner speaker or panel show host. Nothing more.
I am not entirely sure his after dinner speaking is as positively legendary as he would have us believe.
Jeremy Vine regales a story of attending an event with Johnson, who turning up late, checked with Vine the nature of the event. Vine recalls that without notes Johnson delivered a faultless presentation. Vine was suitably impressed. The following year Vine and Johnson attended a completely different event. According to Vine, Johnson delivered the same presentation almost verbatim as he had the previous year.
Why’s that a criticism?
It suggests laziness (or efficiency) but he was paid to give an entertaining evening speech on those two occasions and he did so. It just happened that there was an overlap in the audience
The story, as I remember it, is a bit more than that.
Something like Johnson on both occasions making a show of not having prepared anything, asking for paper and pen, scribbling a couple of notes and then giving exactly the same "hurriedly improvised" speech.
All part of the entertainment I suppose, but both Trump and Johnson seem to me like third rate comedians rather than people who anyone ought to seriously consider voting for.
I know we have some of those people who take an interest in football. I have a question.
Looking at the announcement of Chelsea winning one of the Womens' Leagues, in the report they all seemed to be all over each other like teens in a mosh pit in the celebratory footage.
Was that an old report, or is the aspiration to Social Distancing over in professional football?
I thought they won it without playing out the games resulting in Liverpool being relegated
Yes - it was on average points per game for the portion of the season played (which seems reasonable).
But there was a clip of essentially a 30 person Chelsea Squad group hug, and that was what I was querying(?) It may have been old footage (?)
The worst / most misleading initial stat report was 80% only get mild symptoms. The author of the report that is taken from now regrets using it. Mild includes everything up to the worst thing you ever had that didn't require the hospital to save you. On top of that, we now know how this virus can f##k all your vital organs, but away i don't think this is widely known.
Exactly, it's not just a fever and cough. I'm sure that people would be more wary if they thought that catching it might lead to a lifetime of heart or kidney problems.
Set against that, of course, is the tremendous problem of not knowing how long this is going to drag on for. A vaccine or an effective treatment might take years to develop or might never come along at all - and in the meantime people are being entreated to be so afraid of the virus that they hide in their individual brick boxes and don't come out unless it's unavoidable. That just isn't sustainable.
There will be a significant fraction of the population that, for whatever reason (be it that they are shielding, or very old, or just very afraid,) will tough this out for as long as possible. But there'll also be an awful lot of people - including some older and more vulnerable ones - who will be thinking that they would rather like to live a little before they die, and would prefer to get out there and take their chances than endure a mere existence, by permission of anxious healthcare practitioners, that might continue forever.
Spending ten weeks holed up in your flat waiting patiently to escape is one thing. The prospect of spending ten years incarcerated and wondering if you're going to die, whether of a non-Covid ailment or from the effects of advanced old age, before it's "safe" to start living a full life again is another prospect entirely.
A life-altering illness is a big deal, but so is imprisonment. It's society's weapon of choice against serious convicted criminals for a reason. And at least most of them have some idea of when they're going to be released.
Set against that is the knowledge that a vaccine or effective treatment (or effective immediate and local test) could be available soon.
There's at least a 50% chance we could have a vaccine available (large scale, as well) by late September/early October. Better treatments are being improved all the time. An on-the-spot 20-minute reliable test is two-and-a-half weeks into a 6 week trial.
It's a bit soon to be opting for a dichotomy of either assuming 10 years of incarceration, or accepting a high chance of infection.
These people are so moronic they simulateously believe (1) COVID-19 has magically lost its transmissibility and (2) a vaccine will take "ten years".
If only there were a publicly available list of their contact details, there would be large amounts of money to be made.
The last three times PBers called a new spike (April warm spell, both May warm spells), it didn’t happen.
The continual predictions of the second wave do take on something of the appearance of one of these American preachers trying continually, with regular failures along the way, to forecast the Apocalypse. The faithful will, we are confidently told, be Raptured on such and such a date, and when each date has come and gone without any miraculous vanishings a new one is plucked out of thin air to succeed it.
So far we've had the sunniest Spring on record, people invading the parks in London and then the beaches on the South Coast, more people starting to go back to work, the lifting of restrictions on outdoor exercise, the VE Day parties, businesses like B&Q, Ikea and takeaway restaurant chains gradually opening back up, the unshuttering of the garden centres, and, most recently, the partial re-opening of the schools.
And still, the numbers of positive tests, hospitalisations and deaths all trend steadily downwards. So all these things which we were told to be terrified of because they might be the doorway to disaster are quickly forgotten, and whatever the next measure in the sequence is (presumably the general re-opening of shops on June 15th) becomes the latest point at which the Apocalypse is bound to be initiated.
Why the latest batch of warnings should be any more valid than all of those which came before them is never adequately explained. All we can do is simply try these measures and see what happens. If the doom-mongers are right then eventually the second wave will show some signs of turning up, and then we try to decide how bad it is likely to be and how best to counter it. If it doesn't then we just keep on going.
If you can be bothered, it’s worth looking back at threads during said times. The sheer certainty that a bunch of 25 year old canoodling Londoners were going to lead us into said apocalypse is quite something to behold.
I’m not very good at picking up the unspoken stuff (on the spectrum - unsurprisingly given my son’s severe autism).
From experience, though - are you trying to imply that it’s all gone away or is not infectious now and if we dropped all restrictions, everyone would be fine?
Because that’s what experience would suggest is the subtext, but it seems a bit implausible.
Reading this pretty awful story about Kate Garraway's husband, it does make me wonder if Boris Johnson has also been physically irreperably damaged. Clearly he wasn't as ill as Derek but he still doesn't look well to me.
Certainly, the one area where I had felt confident Boris would be at his strongest was at the Despatch Box for PMQs on account of his sheer intelligence and mental agility, but he does seem to have been really struggling recently at this weekly encounter. Possibly he is still suffering from his recent illness but he definitely needs to up his game and soon.
Johnson seems to have had the fairly typical slow post virus recovery syndrome, but was never a good parliamentarian. His style makes for an entertaining after dinner speaker or panel show host. Nothing more.
I am not entirely sure his after dinner speaking is as positively legendary as he would have us believe.
Jeremy Vine regales a story of attending an event with Johnson, who turning up late, checked with Vine the nature of the event. Vine recalls that without notes Johnson delivered a faultless presentation. Vine was suitably impressed. The following year Vine and Johnson attended a completely different event. According to Vine, Johnson delivered the same presentation almost verbatim as he had the previous year.
Why’s that a criticism?
It suggests laziness (or efficiency) but he was paid to give an entertaining evening speech on those two occasions and he did so. It just happened that there was an overlap in the audience
The story, as I remember it, is a bit more than that.
Something like Johnson on both occasions making a show of not having prepared anything, asking for paper and pen, scribbling a couple of notes and then giving exactly the same "hurriedly improvised" speech.
All part of the entertainment I suppose, but both Trump and Johnson seem to me like third rate comedians rather than people who anyone ought to seriously consider voting for.
Well, MPs had considerable reservations about Boris for a long time presumably for similar reasons, it scuppered his first attempt at taking the top job, but in desperate times it seems like they couldn't argue with his personal popularity (tied to Brexit), and the election proved they made the right call (politically at any rate). And given the accusations of calculation that Boris faces he at the least thinks about things a bit more than Trump appears to. It is what it is - not what I'd have chosen, but people are fond of saying the rest of the party are as bad or worse, so it doesn't really matter if he shouldn't be considered by people, there's no way out of it in the short term.
The protests are young people & outdoors so reckless thouh they are to Covid spread they might not produce the second spike that mass indoor contact could create.
Yeah, they're actually doing us a bit of a favour as it's quite a good test of what spreads the virus and what doesn't.
Yes. Would be hard to argue against outdoor sport spectators if shouts at protests aren't spreading the virus.
I doubt that logic will be followed, perhaps understandably. The bigger issue with something like a PL game at the Emirates is everyone piling on to the tube.
True enough. I wonder how much bicycle parking there is at the Emirates?
In my days as a steward at Forest, the worst incident we had to deal with* was when the West Hams fans were throwing a pushbike about over the heads of their enclosure.
* when I say deal with, I mean leave them alone and let the daft sods brain themselves....
The protests are young people & outdoors so reckless thouh they are to Covid spread they might not produce the second spike that mass indoor contact could create.
Yeah, they're actually doing us a bit of a favour as it's quite a good test of what spreads the virus and what doesn't.
Yes. Would be hard to argue against outdoor sport spectators if shouts at protests aren't spreading the virus.
I doubt that logic will be followed, perhaps understandably. The bigger issue with something like a PL game at the Emirates is everyone piling on to the tube.
True enough. I wonder how much bicycle parking there is at the Emirates?
Just think how fit the Man Utd fans are going to get, cycling all the way from Surrey.
Boris drops 20 points in ConHome survey to fourth behind Sunak, Gove, and Raab
Time for him to consider standing down and spending time with Carrie and his young son ?
Given the Tories still have a comfortable poll lead of course not and you omitted to mention Boris still has a +63% rating with ConHome readers
You omitted to mention:
It’s a steep slide for the Prime Minister, who sees his net positive ranking slide from +83 to +63 in one month and loses his place on the podium. This beats his previous low score as Prime Minister, from September, by six points.
Johnson's one asset is he's seen as an election winner - he has no great group of friends in the HoC, just colleagues seizing the main chance for personal advancement. There is no "Johnsonism" to form a coherent rallying point. Once his MPs judge he's gone from an asset to a liability he'll be gone in a trice.
I was interested to see that Mr Carlaw is bottom of the class - apparently not just because of DKs. "Amongst the minority of respondents who have a view on the Scottish leader, his net approval has halved from +23 to +11. His colleagues are reportedly angry at his handling of the Cummings row."
Carlaw is fumbling about in the dark. Nobody in Westminster or Whitehall knows who he is.
He is in dire straits if he is overtaken by nonentity Leonard next May.
Actually, what still puzzles me about that comment is why Mr Carlaw's colleagues are angry at him. Was it because he wasn't quick to condemn Mr Cummings? or to support him? If he condemned Mr C at once, he might as well join Mr Fraser in going for a separate Unionist Party in Scotland and cutting organizational links with the mob in London, ie going back to the pre-1955 arrangement [edit]. If he didn't condemn Mr C (except in the most mealymouthed terms, at least initially) then he was only being a good Unionist in following the Johnsonian party line. It all seems terribly unfair to the poor chap.
His colleagues are angry at him for not being sycophantic to The Great Buffoon.
(1965 by the way, not 55.)
Fairness never has and never will be an attribute of the Conservative and Unionist Party.
Thank you, though it is hardly your fault that I find it very hard to get my head around that attitude!
The last three times PBers called a new spike (April warm spell, both May warm spells), it didn’t happen.
The continual predictions of the second wave do take on something of the appearance of one of these American preachers trying continually, with regular failures along the way, to forecast the Apocalypse. The faithful will, we are confidently told, be Raptured on such and such a date, and when each date has come and gone without any miraculous vanishings a new one is plucked out of thin air to succeed it.
So far we've had the sunniest Spring on record, people invading the parks in London and then the beaches on the South Coast, more people starting to go back to work, the lifting of restrictions on outdoor exercise, the VE Day parties, businesses like B&Q, Ikea and takeaway restaurant chains gradually opening back up, the unshuttering of the garden centres, and, most recently, the partial re-opening of the schools.
And still, the numbers of positive tests, hospitalisations and deaths all trend steadily downwards. So all these things which we were told to be terrified of because they might be the doorway to disaster are quickly forgotten, and whatever the next measure in the sequence is (presumably the general re-opening of shops on June 15th) becomes the latest point at which the Apocalypse is bound to be initiated.
Why the latest batch of warnings should be any more valid than all of those which came before them is never adequately explained. All we can do is simply try these measures and see what happens. If the doom-mongers are right then eventually the second wave will show some signs of turning up, and then we try to decide how bad it is likely to be and how best to counter it. If it doesn't then we just keep on going.
If you can be bothered, it’s worth looking back at threads during said times. The sheer certainty that a bunch of 25 year old canoodling Londoners were going to lead us into said apocalypse is quite something to behold.
I’m not very good at picking up the unspoken stuff (on the spectrum - unsurprisingly given my son’s severe autism).
From experience, though - are you trying to imply that it’s all gone away or is not infectious now and if we dropped all restrictions, everyone would be fine?
Because that’s what experience would suggest is the subtext, but it seems a bit implausible.
Nope. I’m saying, as I have always said, that we are learning more and more about transmission and the at-risk groups. And it’s not what the lockdown extremists on here forecast. They were plain wrong.
Some form of risk segmentation model is clearly the way forward.
Plus: Outdoor activities should be eased; indoor activities locked down.
Yet any sort of nuanced approached is a red rag to many on here.
The worst / most misleading initial stat report was 80% only get mild symptoms. The author of the report that is taken from now regrets using it. Mild includes everything up to the worst thing you ever had that didn't require the hospital to save you. On top of that, we now know how this virus can f##k all your vital organs, but away i don't think this is widely known.
Exactly, it's not just a fever and cough. I'm sure that people would be more wary if they thought that catching it might lead to a lifetime of heart or kidney problems.
Set against that, of course, is the tremendous problem of not knowing how long this is going to drag on for. A vaccine or an effective treatment might take years to develop or might never come along at all - and in the meantime people are being entreated to be so afraid of the virus that they hide in their individual brick boxes and don't come out unless it's unavoidable. That just isn't sustainable.
There will be a significant fraction of the population that, for whatever reason (be it that they are shielding, or very old, or just very afraid,) will tough this out for as long as possible. But there'll also be an awful lot of people - including some older and more vulnerable ones - who will be thinking that they would rather like to live a little before they die, and would prefer to get out there and take their chances than endure a mere existence, by permission of anxious healthcare practitioners, that might continue forever.
Spending ten weeks holed up in your flat waiting patiently to escape is one thing. The prospect of spending ten years incarcerated and wondering if you're going to die, whether of a non-Covid ailment or from the effects of advanced old age, before it's "safe" to start living a full life again is another prospect entirely.
A life-altering illness is a big deal, but so is imprisonment. It's society's weapon of choice against serious convicted criminals for a reason. And at least most of them have some idea of when they're going to be released.
Set against that is the knowledge that a vaccine or effective treatment (or effective immediate and local test) could be available soon.
There's at least a 50% chance we could have a vaccine available (large scale, as well) by late September/early October. Better treatments are being improved all the time. An on-the-spot 20-minute reliable test is two-and-a-half weeks into a 6 week trial.
It's a bit soon to be opting for a dichotomy of either assuming 10 years of incarceration, or accepting a high chance of infection.
These people are so moronic they simulateously believe (1) COVID-19 has magically lost its transmissibility and (2) a vaccine will take "ten years".
If only there were a publicly available list of their contact details, there would be large amounts of money to be made.
The worst / most misleading initial stat report was 80% only get mild symptoms. The author of the report that is taken from now regrets using it. Mild includes everything up to the worst thing you ever had that didn't require the hospital to save you. On top of that, we now know how this virus can f##k all your vital organs, but away i don't think this is widely known.
Exactly, it's not just a fever and cough. I'm sure that people would be more wary if they thought that catching it might lead to a lifetime of heart or kidney problems.
Set against that, of course, is the tremendous problem of not knowing how long this is going to drag on for. A vaccine or an effective treatment might take years to develop or might never come along at all - and in the meantime people are being entreated to be so afraid of the virus that they hide in their individual brick boxes and don't come out unless it's unavoidable. That just isn't sustainable.
There will be a significant fraction of the population that, for whatever reason (be it that they are shielding, or very old, or just very afraid,) will tough this out for as long as possible. But there'll also be an awful lot of people - including some older and more vulnerable ones - who will be thinking that they would rather like to live a little before they die, and would prefer to get out there and take their chances than endure a mere existence, by permission of anxious healthcare practitioners, that might continue forever.
Spending ten weeks holed up in your flat waiting patiently to escape is one thing. The prospect of spending ten years incarcerated and wondering if you're going to die, whether of a non-Covid ailment or from the effects of advanced old age, before it's "safe" to start living a full life again is another prospect entirely.
A life-altering illness is a big deal, but so is imprisonment. It's society's weapon of choice against serious convicted criminals for a reason. And at least most of them have some idea of when they're going to be released.
Set against that is the knowledge that a vaccine or effective treatment (or effective immediate and local test) could be available soon.
There's at least a 50% chance we could have a vaccine available (large scale, as well) by late September/early October. Better treatments are being improved all the time. An on-the-spot 20-minute reliable test is two-and-a-half weeks into a 6 week trial.
It's a bit soon to be opting for a dichotomy of either assuming 10 years of incarceration, or accepting a high chance of infection.
These people are so moronic they simulateously believe (1) COVID-19 has magically lost its transmissibility and (2) a vaccine will take "ten years".
If only there were a publicly available list of their contact details, there would be large amounts of money to be made.
Either or both beliefs might be true. There is no contradiction between them.
The worst / most misleading initial stat report was 80% only get mild symptoms. The author of the report that is taken from now regrets using it. Mild includes everything up to the worst thing you ever had that didn't require the hospital to save you. On top of that, we now know how this virus can f##k all your vital organs, but away i don't think this is widely known.
Exactly, it's not just a fever and cough. I'm sure that people would be more wary if they thought that catching it might lead to a lifetime of heart or kidney problems.
Set against that, of course, is the tremendous problem of not knowing how long this is going to drag on for. A vaccine or an effective treatment might take years to develop or might never come along at all - and in the meantime people are being entreated to be so afraid of the virus that they hide in their individual brick boxes and don't come out unless it's unavoidable. That just isn't sustainable.
There will be a significant fraction of the population that, for whatever reason (be it that they are shielding, or very old, or just very afraid,) will tough this out for as long as possible. But there'll also be an awful lot of people - including some older and more vulnerable ones - who will be thinking that they would rather like to live a little before they die, and would prefer to get out there and take their chances than endure a mere existence, by permission of anxious healthcare practitioners, that might continue forever.
Spending ten weeks holed up in your flat waiting patiently to escape is one thing. The prospect of spending ten years incarcerated and wondering if you're going to die, whether of a non-Covid ailment or from the effects of advanced old age, before it's "safe" to start living a full life again is another prospect entirely.
A life-altering illness is a big deal, but so is imprisonment. It's society's weapon of choice against serious convicted criminals for a reason. And at least most of them have some idea of when they're going to be released.
Set against that is the knowledge that a vaccine or effective treatment (or effective immediate and local test) could be available soon.
There's at least a 50% chance we could have a vaccine available (large scale, as well) by late September/early October. Better treatments are being improved all the time. An on-the-spot 20-minute reliable test is two-and-a-half weeks into a 6 week trial.
It's a bit soon to be opting for a dichotomy of either assuming 10 years of incarceration, or accepting a high chance of infection.
These people are so moronic they simulateously believe (1) COVID-19 has magically lost its transmissibility and (2) a vaccine will take "ten years".
If only there were a publicly available list of their contact details, there would be large amounts of money to be made.
Who is saying this?
You haven't seen people saying we should all go back to normal and they don't think there will be a second wave? You couldn't even read the post I quoted suggesting there wouldn't be a vaccine for ten years?
The worst / most misleading initial stat report was 80% only get mild symptoms. The author of the report that is taken from now regrets using it. Mild includes everything up to the worst thing you ever had that didn't require the hospital to save you. On top of that, we now know how this virus can f##k all your vital organs, but away i don't think this is widely known.
Exactly, it's not just a fever and cough. I'm sure that people would be more wary if they thought that catching it might lead to a lifetime of heart or kidney problems.
Set against that, of course, is the tremendous problem of not knowing how long this is going to drag on for. A vaccine or an effective treatment might take years to develop or might never come along at all - and in the meantime people are being entreated to be so afraid of the virus that they hide in their individual brick boxes and don't come out unless it's unavoidable. That just isn't sustainable.
There will be a significant fraction of the population that, for whatever reason (be it that they are shielding, or very old, or just very afraid,) will tough this out for as long as possible. But there'll also be an awful lot of people - including some older and more vulnerable ones - who will be thinking that they would rather like to live a little before they die, and would prefer to get out there and take their chances than endure a mere existence, by permission of anxious healthcare practitioners, that might continue forever.
Spending ten weeks holed up in your flat waiting patiently to escape is one thing. The prospect of spending ten years incarcerated and wondering if you're going to die, whether of a non-Covid ailment or from the effects of advanced old age, before it's "safe" to start living a full life again is another prospect entirely.
A life-altering illness is a big deal, but so is imprisonment. It's society's weapon of choice against serious convicted criminals for a reason. And at least most of them have some idea of when they're going to be released.
Set against that is the knowledge that a vaccine or effective treatment (or effective immediate and local test) could be available soon.
There's at least a 50% chance we could have a vaccine available (large scale, as well) by late September/early October. Better treatments are being improved all the time. An on-the-spot 20-minute reliable test is two-and-a-half weeks into a 6 week trial.
It's a bit soon to be opting for a dichotomy of either assuming 10 years of incarceration, or accepting a high chance of infection.
These people are so moronic they simulateously believe (1) COVID-19 has magically lost its transmissibility and (2) a vaccine will take "ten years".
If only there were a publicly available list of their contact details, there would be large amounts of money to be made.
Who is saying this?
You haven't seen people saying we should all go back to normal and they don't think there will be a second wave? You couldn't even read the post I quoted suggesting there wouldn't be a vaccine for ten years?
Maybe it's a literacy problem!
This is what she wrote: “ Like you I hope that a vaccine will ride to the rescue, but we have to balance that possibility against the warnings we keep being fed that it may in fact take a year or eighteen months to get to mass immunisation, or that the various vaccine projects might come to nothing and we may be living with this plague for many years or forever.“
She was simply saying that we don’t know the term. So your interpretation is so far from accurate as to be misleading.
America increasingly resembles a 70/80s dystopian sci-fi. I keep expecting to see Robocop or Snake Plisken pop up at any minute.
As Trump's America continues to degenerate, the closer the parallels to the fictional disintegration of the US political system that Margaret Attwood set out in "The Handmaid's Tale". It would be a simple matter for her to issue a slightly revised version in which the events that led to the Republic of Gideon came about quasi constitutionally on the back of an extended Trump presidency in which he's succeeded by religious extremists, all aided by sycophants and a pliant Supreme Court prepared to set aside constitutional checks and balances, rather than by the less plausible route of an armed coup by religious extremists.
Only about 25% of Americans are evangelical Christians.
They are not going to succeed in a coup to gain power if 75% of Americans oppose them and nor would they support doing it by force anyway, to ban abortion again and end gay marriage they would want to achieve it at the ballot box or through the appointment of very conservative Supreme Court justices
I'm afraid you miss my point. I'm not saying that it's likely to happen. However, you no longer need to suspend disbelief to accept that if things in the US deteriorate much further in Trump's favour then there's an outside chance such that something like that could happen in the US.
As I stated, it would happen initially by quasi-constitutional means, which means not by an armed coup. That's not dissimilar to the way that Germany went in 1933. It would involve the takeover of power and eventually the suspension of the constitution by right wing extremists whose power base was a combination of a growing radicalised religious right and the sort who indulge gun lobby activists, backed by a Supreme Court so packed with sympathisers that a president could rely on their judgements not preventing his seizure of power. To be sure, but for the existing checks in the US constitution, I think that by now Trump would be well on the way down the same path as Putin.
There is a dystopian novel out there waiting to be written. Alternatively, as I stated, Margaret Attwood could just issue a slightly rewritten version of "The Handmaid's Tale", with the benefit of hindsight several decades on.
I know we have some of those people who take an interest in football. I have a question.
Looking at the announcement of Chelsea winning one of the Womens' Leagues, in the report they all seemed to be all over each other like teens in a mosh pit in the celebratory footage.
Was that an old report, or is the aspiration to Social Distancing over in professional football?
I thought they won it without playing out the games resulting in Liverpool being relegated
Yes - it was on average points per game for the portion of the season played (which seems reasonable).
But there was a clip of essentially a 30 person Chelsea Squad group hug, and that was what I was querying(?) It may have been old footage (?)
What I don't get is, why do the police bother turning up? Just leave them to it. If they want to trash their city, let them.
That's what they did initially in some US cities, it doesn't end well...40 year veteran black police officer shot trying to help a friend stop the mob looting his shop.
I know we have some of those people who take an interest in football. I have a question.
Looking at the announcement of Chelsea winning one of the Womens' Leagues, in the report they all seemed to be all over each other like teens in a mosh pit in the celebratory footage.
Was that an old report, or is the aspiration to Social Distancing over in professional football?
I thought they have some sort of testing programme in football?
Here's a good journalist question for the next 5pm press conference on Monday. "Can you guarantee that no people will die of COVID as a result of the BLM demonstrations this weekend?"
The Met are pretty good really. They’ve learnt a lot since the tuition fees protests.
To be fair they had have quit a bit of experience. For quite a few years we had May Day riots, which were more hardcore and violent, then the toss pot students tried to have a go. And more recently the eco-fascists.
The Met are pretty good really. They’ve learnt a lot since the tuition fees protests.
Watching this play out the police have been exemplary and to be fair some from BLM are chatting pleasantly with them, and others in the movement must be horrified
Why are people throwing bottles and flares? What is wrong with them?
It is utter madness and needs condemning by the BLM and all politicians across the divide
There is a terrible risk that someone's going to end up dead as a result of all of this, that someone will be black, the protesters will of course blame police brutality rather than their own behaviour, and then we'll get the 2011 riots all over again.
Why are people throwing bottles and flares? What is wrong with them?
It is utter madness and needs condemning by the BLM and all politicians across the divide
There is a terrible risk that someone's going to end up dead as a result of all of this, that someone will be black, the protesters will of course blame police brutality rather than their own behaviour, and then we'll get the 2011 riots all over again.
Even if not at the protest, if they get COVID, the government will get it in the neck for not stopping them.
The worst / most misleading initial stat report was 80% only get mild symptoms. The author of the report that is taken from now regrets using it. Mild includes everything up to the worst thing you ever had that didn't require the hospital to save you. On top of that, we now know how this virus can f##k all your vital organs, but away i don't think this is widely known.
Exactly, it's not just a fever and cough. I'm sure that people would be more wary if they thought that catching it might lead to a lifetime of heart or kidney problems.
Set against that, of course, is the tremendous problem of not knowing how long this is going to drag on for. A vaccine or an effective treatment might take years to develop or might never come along at all - and in the meantime people are being entreated to be so afraid of the virus that they hide in their individual brick boxes and don't come out unless it's unavoidable. That just isn't sustainable.
There will be a significant fraction of the population that, for whatever reason (be it that they are shielding, or very old, or just very afraid,) will tough this out for as long as possible. But there'll also be an awful lot of people - including some older and more vulnerable ones - who will be thinking that they would rather like to live a little before they die, and would prefer to get out there and take their chances than endure a mere existence, by permission of anxious healthcare practitioners, that might continue forever.
Spending ten weeks holed up in your flat waiting patiently to escape is one thing. The prospect of spending ten years incarcerated and wondering if you're going to die, whether of a non-Covid ailment or from the effects of advanced old age, before it's "safe" to start living a full life again is another prospect entirely.
A life-altering illness is a big deal, but so is imprisonment. It's society's weapon of choice against serious convicted criminals for a reason. And at least most of them have some idea of when they're going to be released.
Set against that is the knowledge that a vaccine or effective treatment (or effective immediate and local test) could be available soon.
There's at least a 50% chance we could have a vaccine available (large scale, as well) by late September/early October. Better treatments are being improved all the time. An on-the-spot 20-minute reliable test is two-and-a-half weeks into a 6 week trial.
It's a bit soon to be opting for a dichotomy of either assuming 10 years of incarceration, or accepting a high chance of infection.
Can you give a creddible source for that at least 50% chance of having a vaccine by early october, or did you make it up?
Comments
I know we have some of those people who take an interest in football. I have a question.
Looking at the announcement of Chelsea winning one of the Womens' Leagues, in the report they all seemed to be all over each other like teens in a mosh pit in the celebratory footage.
Was that an old report, or is the aspiration to Social Distancing over in professional football?
I have tried in the past to work out rules and definitions around racism and I always end up with something too convoluted to add much value. Indeed it can obscure rather than illuminate.
So I just judge every case individually as I see it.
Your observation in your other post that racism is ingrained in most people and what's key is to recognize this and resist, rather than succumb and let it bleed into words and deeds is (imo) absolutely key.
But what can I say? - Mikey G is who popped up.
Progress on treatments appears so far to have been extremely limited. That on testing is somewhat better, but that in and of itself doesn't get us closer to taming the disease itself, even if it feeds in to mechanisms to suppress its prevalence and transmission. Like you I hope that a vaccine will ride to the rescue, but we have to balance that possibility against the warnings we keep being fed that it may in fact take a year or eighteen months to get to mass immunisation, or that the various vaccine projects might come to nothing and we may be living with this plague for many years or forever.
I'm honestly not trying to be blase or dismissive of the virus, it's simply that we need always to weigh the risks of contracting it against those inherent in living a very restricted way of life indefinitely. For the time being I'm not doing anything radically different from what I did in April, but the thought of carrying on in this sort of twilight existence for years on end fills me with dread.
I could have done without the image your second sentence conjured...
Did you see that one?
Cropped up.
(1965 by the way, not 55.)
Fairness never has and never will be an attribute of the Conservative and Unionist Party.
But there was a clip of essentially a 30 person Chelsea Squad group hug, and that was what I was querying(?) It may have been old footage (?)
Something like Johnson on both occasions making a show of not having prepared anything, asking for paper and pen, scribbling a couple of notes and then giving exactly the same "hurriedly improvised" speech.
All part of the entertainment I suppose, but both Trump and Johnson seem to me like third rate comedians rather than people who anyone ought to seriously consider voting for.
If only there were a publicly available list of their contact details, there would be large amounts of money to be made.
From experience, though - are you trying to imply that it’s all gone away or is not infectious now and if we dropped all restrictions, everyone would be fine?
Because that’s what experience would suggest is the subtext, but it seems a bit implausible.
* when I say deal with, I mean leave them alone and let the daft sods brain themselves....
Some form of risk segmentation model is clearly the way forward.
Plus: Outdoor activities should be eased; indoor activities locked down.
Yet any sort of nuanced approached is a red rag to many on here.
It’s sad.
Your posts are getting rather sinister.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/07/trumps-collaborators/612250/
Maybe it's a literacy problem!
Horse bolts down Whitehall
Shocking
CONTROL THE TORIES
SAVE LIVES
She was simply saying that we don’t know the term. So your interpretation is so far from accurate as to be misleading.
Perhaps literacy begins at home?
As I stated, it would happen initially by quasi-constitutional means, which means not by an armed coup. That's not dissimilar to the way that Germany went in 1933. It would involve the takeover of power and eventually the suspension of the constitution by right wing extremists whose power base was a combination of a growing radicalised religious right and the sort who indulge gun lobby activists, backed by a Supreme Court so packed with sympathisers that a president could rely on their judgements not preventing his seizure of power. To be sure, but for the existing checks in the US constitution, I think that by now Trump would be well on the way down the same path as Putin.
There is a dystopian novel out there waiting to be written. Alternatively, as I stated, Margaret Attwood could just issue a slightly rewritten version of "The Handmaid's Tale", with the benefit of hindsight several decades on.
Lots of activists on show
BLM needs to condemn this
Sky saying very dangerous situation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czkMLNpuGh4
Just had a huge thunderstorm in east London but it seems localised and isn't dampening anyone's ardour elsewhere it would seem.
Lets not forget their was violence at the previous demonstration as well.