I think for me it was the switch to physical voting in the House of Commons (It's indoors & was being done perfectly well remotely) that showed the Gov't aren't entirely serious about their own guidance.
Trend looks good for Labour polling generally. Would be nice to see Labour in the lead. Will we see Tories start to panic if Starmer pulls ahead?
They shouldn't. But in their heart of hearts there must be more than a few Tory MPs who doubt whether Boris is up to the job.
Indeed so, but do those Tory MPs include Boris himself? If so, I can't see him staying in post for more than about another six months.
You're in luck. Betfair has him at 99/1 to leave this month and 15/1 and 14.5/1 to leave between July - Sept and Oct - Dec respectively. Personally I'd lay at those prices.
I just backed a bit more at 99s. I think BoJo will be like TMay. ie it's obvious they're not up to it and it's just a matter of time before they are found out. When will that be? Well with May it took two years and I have backed Boris to be out by Sep 2021. I really hope that he goes this month but can't quite see it.
Then again, he was struggling health-wise today at PMQs and, as I have said a zillion times on here, my view is that now is not the time to have a sub-par PM. But we shall see if he, his doctor, and his Party MPs agree.
He clearly isn't 100%. Ironic really. He spent a lot of his pre-virus Premiership on holiday when he ought to have been working.
If the future of the country weren't at stake you'd have to feel sorry for him - worked so hard and for so long to become PM, gets it, begins to live the high life, and then gets struck down, literally, by the event that will likely dent significantly, if not ruin his premiership.
However, the future of the country is at stake, so, while wishing him a 100% recovery from the virus, fuck him. The sooner he leaves the better.
That's quite fair. And I am a Boris fan, or at least a fan of Boris as was. It is a persona tragedy for him, but it is just the case: he has clearly been whacked by Covid, and that can take a long time to recover from (if you ever recover); I have close friends who have had it for months and are still very sick.
Who are, in the eyes of some here "unaffected" by Covid-19, and for whom "it's simply not a thing." As are the ones hospitalised or even in intensive care, assuming they recover.
If they don't turn up in the death column, they're unaffected. Like Boris. Or, more darkly, Derek Draper.
It's one thing that's potentially very dangerous (and is a meme spreading amongst younger men in particular): that if they aren't elderly, fat, or suffering from a major illness already, they are effectively all-but-immune to it already, it doesn't affect them, and it's really not a thing for them. And quoting the death statistics only.
If you are 30 years old, male, fit and healthy and with no co-morbidities, you would indeed be at low risk of hospitalisation though.
So the young men you cite are fairly good judges of risk I would say.
That is not to say that you can't find exceptions, merely that the risk from covid to those groups is somewhat lower than other risks we face in our daily lives.
What do you categorise as "low risk of hospitalisation"? What sort of chance?
And what chance do you give for prolonged illness or lasting effects?
I see that HBO removing Gone with the Wind has censored from the screen the first Oscar winning performance by a black woman.
If only life was as simplistic as they want it to be.
Although it is worth remembering the hotel had to change its rules in order for her to attend the ceremony, and she and the other non-white cast members had to sit on a segregated table as well as being excluded from post-ceremony festivities.
Nicely contextualised. Thanks.
Banning Gone with the Wind is step too far though.
Forces TV still showing the Dukes of Hazzard, the star of which was an orange '69 Dodge Charger with a Confederate battle flag painted on the roof.
Its also not happened. Gone with the Wind has not been banned.
Its a shame people are reacting with horror to a temporary measure when the company has already that they will be bringing it back to the platform with a proper measure to accompany it - as other platforms have already done with eg classic Tom & Jerry or Dumbo.
I think that's fair enough. The film that is truly jaw-dropping is Birth of a Nation.
It is but even then I still think we should be able to see it so we can understand how some people used to be, why and how far we've come.
It's the same reason you should still be able to read Mein Kampf.
What's being proposed at the moment is student-level no-platforming.
Mein Kampf is rubbish. It's mostly immature and semi-literate rambling,
I agree, and that's sort of the point isn't it?
Like getting Nick Griffin on stage at BBC Question Time it exposes the arguments for the ludicrous rubbish they are rather than making martyrs of them.
Mein Kampf shows what Hitler was day dreaming about.... Using poison gas on Jews, for example.
Whatever its rambling writing and ghastly politics, it actually made Hitler quite a wealthy man.
I just think that we've been shit at replacing existing arrangements, and have - as under Dr Fox - concentrated all our energies on a trade deal with the US that I think is simply unachievable in the time frame required.
We still have not signed new arrangements with the majority of countries the EU has deals with. We have still not even managed it with Switzerland (where we signed an agreement to have an agreement in Feb '19), and I'm increasingly concerned that we're not going to have stuff in place by the end of the year.
The fewer arrangements we replace, the harder the drop out will be.
It's very hard to do a deal with anyone until it is clear what the relationship with the EU is going to be.
As for the US, there is no chance of a substantive deal in the foreseeable future. I'm not even sure why we're even trying to start talks whilst there is a madman in the White House.
We're doing it because Brexit, to a lot of people, is about reorienting the UK from pointing towards the EU to pointing towards the US. It's the Westland Helicopters affair again. Who do we want to be our Hegemon - are you an Atlantacist or a European?
Given that the UK is part of Europe, you could label the two camps more simply as traitors and patriots.
The UK is part of Europe in the same was as Canada is part of America.
It is you dipstick, it is part of the Americas, most specifically part of North America. You really do need to take some time off.
But Canadians are not considered to be traitors to North America simply because they are not part of the USA. Which is exactly what WIlliam Glenn is suggesting.
Vallance and Whitty are coming across very well, honest and really painting the complexity of this crisis and putting the journalists back in their box
What box exactly do you think journalists should be in?
What's wrong with a free press?
A free press to those on the Brexity right is the Daily Telegraph, The Mail and the Express. Everything else is subversive and should be restricted by statute.
Single sharing flatmates can't have anyone over. They're not a one person household. Unless their partners are on their own.
So, to take an example, if Monica, Phoebe and Rachel are sharing one flat and Joey, Chandler and Ross are sharing another flat, Ross and Rachel are still on an enforced break (as are Chandler and Monica). Only Phoebe and Joey, if they have partners living on their own elsewhere, have the chance of getting their leg over.
Single sharing flatmates can't have anyone over. They're not a one person household. Unless their partners are on their own.
So, to take an example, if Monica, Phoebe and Rachel are sharing one flat and Joey, Chandler and Ross are sharing another flat, Ross and Rachel are still on an enforced break (as are Chandler and Monica). Only Phoebe and Joey, if they have partners living on their own elsewhere, have the chance of getting their leg over.
Describing it in terms of sitcom groups is probably a very good way of explaining things.
Trend looks good for Labour polling generally. Would be nice to see Labour in the lead. Will we see Tories start to panic if Starmer pulls ahead?
They shouldn't. But in their heart of hearts there must be more than a few Tory MPs who doubt whether Boris is up to the job.
Indeed so, but do those Tory MPs include Boris himself? If so, I can't see him staying in post for more than about another six months.
You're in luck. Betfair has him at 99/1 to leave this month and 15/1 and 14.5/1 to leave between July - Sept and Oct - Dec respectively. Personally I'd lay at those prices.
I just backed a bit more at 99s. I think BoJo will be like TMay. ie it's obvious they're not up to it and it's just a matter of time before they are found out. When will that be? Well with May it took two years and I have backed Boris to be out by Sep 2021. I really hope that he goes this month but can't quite see it.
Then again, he was struggling health-wise today at PMQs and, as I have said a zillion times on here, my view is that now is not the time to have a sub-par PM. But we shall see if he, his doctor, and his Party MPs agree.
He clearly isn't 100%. Ironic really. He spent a lot of his pre-virus Premiership on holiday when he ought to have been working.
If the future of the country weren't at stake you'd have to feel sorry for him - worked so hard and for so long to become PM, gets it, begins to live the high life, and then gets struck down, literally, by the event that will likely dent significantly, if not ruin his premiership.
However, the future of the country is at stake, so, while wishing him a 100% recovery from the virus, fuck him. The sooner he leaves the better.
That's quite fair. And I am a Boris fan, or at least a fan of Boris as was. It is a persona tragedy for him, but it is just the case: he has clearly been whacked by Covid, and that can take a long time to recover from (if you ever recover); I have close friends who have had it for months and are still very sick.
Who are, in the eyes of some here "unaffected" by Covid-19, and for whom "it's simply not a thing." As are the ones hospitalised or even in intensive care, assuming they recover.
If they don't turn up in the death column, they're unaffected. Like Boris. Or, more darkly, Derek Draper.
It's one thing that's potentially very dangerous (and is a meme spreading amongst younger men in particular): that if they aren't elderly, fat, or suffering from a major illness already, they are effectively all-but-immune to it already, it doesn't affect them, and it's really not a thing for them. And quoting the death statistics only.
If you are 30 years old, male, fit and healthy and with no co-morbidities, you would indeed be at low risk of hospitalisation though.
So the young men you cite are fairly good judges of risk I would say.
That is not to say that you can't find exceptions, merely that the risk from covid to those groups is somewhat lower than other risks we face in our daily lives.
What do you categorise as "low risk of hospitalisation"? What sort of chance?
And what chance do you give for prolonged illness or lasting effects?
If I May interject briefly - if either of you has an age/risk table for those issues we would love to see it.
Single sharing flatmates can't have anyone over. They're not a one person household. Unless their partners are on their own.
So, to take an example, if Monica, Phoebe and Rachel are sharing one flat and Joey, Chandler and Ross are sharing another flat, Ross and Rachel are still on an enforced break (as are Chandler and Monica). Only Phoebe and Joey, if they have partners living on their own elsewhere, have the chance of getting their leg over.
I don't think I've watched enough soaps to be able to keep track of that.
I'm not sure that this bubble announcement makes any difference at all. Lockdown is already over. People will go and visit each others' households according to their estimation of the level of risk involved and whether or not that risk is something they are prepared to stomach.
Vallance and Whitty are coming across very well, honest and really painting the complexity of this crisis and putting the journalists back in their box
What box exactly do you think journalists should be in?
What's wrong with a free press?
Idiotic gotcha questioning
Purely subjective observation and no excuse to allow a free press.
Single sharing flatmates can't have anyone over. They're not a one person household. Unless their partners are on their own.
So, to take an example, if Monica, Phoebe and Rachel are sharing one flat and Joey, Chandler and Ross are sharing another flat, Ross and Rachel are still on an enforced break (as are Chandler and Monica). Only Phoebe and Joey, if they have partners living on their own elsewhere, have the chance of getting their leg over.
Describing it in terms of sitcom groups is probably a very good way of explaining things.
Notice that Chandler and Ross cockblock each other. In a weird 2020 version of the prisoner's dilemma, both would be better placed if they moved out and lived on their own.
I'm not sure that this bubble announcement makes any difference at all. Lockdown is already over. People will go and visit each others' households according to their estimation of the level of risk involved and whether or not that risk is something they are prepared to stomach.
Surely the key thing is now that people don't visit multiple households in a short space of time ?
I'm not sure that this bubble announcement makes any difference at all. Lockdown is already over. People will go and visit each others' households according to their estimation of the level of risk involved and whether or not that risk is something they are prepared to stomach.
As far as I can tell, people have been ignoring this kind of advice for at least two weeks.
So, to take an example, if Monica, Phoebe and Rachel are sharing one flat and Joey, Chandler and Ross are sharing another flat, Ross and Rachel are still on an enforced break (as are Chandler and Monica). Only Phoebe and Joey, if they have partners living on their own elsewhere, have the chance of getting their leg over.
Except, Ross and Phoebe live alone.
Ross can shag Rachel. Monica can shag Chandler. As long as none of them get sick...
"The great university con: how the British degree lost its value Never before has Britain had so many qualified graduates. And never before have their qualifications amounted to so little."
I just think that we've been shit at replacing existing arrangements, and have - as under Dr Fox - concentrated all our energies on a trade deal with the US that I think is simply unachievable in the time frame required.
We still have not signed new arrangements with the majority of countries the EU has deals with. We have still not even managed it with Switzerland (where we signed an agreement to have an agreement in Feb '19), and I'm increasingly concerned that we're not going to have stuff in place by the end of the year.
The fewer arrangements we replace, the harder the drop out will be.
It's very hard to do a deal with anyone until it is clear what the relationship with the EU is going to be.
As for the US, there is no chance of a substantive deal in the foreseeable future. I'm not even sure why we're even trying to start talks whilst there is a madman in the White House.
We're doing it because Brexit, to a lot of people, is about reorienting the UK from pointing towards the EU to pointing towards the US. It's the Westland Helicopters affair again. Who do we want to be our Hegemon - are you an Atlantacist or a European?
Given that the UK is part of Europe, you could label the two camps more simply as traitors and patriots.
The UK is part of Europe in the same was as Canada is part of America.
It is you dipstick, it is part of the Americas, most specifically part of North America. You really do need to take some time off.
But Canadians are not considered to be traitors to North America simply because they are not part of the USA. Which is exactly what WIlliam Glenn is suggesting.
The word "traitor" in anything other than its proper context (eg William Brooke Joyce, or Burgess and Mclean) is quite frankly absurd.
I'm not sure that this bubble announcement makes any difference at all. Lockdown is already over. People will go and visit each others' households according to their estimation of the level of risk involved and whether or not that risk is something they are prepared to stomach.
It does make some difference. I`ll be able to visit my father who lives 200 miles away and enter his bungalow and stay overnight - rather than having to drive there and back in a day (which is 7 + hours of driving all told).
Single sharing flatmates can't have anyone over. They're not a one person household. Unless their partners are on their own.
So, to take an example, if Monica, Phoebe and Rachel are sharing one flat and Joey, Chandler and Ross are sharing another flat, Ross and Rachel are still on an enforced break (as are Chandler and Monica). Only Phoebe and Joey, if they have partners living on their own elsewhere, have the chance of getting their leg over.
Describing it in terms of sitcom groups is probably a very good way of explaining things.
I see that HBO removing Gone with the Wind has censored from the screen the first Oscar winning performance by a black woman.
If only life was as simplistic as they want it to be.
Although it is worth remembering the hotel had to change its rules in order for her to attend the ceremony, and she and the other non-white cast members had to sit on a segregated table as well as being excluded from post-ceremony festivities.
Nicely contextualised. Thanks.
Banning Gone with the Wind is step too far though.
Forces TV still showing the Dukes of Hazzard, the star of which was an orange '69 Dodge Charger with a Confederate battle flag painted on the roof.
Its also not happened. Gone with the Wind has not been banned.
Its a shame people are reacting with horror to a temporary measure when the company has already that they will be bringing it back to the platform with a proper measure to accompany it - as other platforms have already done with eg classic Tom & Jerry or Dumbo.
I think that's fair enough. The film that is truly jaw-dropping is Birth of a Nation.
It is but even then I still think we should be able to see it so we can understand how some people used to be, why and how far we've come.
It's the same reason you should still be able to read Mein Kampf.
What's being proposed at the moment is student-level no-platforming.
Mein Kampf is rubbish. It's mostly immature and semi-literate rambling,
I agree, and that's sort of the point isn't it?
Like getting Nick Griffin on stage at BBC Question Time it exposes the arguments for the ludicrous rubbish they are rather than making martyrs of them.
Mein Kampf shows what Hitler was day dreaming about.... Using poison gas on Jews, for example.
Whatever its rambling writing and ghastly politics, it actually made Hitler quite a wealthy man.
Well that applies to quite a few crap writers - Geoffrey Archer, Barbara Cartland, Sean Thomas - but few had the same odious political agenda so it didn't matter too much.
So, to take an example, if Monica, Phoebe and Rachel are sharing one flat and Joey, Chandler and Ross are sharing another flat, Ross and Rachel are still on an enforced break (as are Chandler and Monica). Only Phoebe and Joey, if they have partners living on their own elsewhere, have the chance of getting their leg over.
Except, Ross and Phoebe live alone.
Ross can shag Rachel. Monica can shag Chandler. As long as none of them get sick...
Monica can't shag Chandler. Neither of them live alone.
Single sharing flatmates can't have anyone over. They're not a one person household. Unless their partners are on their own.
So, to take an example, if Monica, Phoebe and Rachel are sharing one flat and Joey, Chandler and Ross are sharing another flat, Ross and Rachel are still on an enforced break (as are Chandler and Monica). Only Phoebe and Joey, if they have partners living on their own elsewhere, have the chance of getting their leg over.
I don't think I've watched enough soaps to be able to keep track of that.
I've finally found someone who's started to put me off Brexit... @Philip_Thompson
I seem to have associated myself with someone so pedantic, dogmatic and ideological it's made me wonder what business I had ever being on the same side as him in the first place.
Which is funny because I was on the opposite side and you won me over. So what does that say?
My tuppence worth -
I feel the opposite to @Casino_Royale about your performance on this issue of BLM and statues and Floyd.
It has been (for me) your finest PB hour and by a long chalk too. Nor will I cheapen this by a snide rider about "low bar" or anything of that ilk.
Your posts have been principled, thoughtful, punchy where required, and on the right side of history.
One can hardly recognize the man who just a couple of weeks ago was so blindly supportive of everything to do with Boris Johnson that he considered his frame to be "almost all muscle".
And just to cap it off I gather that your favourite 'social liberal', Priti Patel, knocked it out of the park on racism in the House yesterday.
I see that HBO removing Gone with the Wind has censored from the screen the first Oscar winning performance by a black woman.
If only life was as simplistic as they want it to be.
Although it is worth remembering the hotel had to change its rules in order for her to attend the ceremony, and she and the other non-white cast members had to sit on a segregated table as well as being excluded from post-ceremony festivities.
Nicely contextualised. Thanks.
Banning Gone with the Wind is step too far though.
Forces TV still showing the Dukes of Hazzard, the star of which was an orange '69 Dodge Charger with a Confederate battle flag painted on the roof.
Its also not happened. Gone with the Wind has not been banned.
Its a shame people are reacting with horror to a temporary measure when the company has already that they will be bringing it back to the platform with a proper measure to accompany it - as other platforms have already done with eg classic Tom & Jerry or Dumbo.
I think that's fair enough. The film that is truly jaw-dropping is Birth of a Nation.
It is but even then I still think we should be able to see it so we can understand how some people used to be, why and how far we've come.
It's the same reason you should still be able to read Mein Kampf.
What's being proposed at the moment is student-level no-platforming.
Mein Kampf is rubbish. It's mostly immature and semi-literate rambling,
I agree, and that's sort of the point isn't it?
Like getting Nick Griffin on stage at BBC Question Time it exposes the arguments for the ludicrous rubbish they are rather than making martyrs of them.
Mein Kampf shows what Hitler was day dreaming about.... Using poison gas on Jews, for example.
Whatever its rambling writing and ghastly politics, it actually made Hitler quite a wealthy man.
Well that applies to quite a few crap writers - Geoffrey Archer, Barbara Cartland, Sean Thomas - but few had the same odious political agenda so it didn't matter too much.
Jeefrey Archer didn't have his books designated compulsory presents to newly married couples - though they are so common in Oxfam one might think so sometimes.
What's wrong with Burns? He never actually became a slave plantation overseer.
He accepted the job, but in the end didn't actually go because the publication of his poems was instantly and unexpectedly successful. Phew, that's alright then.
"O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us! It wad frae mony a blunder free us, An' foolish notion"
He practised houghmagandie.
The reverse ferret from the Nationalists when this cancer finally starts targeting things they care about will be a wonder to behold.
Didn't you got the Better Together memo? Rab was a BIG supporter of the Union. Apparently.
In any case , we can only hope that we 'Nationalists' will avoid the pant shitting hysteria displayed by the 'Nationalists' on here about the cancer threatening their (sic) culture.
Do you think the statue defiling and general disorder are worse down south? Remember what the BBC used to call the UK Riots till they had to change it to the 'English Riots' as there was no trouble in Wales, NI or Scotland, and it was affecting the tourist industry? The Nirish were particularly scathing as I recall.
Looks that way to me. Sometimes I get annoyed at Scots phlegmatism, other times it seems much preferable.
Were you around here when the riots kicked off? The outrage when Salmond publicly pointed out that they were in fact English riots was something to behold, no doubt inflamed by the point that it was unarguably true.
No, Iit was before my time on PB. But I can well believe it. It certainly pointed to a different attitude in the four polities. And that would have been unfotgivable.
As for BLM, the demos in Edinburgh and Glasgow were AFAIK pretty quiet - and, at least in Holyrood Park, well socially distanced, and no statues did any dives.
As for Dundas H. in St Andrew Square, trying to get at him would be reminiscent of a dachshund yapping at a cat up a tree ...
The Irish were definitely less phlegmatic about these things
But on this occasion you are saying he should have done the wrong thing?
Is anyone listening to a word of this now? I doubt it. Most people are taking their own grade of risk and acting on it.
As I have a vulnerable house member we continue in full lockdown until the original 12 weeks is up (which is about ten days I think). Will then review, looking at where the numbers are.
I'm not sure that this bubble announcement makes any difference at all. Lockdown is already over. People will go and visit each others' households according to their estimation of the level of risk involved and whether or not that risk is something they are prepared to stomach.
It does make some difference. I`ll be able to visit my father who lives 200 miles away and enter his bungalow and stay overnight - rather than having to drive there and back in a day (which is 7 + hours of driving all told).
I'm not sure what percentage of the populace who, when faced with decisions of this kind, say, last week, would've been quite so scrupulous in sticking to the rules.
My point is that rules of this kind may no longer be very meaningful. Some people will already have been travelling long distances to visit relatives, including relatives over 70, and staying over. Others won't have stayed over. Others still won't have visited at all, because they think it too dangerous. Boris Johnson's announcement may not make very much difference to these behaviours.
So, to take an example, if Monica, Phoebe and Rachel are sharing one flat and Joey, Chandler and Ross are sharing another flat, Ross and Rachel are still on an enforced break (as are Chandler and Monica). Only Phoebe and Joey, if they have partners living on their own elsewhere, have the chance of getting their leg over.
Except, Ross and Phoebe live alone.
Ross can shag Rachel. Monica can shag Chandler. As long as none of them get sick...
Phoebe had a roommate IIRC, we just very rarely saw her apartment I think. But I was more thinking using characters as examples in different scenarios to aid understanding rather than using the exact living arrangements they had in the show. (Ross did share a flar with Joey and Chandler for a time).
I've finally found someone who's started to put me off Brexit... @Philip_Thompson
I seem to have associated myself with someone so pedantic, dogmatic and ideological it's made me wonder what business I had ever being on the same side as him in the first place.
Which is funny because I was on the opposite side and you won me over. So what does that say?
My tuppence worth -
I feel the opposite to @Casino_Royale about your performance on this issue of BLM and statues and Floyd.
It has been (for me) your finest PB hour and by a long chalk too. Nor will I cheapen this by a snide rider about "low bar" or anything of that ilk.
Your posts have been principled, thoughtful, punchy where required, and on the right side of history.
One can hardly recognize the man who just a couple of weeks ago was so blindly supportive of everything to do with Boris Johnson that he considered his frame to be "almost all muscle".
And just to cap it off I gather that your favourite 'social liberal', Priti Patel, knocked it out of the park on racism in the House yesterday.
The only way is down from here, Philip.
PT is a liberal and CR is a conservative. Extreme liberals are always up for a bit of disruption.
I'm not sure that this bubble announcement makes any difference at all. Lockdown is already over. People will go and visit each others' households according to their estimation of the level of risk involved and whether or not that risk is something they are prepared to stomach.
It does make some difference. I`ll be able to visit my father who lives 200 miles away and enter his bungalow and stay overnight - rather than having to drive there and back in a day (which is 7 + hours of driving all told).
I'm not sure what percentage of the populace who, when faced with decisions of this kind, say, last week, would've been quite so scrupulous in sticking to the rules.
My point is that rules of this kind may no longer be very meaningful. Some people will already have been travelling long distances to visit relatives, including relatives over 70, and staying over. Others won't have stayed over. Others still won't have visited at all, because they think it too dangerous. Boris Johnson's announcement may not make very much difference to these behaviours.
If it was solely up to me I wouldn`t have been scrupulous. But when there is other family who think differently and would blame me if dad caught the virus then one has to play by the rules!
That's patent nonsense from Whitty. Look at the numbers FFS.
Well exactly. I’m no longer certain that this ‘nudge’ messaging from government achieves what it thinks it does.
He might be anticipating a second wave.
A thousand people with KNOWN new infections a day = maybe 3-5K people with infections all over the place. And that's how we started, with visitors from overseas, holidaymakers in Italy ski resports, footie fans, etc.
I've finally found someone who's started to put me off Brexit... @Philip_Thompson
I seem to have associated myself with someone so pedantic, dogmatic and ideological it's made me wonder what business I had ever being on the same side as him in the first place.
Which is funny because I was on the opposite side and you won me over. So what does that say?
You weren't being such a twat at the time. You were a good bloke.
Why have you turned into @HYUFD on acid? Why can't you just engage at the boundaries of the argument, accept (or at least acknowledge) some of my perspective, rather than being so dismissive and pedantic?
It's not a weakness.
I'm sorry I've upset you.
Though I must say that you've been having digs at me for the last few days too since I supported the idea of Colston being toppled as civil disobedience.
Perhaps I've had my back up, I don't want to upset anyone.
Thanks. I'd just prefer if we had a dialogue rather than trying to refute everything I say.
It winds me up. I went too far too - so please accept my apologies for that.
I've finally found someone who's started to put me off Brexit... @Philip_Thompson
I seem to have associated myself with someone so pedantic, dogmatic and ideological it's made me wonder what business I had ever being on the same side as him in the first place.
Which is funny because I was on the opposite side and you won me over. So what does that say?
My tuppence worth -
I feel the opposite to @Casino_Royale about your performance on this issue of BLM and statues and Floyd.
It has been (for me) your finest PB hour and by a long chalk too. Nor will I cheapen this by a snide rider about "low bar" or anything of that ilk.
Your posts have been principled, thoughtful, punchy where required, and on the right side of history.
One can hardly recognize the man who just a couple of weeks ago was so blindly supportive of everything to do with Boris Johnson that he considered his frame to be "almost all muscle".
And just to cap it off I gather that your favourite 'social liberal', Priti Patel, knocked it out of the park on racism in the House yesterday.
The only way is down from here, Philip.
PT is a liberal and CR is a conservative. Extreme liberals are always up for a bit of disruption.
No PT is a contrarian, and, sorry to be harsh, sadly not very good at it. He needs to be encouraged to get out a bit more.
I'm not sure that this bubble announcement makes any difference at all. Lockdown is already over. People will go and visit each others' households according to their estimation of the level of risk involved and whether or not that risk is something they are prepared to stomach.
It does make some difference. I`ll be able to visit my father who lives 200 miles away and enter his bungalow and stay overnight - rather than having to drive there and back in a day (which is 7 + hours of driving all told).
I'm not sure what percentage of the populace who, when faced with decisions of this kind, say, last week, would've been quite so scrupulous in sticking to the rules.
My point is that rules of this kind may no longer be very meaningful. Some people will already have been travelling long distances to visit relatives, including relatives over 70, and staying over. Others won't have stayed over. Others still won't have visited at all, because they think it too dangerous. Boris Johnson's announcement may not make very much difference to these behaviours.
Never mind, you will be arrested if you travel more than 5 miles in Wales and Scotland
They found the UK's coronavirus epidemic did not have one origin - but at least 1,356 origins. On each of those occasions somebody brought the infection into the UK from abroad and the virus began to spread as a result.
"The surprising and exciting conclusion is that we found the UK epidemic has resulted from a very large number of separate importations," said Prof Nick Loman, from Cog-UK and the University of Birmingham.
"It wasn't a patient zero," he added.
The study showed that less than 0.1% of those imported cases came directly from China. Instead the UK's coronavirus epidemic was largely initiated by travel from Italy in late February, Spain in early-to-mid-March and then France in mid-to-late-March.
I wonder if those cabinet ministers who opposed entry restrictions will be similarly disadvantaged as the pro Munich Conservatives were said to be in the 1950s.
It is certainly be possible that there is a shift in power from the 'globalisers' to the 'nationals' in policy making.
I've finally found someone who's started to put me off Brexit... @Philip_Thompson
I seem to have associated myself with someone so pedantic, dogmatic and ideological it's made me wonder what business I had ever being on the same side as him in the first place.
Which is funny because I was on the opposite side and you won me over. So what does that say?
My tuppence worth -
I feel the opposite to @Casino_Royale about your performance on this issue of BLM and statues and Floyd.
It has been (for me) your finest PB hour and by a long chalk too. Nor will I cheapen this by a snide rider about "low bar" or anything of that ilk.
Your posts have been principled, thoughtful, punchy where required, and on the right side of history.
One can hardly recognize the man who just a couple of weeks ago was so blindly supportive of everything to do with Boris Johnson that he considered his frame to be "almost all muscle".
And just to cap it off I gather that your favourite 'social liberal', Priti Patel, knocked it out of the park on racism in the House yesterday.
The only way is down from here, Philip.
PT is a liberal and CR is a conservative. Extreme liberals are always up for a bit of disruption.
No PT is a contrarian, and, sorry to be harsh, sadly not very good at it. He needs to be encouraged to get out a bit more.
I`d estimate that libertarians comprise maybe only 5% of the population, so if you are that way inclined being a libertarian and being contrarian is likely to amount to the same thing.
I'm not sure that this bubble announcement makes any difference at all. Lockdown is already over. People will go and visit each others' households according to their estimation of the level of risk involved and whether or not that risk is something they are prepared to stomach.
It does make some difference. I`ll be able to visit my father who lives 200 miles away and enter his bungalow and stay overnight - rather than having to drive there and back in a day (which is 7 + hours of driving all told).
I'm not sure what percentage of the populace who, when faced with decisions of this kind, say, last week, would've been quite so scrupulous in sticking to the rules.
My point is that rules of this kind may no longer be very meaningful. Some people will already have been travelling long distances to visit relatives, including relatives over 70, and staying over. Others won't have stayed over. Others still won't have visited at all, because they think it too dangerous. Boris Johnson's announcement may not make very much difference to these behaviours.
If it was solely up to me I wouldn`t have been scrupulous. But when there is other family who think differently and would blame me if dad caught the virus then one has to play by the rules!
Entirely understandable.
For my part, my parents feel most comfortable sticking with self-isolation for the time being, and consequently I've not proposed going to visit them (there are other complications mind you: me and the other Mr Rook get about on trains and he's got fairly bad asthma, so we're a little cautious about what we do ourselves.) Thus I've not seen either of them in person since March.
But on this occasion you are saying he should have done the wrong thing?
Is anyone listening to a word of this now? I doubt it. Most people are taking their own grade of risk and acting on it.
As I have a vulnerable house member we continue in full lockdown until the original 12 weeks is up (which is about ten days I think). Will then review, looking at where the numbers are.
I think this exactly right. I trust this Government so little that, coming from a position of concern/fear over the virus rather than one of anger/annoyance over the lockdown, I still won't be going into my mother's house anytime soon. I am still too worried about passing on the virus to her. My own view of the risks - whether an overreaction or not - override any Government advice.
For now I am still planning on behaving as if we are in the middle of the epidemic.
I've finally found someone who's started to put me off Brexit... @Philip_Thompson
I seem to have associated myself with someone so pedantic, dogmatic and ideological it's made me wonder what business I had ever being on the same side as him in the first place.
Which is funny because I was on the opposite side and you won me over. So what does that say?
You weren't being such a twat at the time. You were a good bloke.
Why have you turned into @HYUFD on acid? Why can't you just engage at the boundaries of the argument, accept (or at least acknowledge) some of my perspective, rather than being so dismissive and pedantic?
It's not a weakness.
I'm sorry I've upset you.
Though I must say that you've been having digs at me for the last few days too since I supported the idea of Colston being toppled as civil disobedience.
Perhaps I've had my back up, I don't want to upset anyone.
Thanks. I'd just prefer if we had a dialogue rather than trying to refute everything I say.
It winds me up. I went too far too - so please accept my apologies for that.
But on this occasion you are saying he should have done the wrong thing?
Is anyone listening to a word of this now? I doubt it. Most people are taking their own grade of risk and acting on it.
As I have a vulnerable house member we continue in full lockdown until the original 12 weeks is up (which is about ten days I think). Will then review, looking at where the numbers are.
I think this exactly right. I trust this Government so little that, coming from a position of concern/fear over the virus rather than one of anger/annoyance over the lockdown, I still won't be going into my mother's house anytime soon. I am still too worried about passing on the virus to her. My own view of the risks - whether an overreaction or not - override any Government advice.
For now I am still planning on behaving as if we are in the middle of the epidemic.
I think many responsible people will do the same. It will probably be that now, rather than government advice, that saves us from a second peak.
What's wrong with Burns? He never actually became a slave plantation overseer.
He accepted the job, but in the end didn't actually go because the publication of his poems was instantly and unexpectedly successful. Phew, that's alright then.
"O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us! It wad frae mony a blunder free us, An' foolish notion"
He practised houghmagandie.
The reverse ferret from the Nationalists when this cancer finally starts targeting things they care about will be a wonder to behold.
Didn't you got the Better Together memo? Rab was a BIG supporter of the Union. Apparently.
In any case , we can only hope that we 'Nationalists' will avoid the pant shitting hysteria displayed by the 'Nationalists' on here about the cancer threatening their (sic) culture.
Do you think the statue defiling and general disorder are worse down south? Remember what the BBC used to call the UK Riots till they had to change it to the 'English Riots' as there was no trouble in Wales, NI or Scotland, and it was affecting the tourist industry? The Nirish were particularly scathing as I recall.
Looks that way to me. Sometimes I get annoyed at Scots phlegmatism, other times it seems much preferable.
Were you around here when the riots kicked off? The outrage when Salmond publicly pointed out that they were in fact English riots was something to behold, no doubt inflamed by the point that it was unarguably true.
No, Iit was before my time on PB. But I can well believe it. It certainly pointed to a different attitude in the four polities. And that would have been unfotgivable.
As for BLM, the demos in Edinburgh and Glasgow were AFAIK pretty quiet - and, at least in Holyrood Park, well socially distanced, and no statues did any dives.
As for Dundas H. in St Andrew Square, trying to get at him would be reminiscent of a dachshund yapping at a cat up a tree ...
I bow to nobody in my admiration for Scottish phlegmatism, but do you not think that numbers (or lack of) of people, especially from BAME communities, has any part to play here?
I've finally found someone who's started to put me off Brexit... @Philip_Thompson
I seem to have associated myself with someone so pedantic, dogmatic and ideological it's made me wonder what business I had ever being on the same side as him in the first place.
Which is funny because I was on the opposite side and you won me over. So what does that say?
You weren't being such a twat at the time. You were a good bloke.
Why have you turned into @HYUFD on acid? Why can't you just engage at the boundaries of the argument, accept (or at least acknowledge) some of my perspective, rather than being so dismissive and pedantic?
It's not a weakness.
I'm sorry I've upset you.
Though I must say that you've been having digs at me for the last few days too since I supported the idea of Colston being toppled as civil disobedience.
Perhaps I've had my back up, I don't want to upset anyone.
Philip, this week you have been on the positive side of the argument. How we behave towards our fellow travellers on this planet is more important than simple political opinions like Brexit (on which I still fundamentally disagree with you).
Some of the justifications for the indefensible here on PB have at times been disturbing, and the arguments made that two wrongs often make a right is laughable.
I'm not sure that this bubble announcement makes any difference at all. Lockdown is already over. People will go and visit each others' households according to their estimation of the level of risk involved and whether or not that risk is something they are prepared to stomach.
It does make some difference. I`ll be able to visit my father who lives 200 miles away and enter his bungalow and stay overnight - rather than having to drive there and back in a day (which is 7 + hours of driving all told).
I'm not sure what percentage of the populace who, when faced with decisions of this kind, say, last week, would've been quite so scrupulous in sticking to the rules.
My point is that rules of this kind may no longer be very meaningful. Some people will already have been travelling long distances to visit relatives, including relatives over 70, and staying over. Others won't have stayed over. Others still won't have visited at all, because they think it too dangerous. Boris Johnson's announcement may not make very much difference to these behaviours.
I think you're right that many people are now just taking a view and doing what they judge is OK regardless of what the government is saying. But I sense there are also many who like some structure and direction, hence will still be interested in the detail of what is allowed or not, and wish to comply.
Sky leading on the OECD saying there will be an over 11% decline in GDP this year, speaking as if that's worse than expected . . .
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Bank of England predict around the start of lockdown that it would be a 15% decline followed by a 14% rise next year, or something like that?
If so, an 11% decline this year surely seems to be lower than the BoE was projecting, not higher than it?
Like all economic projections, these are guesses and likely to be completely wrong. We are only going to know the true situation in hindsight.
These projections are likely to be considerably less reliable than usual owing to the unprecedented nature of the challenge. Nor should we be particularly critical of economists if they are inaccurate on this one - they only start half a step ahead of the rest of us.
All we really need to know just now is that the end result is most unlikely to look pretty.
They could turn out to be an underestimate too, of course...
I've finally found someone who's started to put me off Brexit... @Philip_Thompson
I seem to have associated myself with someone so pedantic, dogmatic and ideological it's made me wonder what business I had ever being on the same side as him in the first place.
Which is funny because I was on the opposite side and you won me over. So what does that say?
My tuppence worth -
I feel the opposite to @Casino_Royale about your performance on this issue of BLM and statues and Floyd.
It has been (for me) your finest PB hour and by a long chalk too. Nor will I cheapen this by a snide rider about "low bar" or anything of that ilk.
Your posts have been principled, thoughtful, punchy where required, and on the right side of history.
One can hardly recognize the man who just a couple of weeks ago was so blindly supportive of everything to do with Boris Johnson that he considered his frame to be "almost all muscle".
And just to cap it off I gather that your favourite 'social liberal', Priti Patel, knocked it out of the park on racism in the House yesterday.
The only way is down from here, Philip.
PT is a liberal and CR is a conservative. Extreme liberals are always up for a bit of disruption.
No PT is a contrarian, and, sorry to be harsh, sadly not very good at it. He needs to be encouraged to get out a bit more.
I`d estimate that libertarians comprise maybe only 5% of the population, so if you are that way inclined being a libertarian and being contrarian is likely to amount to the same thing.
(Hence Spiked.)
Most contrarians I have come across just enjoy being controversial. It might be described as juvenile or even attention seeking. Many people are like this in their late teens, in an attempt to appear clever, though often failing in their objective, and some never grow out of it. IMO Corbyn fell into this camp. He thought it made him look intellectual when clearly the poor man was really not very bright.
What's wrong with Burns? He never actually became a slave plantation overseer.
He accepted the job, but in the end didn't actually go because the publication of his poems was instantly and unexpectedly successful. Phew, that's alright then.
"O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us! It wad frae mony a blunder free us, An' foolish notion"
He practised houghmagandie.
The reverse ferret from the Nationalists when this cancer finally starts targeting things they care about will be a wonder to behold.
Didn't you got the Better Together memo? Rab was a BIG supporter of the Union. Apparently.
In any case , we can only hope that we 'Nationalists' will avoid the pant shitting hysteria displayed by the 'Nationalists' on here about the cancer threatening their (sic) culture.
Do you think the statue defiling and general disorder are worse down south? Remember what the BBC used to call the UK Riots till they had to change it to the 'English Riots' as there was no trouble in Wales, NI or Scotland, and it was affecting the tourist industry? The Nirish were particularly scathing as I recall.
Looks that way to me. Sometimes I get annoyed at Scots phlegmatism, other times it seems much preferable.
Were you around here when the riots kicked off? The outrage when Salmond publicly pointed out that they were in fact English riots was something to behold, no doubt inflamed by the point that it was unarguably true.
No, Iit was before my time on PB. But I can well believe it. It certainly pointed to a different attitude in the four polities. And that would have been unfotgivable.
As for BLM, the demos in Edinburgh and Glasgow were AFAIK pretty quiet - and, at least in Holyrood Park, well socially distanced, and no statues did any dives.
As for Dundas H. in St Andrew Square, trying to get at him would be reminiscent of a dachshund yapping at a cat up a tree ...
I bow to nobody in my admiration for Scottish phlegmatism, but do you not think that numbers (or lack of) of people, especially from BAME communities, has any part to play here?
Edinburgh and Glasgow are large conurbations with plenty of poor people and plenty of studenty types and woke types. Just look at Byres Road ... both demos were fairly well attended too. And we are always being told how few BAME people there were on the demos (edit: speaking generally about the UK). But there seemed quite a few in the photos.
Just out of interest, has there been any further proper work done on whether having had the virus confers immunity? The reason I ask is I am having my annual blood sugar test tomorrow and have been told that if I want it they can do an antibody test at the same time. I am going to say yes, partly from a sense of morbid curiosity but also of course because I am hoping that when and if they say it confers immunity, I will feel a lot happier about moving around in company without fear of passing anything on.
Just out of interest, has there been any further proper work done on whether having had the virus confers immunity? The reason I ask is I am having my annual blood sugar test tomorrow and have been told that if I want it they can do an antibody test at the same time. I am going to say yes, partly from a sense of morbid curiosity but also of course because I am hoping that when and if they say it confers immunity, I will feel a lot happier about moving around in company without fear of passing anything on.
It is still uncertain, and will probably remain so for some time. There seems to be some suggestion that it may give you immunity for an unspecified period of time, perhaps 12 months, but much of it is speculation.
Patrick Vallance: "the R is below 1, but perhaps only just below 1. The epidemic is shrinking but not fast. Numbers are coming down but they're not yet very low. The vast majority of the population remains susceptible to this infection. That urges caution. It urges going slowly with changes. And it urges measuring very carefully to see the impact, and being prepared to reverse things [if necessary]…"
I've finally found someone who's started to put me off Brexit... @Philip_Thompson
I seem to have associated myself with someone so pedantic, dogmatic and ideological it's made me wonder what business I had ever being on the same side as him in the first place.
I've been feeling the same way, CR. Honestly, I'm very glad I quit the party when I did. I don't think I could stomach being in the same party as Philip any more. Thankfully Boris and Dom made the decision for me.
The key for beer gardens is to rebrand as outdoor cinemas, pop an old LCD TV showing Casablanca (great movie!) in the corner, and we can all get on with our lives.
Just out of interest, has there been any further proper work done on whether having had the virus confers immunity? The reason I ask is I am having my annual blood sugar test tomorrow and have been told that if I want it they can do an antibody test at the same time. I am going to say yes, partly from a sense of morbid curiosity but also of course because I am hoping that when and if they say it confers immunity, I will feel a lot happier about moving around in company without fear of passing anything on.
I can`t answer your question, but I`d like to know this: given the significance of "viral load", does contracting Covid via a high viral load confer longer/stronger immunity compared to contracting it via a smaller load.
If Foxy is about maybe he can answer both questions?
I've finally found someone who's started to put me off Brexit... @Philip_Thompson
I seem to have associated myself with someone so pedantic, dogmatic and ideological it's made me wonder what business I had ever being on the same side as him in the first place.
Which is funny because I was on the opposite side and you won me over. So what does that say?
My tuppence worth -
I feel the opposite to @Casino_Royale about your performance on this issue of BLM and statues and Floyd.
It has been (for me) your finest PB hour and by a long chalk too. Nor will I cheapen this by a snide rider about "low bar" or anything of that ilk.
Your posts have been principled, thoughtful, punchy where required, and on the right side of history.
One can hardly recognize the man who just a couple of weeks ago was so blindly supportive of everything to do with Boris Johnson that he considered his frame to be "almost all muscle".
And just to cap it off I gather that your favourite 'social liberal', Priti Patel, knocked it out of the park on racism in the House yesterday.
The only way is down from here, Philip.
PT is a liberal and CR is a conservative. Extreme liberals are always up for a bit of disruption.
One of the arguments for Brexit, that, actually.
Don't like the game? Think it's rigged? Kick the table over!
I've finally found someone who's started to put me off Brexit... @Philip_Thompson
I seem to have associated myself with someone so pedantic, dogmatic and ideological it's made me wonder what business I had ever being on the same side as him in the first place.
Which is funny because I was on the opposite side and you won me over. So what does that say?
My tuppence worth -
I feel the opposite to @Casino_Royale about your performance on this issue of BLM and statues and Floyd.
It has been (for me) your finest PB hour and by a long chalk too. Nor will I cheapen this by a snide rider about "low bar" or anything of that ilk.
Your posts have been principled, thoughtful, punchy where required, and on the right side of history.
One can hardly recognize the man who just a couple of weeks ago was so blindly supportive of everything to do with Boris Johnson that he considered his frame to be "almost all muscle".
And just to cap it off I gather that your favourite 'social liberal', Priti Patel, knocked it out of the park on racism in the House yesterday.
The only way is down from here, Philip.
PT is a liberal and CR is a conservative. Extreme liberals are always up for a bit of disruption.
One of the arguments for Brexit, that, actually.
Don't like the game? Think it's rigged? Kick the table over!
The key for beer gardens is to rebrand as outdoor cinemas, pop an old LCD TV showing Casablanca (great movie!) in the corner, and we can all get on with our lives.
Or put a dog in a large cage and call it a zoo?
I think I've been to that zoo in the West Country somewhere?
I've finally found someone who's started to put me off Brexit... @Philip_Thompson
I seem to have associated myself with someone so pedantic, dogmatic and ideological it's made me wonder what business I had ever being on the same side as him in the first place.
I've been feeling the same way, CR. Honestly, I'm very glad I quit the party when I did. I don't think I could stomach being in the same party as Philip any more. Thankfully Boris and Dom made the decision for me.
And speaking (as I was) of 'PB finest hours', that was imo yours - your lacerating posts on the Cummings affair.
I must now come up with one for @Casino_Royale of course, otherwise it will look like I'm biased, which I'm not.
Just out of interest, has there been any further proper work done on whether having had the virus confers immunity? The reason I ask is I am having my annual blood sugar test tomorrow and have been told that if I want it they can do an antibody test at the same time. I am going to say yes, partly from a sense of morbid curiosity but also of course because I am hoping that when and if they say it confers immunity, I will feel a lot happier about moving around in company without fear of passing anything on.
I can`t answer your question, but I`d like to know this: given the significance of "viral load", does contracting Covid via a high viral load confer longer/stronger immunity compared to contracting it via a smaller load.
If Foxy is about maybe he can answer both questions?
I don't think there is an answer to your question, certainly in what I have read. With respect to viral load, there seems evidence that the higher the viral load the worse the patient's symptoms in many cases. Hence Mr. Johnson's shaking of many hands in a hospital was not a good idea, neither for him or those that he shook hands with!
I've finally found someone who's started to put me off Brexit... @Philip_Thompson
I seem to have associated myself with someone so pedantic, dogmatic and ideological it's made me wonder what business I had ever being on the same side as him in the first place.
Which is funny because I was on the opposite side and you won me over. So what does that say?
My tuppence worth -
I feel the opposite to @Casino_Royale about your performance on this issue of BLM and statues and Floyd.
It has been (for me) your finest PB hour and by a long chalk too. Nor will I cheapen this by a snide rider about "low bar" or anything of that ilk.
Your posts have been principled, thoughtful, punchy where required, and on the right side of history.
One can hardly recognize the man who just a couple of weeks ago was so blindly supportive of everything to do with Boris Johnson that he considered his frame to be "almost all muscle".
And just to cap it off I gather that your favourite 'social liberal', Priti Patel, knocked it out of the park on racism in the House yesterday.
The only way is down from here, Philip.
PT is a liberal and CR is a conservative. Extreme liberals are always up for a bit of disruption.
One of the arguments for Brexit, that, actually.
Don't like the game? Think it's rigged? Kick the table over!
Sure - that`s Cumming`s view, for instance.
And @Alanbrooke on here - to the extent one can make it out since he is rather gnomic.
Just out of interest, has there been any further proper work done on whether having had the virus confers immunity? The reason I ask is I am having my annual blood sugar test tomorrow and have been told that if I want it they can do an antibody test at the same time. I am going to say yes, partly from a sense of morbid curiosity but also of course because I am hoping that when and if they say it confers immunity, I will feel a lot happier about moving around in company without fear of passing anything on.
It is still uncertain, and will probably remain so for some time. There seems to be some suggestion that it may give you immunity for an unspecified period of time, perhaps 12 months, but much of it is speculation.
There was a thought at one point that you could recatch twice quickly. That did look possible at one point but subsequent South Korean analysis has appeared to rule this out. If you have antibodies it's safe to assume your body will quickly and succesfully (With no convalescense) fight off the virus.
The unknown factor is how long those antibodies last in your system and for how long they're effective. So a positive test would almost certainly mean you're effectively immune today. 12 months time ? Could have faded a bit. As @rcs1000 reminds us though it doesn't work one day you're immune the next day you're not. It'll be a sliding scale - perhaps recatching in two years time gives you the equivalent of a light cold if you had it heavily the first time... ?
There's also the slightly more esoteric ideas that OTHER coronavirus antibodies can give you some degree of immunity and that you can have immunity without developing antibodies to covid-19 since other parts of your immune system fight it off with no antibodies being produced. Those are .. debateable (And pushed by anti lockdowners) and would yield negative tests on your test anyway.
"The great university con: how the British degree lost its value Never before has Britain had so many qualified graduates. And never before have their qualifications amounted to so little."
Without reading the article (paywall) the conclusion is obvious although the detail would be interesting.
I hope they are challenging the fact that the claims of the long term value added by degrees are based on the career paths up to retirement followed by people who graduated several decades ago. That was when following a path to university was very much the exception rather than the rule. Assuming that the same will happen to today's graduates is so obviously wrong, yet the assumption goes unchallenged because in the main those making the calculations have a vested interest in the outcomes.
Just out of interest, has there been any further proper work done on whether having had the virus confers immunity? The reason I ask is I am having my annual blood sugar test tomorrow and have been told that if I want it they can do an antibody test at the same time. I am going to say yes, partly from a sense of morbid curiosity but also of course because I am hoping that when and if they say it confers immunity, I will feel a lot happier about moving around in company without fear of passing anything on.
I don't think there is a single instance of someone having a second episode of disease, so it seems pretty certain given the scale of the epidemic that antibodies give immunity, albeit we do not know how long for. I am awaiting my own antibody results as part of the NHS testing programme.
Caution though, it is quite possible for an immune person to transmit the virus, via contaminated objects, while not personally at risk.
The ratio of demographics in ICU against deaths is vastly different between ages.
This is only ICU, though.
An analysis in the US had this:
Which is compatible with the BMJ one and implies that your chance of being hospitalised isn't that much reduced at younger ages, but that of needing ICU is significantly lower and that of dying under care far lower.
Again, extrapolating from death rates to hospitalisation rates is obviously incorrect - it would require your chance of dying when hospitalised to be constant across the ages when it is in fact far higher the older you get.
The only tabulated information on hospitalisation I have found is from early days and assumes a 50% asymptomatic rate and an overall IFR of 0.66% (which now looks to be a bit low)
What's wrong with Burns? He never actually became a slave plantation overseer.
He accepted the job, but in the end didn't actually go because the publication of his poems was instantly and unexpectedly successful. Phew, that's alright then.
"O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us! It wad frae mony a blunder free us, An' foolish notion"
He practised houghmagandie.
The reverse ferret from the Nationalists when this cancer finally starts targeting things they care about will be a wonder to behold.
Didn't you got the Better Together memo? Rab was a BIG supporter of the Union. Apparently.
In any case , we can only hope that we 'Nationalists' will avoid the pant shitting hysteria displayed by the 'Nationalists' on here about the cancer threatening their (sic) culture.
Do you think the statue defiling and general disorder are worse down south? Remember what the BBC used to call the UK Riots till they had to change it to the 'English Riots' as there was no trouble in Wales, NI or Scotland, and it was affecting the tourist industry? The Nirish were particularly scathing as I recall.
Looks that way to me. Sometimes I get annoyed at Scots phlegmatism, other times it seems much preferable.
Were you around here when the riots kicked off? The outrage when Salmond publicly pointed out that they were in fact English riots was something to behold, no doubt inflamed by the point that it was unarguably true.
No, Iit was before my time on PB. But I can well believe it. It certainly pointed to a different attitude in the four polities. And that would have been unfotgivable.
As for BLM, the demos in Edinburgh and Glasgow were AFAIK pretty quiet - and, at least in Holyrood Park, well socially distanced, and no statues did any dives.
As for Dundas H. in St Andrew Square, trying to get at him would be reminiscent of a dachshund yapping at a cat up a tree ...
I bow to nobody in my admiration for Scottish phlegmatism, but do you not think that numbers (or lack of) of people, especially from BAME communities, has any part to play here?
According to the last census Glasgow is 88% white, Bristol 84%, so I wouldn't say a huge difference in those particular examples. I'd imagine there are many more descendants of slaves in the latter of course which would have a bearing.
I've finally found someone who's started to put me off Brexit... @Philip_Thompson
I seem to have associated myself with someone so pedantic, dogmatic and ideological it's made me wonder what business I had ever being on the same side as him in the first place.
Which is funny because I was on the opposite side and you won me over. So what does that say?
My tuppence worth -
I feel the opposite to @Casino_Royale about your performance on this issue of BLM and statues and Floyd.
It has been (for me) your finest PB hour and by a long chalk too. Nor will I cheapen this by a snide rider about "low bar" or anything of that ilk.
Your posts have been principled, thoughtful, punchy where required, and on the right side of history.
One can hardly recognize the man who just a couple of weeks ago was so blindly supportive of everything to do with Boris Johnson that he considered his frame to be "almost all muscle".
And just to cap it off I gather that your favourite 'social liberal', Priti Patel, knocked it out of the park on racism in the House yesterday.
The only way is down from here, Philip.
PT is a liberal and CR is a conservative. Extreme liberals are always up for a bit of disruption.
One of the arguments for Brexit, that, actually.
Don't like the game? Think it's rigged? Kick the table over!
Sure - that`s Cumming`s view, for instance.
And @Alanbrooke on here - to the extent one can make it out since he is rather gnomic.
I've finally found someone who's started to put me off Brexit... @Philip_Thompson
I seem to have associated myself with someone so pedantic, dogmatic and ideological it's made me wonder what business I had ever being on the same side as him in the first place.
Which is funny because I was on the opposite side and you won me over. So what does that say?
My tuppence worth -
I feel the opposite to @Casino_Royale about your performance on this issue of BLM and statues and Floyd.
It has been (for me) your finest PB hour and by a long chalk too. Nor will I cheapen this by a snide rider about "low bar" or anything of that ilk.
Your posts have been principled, thoughtful, punchy where required, and on the right side of history.
One can hardly recognize the man who just a couple of weeks ago was so blindly supportive of everything to do with Boris Johnson that he considered his frame to be "almost all muscle".
And just to cap it off I gather that your favourite 'social liberal', Priti Patel, knocked it out of the park on racism in the House yesterday.
The only way is down from here, Philip.
PT is a liberal and CR is a conservative. Extreme liberals are always up for a bit of disruption.
One of the arguments for Brexit, that, actually.
Don't like the game? Think it's rigged? Kick the table over!
Sure - that`s Cumming`s view, for instance.
Is that what they've renamed the approach to Barnard's Castle?
What's wrong with Burns? He never actually became a slave plantation overseer.
He accepted the job, but in the end didn't actually go because the publication of his poems was instantly and unexpectedly successful. Phew, that's alright then.
"O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us! It wad frae mony a blunder free us, An' foolish notion"
He practised houghmagandie.
The reverse ferret from the Nationalists when this cancer finally starts targeting things they care about will be a wonder to behold.
Didn't you got the Better Together memo? Rab was a BIG supporter of the Union. Apparently.
In any case , we can only hope that we 'Nationalists' will avoid the pant shitting hysteria displayed by the 'Nationalists' on here about the cancer threatening their (sic) culture.
Do you think the statue defiling and general disorder are worse down south? Remember what the BBC used to call the UK Riots till they had to change it to the 'English Riots' as there was no trouble in Wales, NI or Scotland, and it was affecting the tourist industry? The Nirish were particularly scathing as I recall.
Looks that way to me. Sometimes I get annoyed at Scots phlegmatism, other times it seems much preferable.
Were you around here when the riots kicked off? The outrage when Salmond publicly pointed out that they were in fact English riots was something to behold, no doubt inflamed by the point that it was unarguably true.
No, Iit was before my time on PB. But I can well believe it. It certainly pointed to a different attitude in the four polities. And that would have been unfotgivable.
As for BLM, the demos in Edinburgh and Glasgow were AFAIK pretty quiet - and, at least in Holyrood Park, well socially distanced, and no statues did any dives.
As for Dundas H. in St Andrew Square, trying to get at him would be reminiscent of a dachshund yapping at a cat up a tree ...
I bow to nobody in my admiration for Scottish phlegmatism, but do you not think that numbers (or lack of) of people, especially from BAME communities, has any part to play here?
According to the last census Glasgow is 88% white, Bristol 84%, so I wouldn't say a huge difference in those particular examples. I'd imagine there are many more descendants of slaves in the latter of course which would have a bearing.
Are there many West Indian Scots? I thought the BAME minorities in Scotland were mostly Asian?
I'm not sure that this bubble announcement makes any difference at all. Lockdown is already over. People will go and visit each others' households according to their estimation of the level of risk involved and whether or not that risk is something they are prepared to stomach.
It does make some difference. I`ll be able to visit my father who lives 200 miles away and enter his bungalow and stay overnight - rather than having to drive there and back in a day (which is 7 + hours of driving all told).
I'm not sure what percentage of the populace who, when faced with decisions of this kind, say, last week, would've been quite so scrupulous in sticking to the rules.
My point is that rules of this kind may no longer be very meaningful. Some people will already have been travelling long distances to visit relatives, including relatives over 70, and staying over. Others won't have stayed over. Others still won't have visited at all, because they think it too dangerous. Boris Johnson's announcement may not make very much difference to these behaviours.
It's very meaningful for me given that whilst the law is clearly mental, I could not bring myself to break it, but I can now legally interact with another person for the first time in nearly 3 months.
The ratio of demographics in ICU against deaths is vastly different between ages.
This is only ICU, though.
An analysis in the US had this:
Which is compatible with the BMJ one and implies that your chance of being hospitalised isn't that much reduced at younger ages, but that of needing ICU is significantly lower and that of dying under care far lower.
Again, extrapolating from death rates to hospitalisation rates is obviously incorrect - it would require your chance of dying when hospitalised to be constant across the ages when it is in fact far higher the older you get.
The only tabulated information on hospitalisation I have found is from early days and assumes a 50% asymptomatic rate and an overall IFR of 0.66% (which now looks to be a bit low)
I've finally found someone who's started to put me off Brexit... @Philip_Thompson
I seem to have associated myself with someone so pedantic, dogmatic and ideological it's made me wonder what business I had ever being on the same side as him in the first place.
Which is funny because I was on the opposite side and you won me over. So what does that say?
My tuppence worth -
I feel the opposite to @Casino_Royale about your performance on this issue of BLM and statues and Floyd.
It has been (for me) your finest PB hour and by a long chalk too. Nor will I cheapen this by a snide rider about "low bar" or anything of that ilk.
Your posts have been principled, thoughtful, punchy where required, and on the right side of history.
One can hardly recognize the man who just a couple of weeks ago was so blindly supportive of everything to do with Boris Johnson that he considered his frame to be "almost all muscle".
And just to cap it off I gather that your favourite 'social liberal', Priti Patel, knocked it out of the park on racism in the House yesterday.
The only way is down from here, Philip.
PT is a liberal and CR is a conservative. Extreme liberals are always up for a bit of disruption.
No PT is a contrarian, and, sorry to be harsh, sadly not very good at it. He needs to be encouraged to get out a bit more.
You're a tad obsessed with me lately.
If I wanted to be a contrarian I'd be arguing against pulling down statues not for it given them coming down is the standard opinion now.
I'm consistently liberal. I challenge you to say anything I support otherwise. And don't say Brexit because I want a liberal Brexit.
The ratio of demographics in ICU against deaths is vastly different between ages.
This is only ICU, though.
An analysis in the US had this:
Which is compatible with the BMJ one and implies that your chance of being hospitalised isn't that much reduced at younger ages, but that of needing ICU is significantly lower and that of dying under care far lower.
Again, extrapolating from death rates to hospitalisation rates is obviously incorrect - it would require your chance of dying when hospitalised to be constant across the ages when it is in fact far higher the older you get.
The only tabulated information on hospitalisation I have found is from early days and assumes a 50% asymptomatic rate and an overall IFR of 0.66% (which now looks to be a bit low)
(If the asympomatic rate is only 30%, then those hospitalisation rates need to be increased by up to 50%)
Am I reading the BMU graph correctly?
Fewer than 100 male 30-year-olds have been hospitalised?
And I would guess that a very large proportion of those have co-morbidities (total proportion across all age groups is 90+% according to NHS England).
If so, I will stick with my contention that if you are a 30-year-old male with no pre-existing conditions, your risks from covid are low compared to risks we face in our normal daily lives.
I'm not sure that this bubble announcement makes any difference at all. Lockdown is already over. People will go and visit each others' households according to their estimation of the level of risk involved and whether or not that risk is something they are prepared to stomach.
It does make some difference. I`ll be able to visit my father who lives 200 miles away and enter his bungalow and stay overnight - rather than having to drive there and back in a day (which is 7 + hours of driving all told).
I'm not sure what percentage of the populace who, when faced with decisions of this kind, say, last week, would've been quite so scrupulous in sticking to the rules.
My point is that rules of this kind may no longer be very meaningful. Some people will already have been travelling long distances to visit relatives, including relatives over 70, and staying over. Others won't have stayed over. Others still won't have visited at all, because they think it too dangerous. Boris Johnson's announcement may not make very much difference to these behaviours.
Given that it turns out driving halfway accross the country to be near parents and then a trip to a castle is not breaking any rules, I'm sure that almost everyone was scrupulously sticking to the rules.
Comments
https://www.newsweek.com/kkk-terrorist-group-petition-antifa-1509572
What sort of chance?
And what chance do you give for prolonged illness or lasting effects?
So, to take an example, if Monica, Phoebe and Rachel are sharing one flat and Joey, Chandler and Ross are sharing another flat, Ross and Rachel are still on an enforced break (as are Chandler and Monica). Only Phoebe and Joey, if they have partners living on their own elsewhere, have the chance of getting their leg over.
I thought that was obvious.
There are no comfortable options. You have to take a risk and manage the risks as best we can
The idea there is an option completely safe and fine is not reasonable
Ross can shag Rachel. Monica can shag Chandler. As long as none of them get sick...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends
There's no need to watch.
I feel the opposite to @Casino_Royale about your performance on this issue of BLM and statues and Floyd.
It has been (for me) your finest PB hour and by a long chalk too. Nor will I cheapen this by a snide rider about "low bar" or anything of that ilk.
Your posts have been principled, thoughtful, punchy where required, and on the right side of history.
One can hardly recognize the man who just a couple of weeks ago was so blindly supportive of everything to do with Boris Johnson that he considered his frame to be "almost all muscle".
And just to cap it off I gather that your favourite 'social liberal', Priti Patel, knocked it out of the park on racism in the House yesterday.
The only way is down from here, Philip.
So just Ross and Rachael.
As God Intended...
Patrick Vallance said the the epidemic is shrinking but not fast and the Sky presenter added enough before correcting himself
As I have a vulnerable house member we continue in full lockdown until the original 12 weeks is up (which is about ten days I think). Will then review, looking at where the numbers are.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/#category=regions&map=rate
Amazing how quiescent the Brits have been on that removal of a fundamental freedom.
?
Edit: Oops ...Ross and Monica are siblings.
My point is that rules of this kind may no longer be very meaningful. Some people will already have been travelling long distances to visit relatives, including relatives over 70, and staying over. Others won't have stayed over. Others still won't have visited at all, because they think it too dangerous. Boris Johnson's announcement may not make very much difference to these behaviours.
It's unenforceable and may be wilfully ignored, if one is feeling sufficiently wilful.
It winds me up. I went too far too - so please accept my apologies for that.
On that note, I will take a break.
"The surprising and exciting conclusion is that we found the UK epidemic has resulted from a very large number of separate importations," said Prof Nick Loman, from Cog-UK and the University of Birmingham.
"It wasn't a patient zero," he added.
The study showed that less than 0.1% of those imported cases came directly from China. Instead the UK's coronavirus epidemic was largely initiated by travel from Italy in late February, Spain in early-to-mid-March and then France in mid-to-late-March.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52993734
I wonder if those cabinet ministers who opposed entry restrictions will be similarly disadvantaged as the pro Munich Conservatives were said to be in the 1950s.
It is certainly be possible that there is a shift in power from the 'globalisers' to the 'nationals' in policy making.
And Phoebe for Rachel and Monica.
Desperate remedy for emergency times.
(Hence Spiked.)
For my part, my parents feel most comfortable sticking with self-isolation for the time being, and consequently I've not proposed going to visit them (there are other complications mind you: me and the other Mr Rook get about on trains and he's got fairly bad asthma, so we're a little cautious about what we do ourselves.) Thus I've not seen either of them in person since March.
There’s no published data that I can see.
All one can do is extrapolate from the death rate. Which, for that group, is vanishingly low.
For now I am still planning on behaving as if we are in the middle of the epidemic.
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1270751100040331265
Good for the gardens
Some of the justifications for the indefensible here on PB have at times been disturbing, and the arguments made that two wrongs often make a right is laughable.
Of course, with a sample size of two ....
If Foxy is about maybe he can answer both questions?
Don't like the game? Think it's rigged? Kick the table over!
I must now come up with one for @Casino_Royale of course, otherwise it will look like I'm biased, which I'm not.
The unknown factor is how long those antibodies last in your system and for how long they're effective.
So a positive test would almost certainly mean you're effectively immune today. 12 months time ? Could have faded a bit. As @rcs1000 reminds us though it doesn't work one day you're immune the next day you're not. It'll be a sliding scale - perhaps recatching in two years time gives you the equivalent of a light cold if you had it heavily the first time... ?
There's also the slightly more esoteric ideas that OTHER coronavirus antibodies can give you some degree of immunity and that you can have immunity without developing antibodies to covid-19 since other parts of your immune system fight it off with no antibodies being produced. Those are .. debateable (And pushed by anti lockdowners) and would yield negative tests on your test anyway.
I hope they are challenging the fact that the claims of the long term value added by degrees are based on the career paths up to retirement followed by people who graduated several decades ago. That was when following a path to university was very much the exception rather than the rule. Assuming that the same will happen to today's graduates is so obviously wrong, yet the assumption goes unchallenged because in the main those making the calculations have a vested interest in the outcomes.
Caution though, it is quite possible for an immune person to transmit the virus, via contaminated objects, while not personally at risk.
From the BMJ's analysis of 16,749 patients here https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.23.20076042v1.full.pdf
The ratio of demographics in ICU against deaths is vastly different between ages.
This is only ICU, though.
An analysis in the US had this:
Which is compatible with the BMJ one and implies that your chance of being hospitalised isn't that much reduced at younger ages, but that of needing ICU is significantly lower and that of dying under care far lower.
Again, extrapolating from death rates to hospitalisation rates is obviously incorrect - it would require your chance of dying when hospitalised to be constant across the ages when it is in fact far higher the older you get.
The only tabulated information on hospitalisation I have found is from early days and assumes a 50% asymptomatic rate and an overall IFR of 0.66% (which now looks to be a bit low)
20-29____1.0%
30-39____3.4%
40-49____4.3%
50-59____8.2%
60-69____11.8%
70-79____16.6%
80+______18.4%
(If the asympomatic rate is only 30%, then those hospitalisation rates need to be increased by up to 50%)
If I wanted to be a contrarian I'd be arguing against pulling down statues not for it given them coming down is the standard opinion now.
I'm consistently liberal. I challenge you to say anything I support otherwise. And don't say Brexit because I want a liberal Brexit.
Fewer than 100 male 30-year-olds have been hospitalised?
And I would guess that a very large proportion of those have co-morbidities (total proportion across all age groups is 90+% according to NHS England).
If so, I will stick with my contention that if you are a 30-year-old male with no pre-existing conditions, your risks from covid are low compared to risks we face in our normal daily lives.