At some point soon pb's Conservatives are going to blame the dead for dying so prolifically and painting the government in a poor light. Anything rather than look at why Britain has done so terribly by any sensible international comparison.
It was in a medical journal that I was browsing. It might take me a while to track down, but fits with the actuarial figures that @AlastairMeeks cites.
I remember John Edmunds from LSHTM saying that the Italy lockdown opened up the policy space to consider that option. Which to me seems totally backwards.
SAGE should be working out what's needed to stop the virus, prevent deaths etc. then go back to politicians to work out whether it's politically possible.
Yes. It does have an air of the scientists worrying about what is politically acceptable. I suppose that's part of the damage from the way in which scientists have been attacked over climate change.
No, I think its because SAGE includes behavioural scientists on it. If the behavioural scientists don't believe the public will follow instructions for long, that's due to them studying the public not due to criticisms of science.
That argument doesn't make logical sense, though. If you lockdown earlier you don't need to lockdown for as long because the peak infection rate will be lower and so it takes less time to reduce it to a manageable level.
Now, because of our failure to act earlier the public is expected to change behaviour indefinitely in order to "live with" the virus. This is logically inconsistent.
That only works if the UK is an island isolated from the rest of the world.
If however [the theory was] the UK locks down too early then even if we defeat the virus domestically only to see it surge back in from overseas where the pandemic is worse than the UK and we have a major second surge.
Its not playing out [yet] according to their warnings about a second wave. But its worth remembering why those warnings exist - the Spanish Flu, so infamous for killing so many, was most deadly during its second wave not the first wave. That is what the scientists were worrying and warning about.
At some point soon pb's Conservatives are going to blame the dead for dying so prolifically and painting the government in a poor light. Anything rather than look at why Britain has done so terribly by any sensible international comparison.
In a way I would say he's right, as the recent misadventures of Mrs PtP illustrate.
She was admitted for observation due to erratic C-19 symptoms. She certainly had it (despite a negative home test) but it seems that bacterial infections in the lungs and urinary tract had barged in through the door shoved open by the virus. Antibiotics blasted the bacteria away and the immune system of an unnaturally fit woman did the rest.
The outcome may not have been so positive on a more decrepit creature like myself. I suspect the certificate would as likely have blamed pneumonia as C-19.
When it's all done and dusted we'll have to look at 'excess death rates' as the most reliable guide. Meanwhile, Mrs PtP is recovering well with lots of R&R and of course my own special brand of TLC.
Thanks to all those who have enquired and sent their best wishes, by the way.
At some point soon pb's Conservatives are going to blame the dead for dying so prolifically and painting the government in a poor light. Anything rather than look at why Britain has done so terribly by any sensible international comparison.
At some point soon pb's Conservatives are going to blame the dead for dying so prolifically and painting the government in a poor light. Anything rather than look at why Britain has done so terribly by any sensible international comparison.
In a way I would say he's right, as the recent misadventures of Mrs PtP illustrate.
She was admitted for observation due to erratic C-19 symptoms. She certainly had it (despite a negative home test) but it seems that bacterial infections in the lungs and urinary tract had barged in through the door shoved open by the virus. Antibiotics blasted the bacteria away and the immune system of an unnaturally fit woman did the rest.
The outcome may not have been so positive on a more decrepit creature like myself. I suspect the certificate would as likely have blamed pneumonia as C-19.
When it's all done and dusted we'll have to look at 'excess death rates' as the most reliable guide. Meanwhile, Mrs PtP is recovering well with lots of R&R and of course my own special brand of TLC.
Thanks to all those who have enquired and sent their best wishes, by the way.
On the lockdown I have some sympathy with the idea that we should have locked down earlier, but I think it's the wrong question. Lockdown became a necessity due to the failure of testing, contact tracing, quarantine and other measures short of a lockdown (like encouraging working from home) that if deployed earlier would have avoided the need for a lockdown.
The overarching question would be: "Why is it that we had two weeks extra to react compared to Italy and wasted that time to the extent that we have a higher death toll?"
We should remember that Johnson was such an idiot that he was still encouraging people to shake hands about three weeks before he then imposed lockdown. Perhaps if he'd taken the problem seriously early enough there wouldn't even have been a need for lockdown.
You do realise that the Italian death figures for Covid 19 do not include care home deaths?
I'm basing my comparison on the excess deaths figures from the FT, not the official government counts that depends on deciding which deaths to include.
There is no way that the UK has had more Covid-19 deaths than Italy
The national lockdown in Italy was imposed on March 9th. In the UK, two weeks later on the 23rd. The comparison with Italy had the UK two weeks behind.
Therefore, all other things being equal you would expect the same rate of death.
However, there is the suspicion that, in order to avoid too much pressure on hospitals in the UK that sick people were told to stay at home and were not admitted to hospital until their condition had deteriorated beyond a stage where some of them could be helped with interventions (such as oxygen) that would have saved them if made earlier.
At some point soon pb's Conservatives are going to blame the dead for dying so prolifically and painting the government in a poor light. Anything rather than look at why Britain has done so terribly by any sensible international comparison.
Could also be legitimate to have COVID-19 as immediate cause of death if the immediate cause of death is seen as an inherent feature of COVID-19, but most of those who died will have other contributing factors as mostly they are older or have underlying conditions. Those contributing factors don't mean they were close to death before infection.
Also, as I've mentioned before, that's the theory, but the practice is unfortunately a lot more variable. I was involved in a study for people with terminal conditions and for many the terminal conditions did not make it on to the death certificate (because say, they died of an infection as immediate cause, but the terminal illness was still the underlying cause)
On the lockdown I have some sympathy with the idea that we should have locked down earlier, but I think it's the wrong question. Lockdown became a necessity due to the failure of testing, contact tracing, quarantine and other measures short of a lockdown (like encouraging working from home) that if deployed earlier would have avoided the need for a lockdown.
The overarching question would be: "Why is it that we had two weeks extra to react compared to Italy and wasted that time to the extent that we have a higher death toll?"
We should remember that Johnson was such an idiot that he was still encouraging people to shake hands about three weeks before he then imposed lockdown. Perhaps if he'd taken the problem seriously early enough there wouldn't even have been a need for lockdown.
You do realise that the Italian death figures for Covid 19 do not include care home deaths?
I'm basing my comparison on the excess deaths figures from the FT, not the official government counts that depends on deciding which deaths to include.
There is no way that the UK has had more Covid-19 deaths than Italy
The national lockdown in Italy was imposed on March 9th. In the UK, two weeks later on the 23rd. The comparison with Italy had the UK two weeks behind.
Therefore, all other things being equal you would expect the same rate of death.
However, there is the suspicion that, in order to avoid too much pressure on hospitals in the UK that sick people were told to stay at home and were not admitted to hospital until their condition had deteriorated beyond a stage where some of them could be helped with interventions (such as oxygen) that would have saved them if made earlier.
Thus a higher rate of death in the UK.
Did you not see the Itailian Hospitals?
They were leaving old people outside to die as they had no room for them.
At some point soon pb's Conservatives are going to blame the dead for dying so prolifically and painting the government in a poor light. Anything rather than look at why Britain has done so terribly by any sensible international comparison.
It was in a medical journal that I was browsing. It might take me a while to track down, but fits with the actuarial figures that @AlastairMeeks cites.
An article in 'The Actuary' last month concluded: It is unfounded to claim that a large proportion of those who died from COVID-19 in 2020 would have died in any case this year....these would be alive now in the absense of coronavrius and would probably still be alive in several years' time.
FPT - if Starmer's polling that well in Scotland then a Labour majority might be possible.
Scottish unionists might flip Tory to Labour to protect it, so he could get 20-25 seats in Scotland (Tories down to 2-3 again).
He’d still have to do a Cameron and swipe 100+ in England though. Seems insurmountable but the electorate is so volatile these days I could see it happening if he stays moderate and Boris totally botches the economic recovery.
Those Boris Johnson figures are fairly standard for Tory leaders among Scottish voters, and are actually slightly better than the worst May and Cameron depths.
However, that Starmer +34 is truly outstanding! I cannot remember the last time a Unionist leader had such good Scottish ratings. Certainly not the over-hyped Ruth Davidson. You’d probably have to go back to Gordon Brown, Henry McLeish or Charlie Kennedy. And unlike Starmer, they were all Scots!
Is Starmer the most popular Englishman in Scotland since... who?
Yes, Starmer's polling well in Scotland, but Sturgeon’s polling even better.
Yes, some Scottish unionists will flip Tory to Labour to protect it, but nowhere near enough to get 20-25 seats in Scotland. And the Union might not make it to 2024 anyway.
Yes, he could still do a Cameron and swipe 100+ in England because the electorate is so volatile these days.
Yes, I too could see it happening if he stays moderate and Boris totally botches the economic recovery.
So, you agree with me except for the Scottish bit?
There are over 25 Scottish seats in Labour's top 150 targets. In an environment where there' a change in sentiment UK-wide and the chance of a change of UK Government I'd expect a level of split-ticket voting by some SNP supporters who want to kick the Tories out, and some Unionist tactical voting.
“So, you agree with me except for the Scottish bit?”
Yes, and I even kind of agree with your Scottish analysis too.
Split-ticket voting *will* happen (it always does). And Unionist tactical voting (it always does). But it’s a matter of how much.
Even if Starmer soars like an eagle for the next four years (tricky), I would say that the SLab ceiling is about 5-10 seats. So nowhere near your 20-25 seats.
The 25th seat is Paisley and Renfrewshire North with an SNP MAJ of 11,902. Are you honestly telling us that Starmer is going to single-handedly win that for SLab? Remember, SLab themselves are a total deadweight.
I would be very surprised if Labour gained more than a dozen seats in Scotland but a 2017 type result for Slab is possibly feasible for the reasons justin124 has recently stated. I think Starmer's main appeal (if it actually bears out) will be among traditional middle aged SLab core voters around Lothians/Fife/Glasgow/Lanarkshire etc who are more ambivalent about the EU and LD/Tory unionists in Edinburgh who like Ruth Davidson but think the Tories at Westminster are currently shambolic (i.e. the sort of voter who is voting for Murray so Edinburgh North and Leith could be a longshot maybe).
On the other hand I would expect Sturgeon (or whoever replaces her) to remain popular with 18-40 year old voters and that will probably remain a problem for Lab.
At some point soon pb's Conservatives are going to blame the dead for dying so prolifically and painting the government in a poor light. Anything rather than look at why Britain has done so terribly by any sensible international comparison.
As someone who works at a university (though I'm not a UCU member) doing anything to exacerbate the expected fall in student numbers next year is pretty stupid for anyone who would like to keep their job and isn't fully funded through a research grant.
well at least they show consistency - like Churchill he was a moral giant who had deep personal flaws - the statue thing seems to be like people suddenly discovering people are human and the geopolitical context they operated in was complex and it's making their heads explode.
At some point soon pb's Conservatives are going to blame the dead for dying so prolifically and painting the government in a poor light. Anything rather than look at why Britain has done so terribly by any sensible international comparison.
well at least they show consistency - like Churchill he was a moral giant who had deep personal flaws - the statue thing seems to be like people suddenly discovering people are human and the geopolitical context they operated in was complex and it's making their heads explode.
I just wonder how these people manage to feed themselves or avoid using the floor as a loo. The realization that human beings are morally complex is surely only a few steps above developmental fundamentals like object permanence...
At some point soon pb's Conservatives are going to blame the dead for dying so prolifically and painting the government in a poor light. Anything rather than look at why Britain has done so terribly by any sensible international comparison.
Do you know how many people have died in the UK with only Covid-19 on their death certificate?
anyone asking this question doesn't understand how death certification is done.
Well you got me there!!
Ok it's not a disease that only kills the elderly or already ill, it just doesn't kill anyone else
Perhaps. But creaking gates last longer than you might have expected.
I wonder if the PBTories realise that there is a further implication of the doctrine that covid only killed the sickly who were going to fall off their perches any moment now.
It is that - on this logic, not mine (edit) - Mr Johnson was already dangerously unfit to be PM.
Are PBTories willing to accept responsibility for foisting such a PM on the UK?
On the lockdown I have some sympathy with the idea that we should have locked down earlier, but I think it's the wrong question. Lockdown became a necessity due to the failure of testing, contact tracing, quarantine and other measures short of a lockdown (like encouraging working from home) that if deployed earlier would have avoided the need for a lockdown.
The overarching question would be: "Why is it that we had two weeks extra to react compared to Italy and wasted that time to the extent that we have a higher death toll?"
We should remember that Johnson was such an idiot that he was still encouraging people to shake hands about three weeks before he then imposed lockdown. Perhaps if he'd taken the problem seriously early enough there wouldn't even have been a need for lockdown.
You do realise that the Italian death figures for Covid 19 do not include care home deaths?
I'm basing my comparison on the excess deaths figures from the FT, not the official government counts that depends on deciding which deaths to include.
There is no way that the UK has had more Covid-19 deaths than Italy
The national lockdown in Italy was imposed on March 9th. In the UK, two weeks later on the 23rd. The comparison with Italy had the UK two weeks behind.
Therefore, all other things being equal you would expect the same rate of death.
However, there is the suspicion that, in order to avoid too much pressure on hospitals in the UK that sick people were told to stay at home and were not admitted to hospital until their condition had deteriorated beyond a stage where some of them could be helped with interventions (such as oxygen) that would have saved them if made earlier.
Thus a higher rate of death in the UK.
Did you not see the Itailian Hospitals?
They were leaving old people outside to die as they had no room for them.
The outbreak in Italy was much more concentrated in Lombardy than in the UK - and if people are right about British patients dying more quickly because they were admitted to hospital too late then you can have a higher death rate with apparently less pressure on the hospital - because patients die more quickly and so spend less time occupying a bed.
At some point soon pb's Conservatives are going to blame the dead for dying so prolifically and painting the government in a poor light. Anything rather than look at why Britain has done so terribly by any sensible international comparison.
well at least they show consistency - like Churchill he was a moral giant who had deep personal flaws - the statue thing seems to be like people suddenly discovering people are human and the geopolitical context they operated in was complex and it's making their heads explode.
Surely it would be quicker, easier, and cheaper for BLM to spray "not racist" on all the statues of historic figures who were definitely not racist? They could easily get the job done by tea time, and if the got their skates on they might even be able to grab a late lunch.
Major beat Kinnock despite being behind on Personality for the last couiple of times they were compared. But he led on most other attributes. I wonder what swayed it
Highly doubt this will go anywhere. CPS has the power to end private prosecutions if it thinks they are vexatious, aside from all the other hurdles this must pass.
I was interested to see that the scientists Ronald Fisher and Francis Galton are on the hit-list of the Iconoclastic Furies because of eugenics.
Other prominent eugenicists are ... Darwin, many famous Liberal & Labour MPs from the late nineteenth century/early twentieth century, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, Harold Laski, John Maynard Keynes, Virginia Woolf, TS Eliot, DH Lawrence, Julian Huxley, Marie Stopes, George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells and William Beveridge.
At some point soon pb's Conservatives are going to blame the dead for dying so prolifically and painting the government in a poor light. Anything rather than look at why Britain has done so terribly by any sensible international comparison.
At some point soon pb's Conservatives are going to blame the dead for dying so prolifically and painting the government in a poor light. Anything rather than look at why Britain has done so terribly by any sensible international comparison.
Do you know how many people have died in the UK with only Covid-19 on their death certificate?
anyone asking this question doesn't understand how death certification is done.
Well you got me there!!
Ok it's not a disease that only kills the elderly or already ill, it just doesn't kill anyone else
Perhaps. But creaking gates last longer than you might have expected.
I wonder if the PBTories realise that there is a further implication of the doctrine that covid only killed the sickly who were going to fall off their perches any moment now.
It is that - on this logic, not mine (edit) - Mr Johnson was already dangerously unfit to be PM.
Are PBTories willing to accept responsibility for foisting such a PM on the UK?
Corbyn was too old on that basis!
Farage is a cancer survivor.
So Jo Swinson was correct in saying she was PM material after all!
The Economist has published their 2020 forecast, and it gives Biden a 5 in 6 chance of winning in November. Suspect when 538 and more models are published they will have vaguely similar (at least 65%+ probability) and the market will move accordingly, but we'll see.
To be clear, I expect there will be a gap between Betfair and forecasts until the votes are counted, but that the models will drag Betfair a bit more towards Biden nonetheless.
On the lockdown I have some sympathy with the idea that we should have locked down earlier, but I think it's the wrong question. Lockdown became a necessity due to the failure of testing, contact tracing, quarantine and other measures short of a lockdown (like encouraging working from home) that if deployed earlier would have avoided the need for a lockdown.
The overarching question would be: "Why is it that we had two weeks extra to react compared to Italy and wasted that time to the extent that we have a higher death toll?"
We should remember that Johnson was such an idiot that he was still encouraging people to shake hands about three weeks before he then imposed lockdown. Perhaps if he'd taken the problem seriously early enough there wouldn't even have been a need for lockdown.
You do realise that the Italian death figures for Covid 19 do not include care home deaths?
I'm basing my comparison on the excess deaths figures from the FT, not the official government counts that depends on deciding which deaths to include.
There is no way that the UK has had more Covid-19 deaths than Italy
The national lockdown in Italy was imposed on March 9th. In the UK, two weeks later on the 23rd. The comparison with Italy had the UK two weeks behind.
Therefore, all other things being equal you would expect the same rate of death.
However, there is the suspicion that, in order to avoid too much pressure on hospitals in the UK that sick people were told to stay at home and were not admitted to hospital until their condition had deteriorated beyond a stage where some of them could be helped with interventions (such as oxygen) that would have saved them if made earlier.
Thus a higher rate of death in the UK.
Did you not see the Itailian Hospitals?
They were leaving old people outside to die as they had no room for them.
The outbreak in Italy was much more concentrated in Lombardy than in the UK - and if people are right about British patients dying more quickly because they were admitted to hospital too late then you can have a higher death rate with apparently less pressure on the hospital - because patients die more quickly and so spend less time occupying a bed.
At some point soon pb's Conservatives are going to blame the dead for dying so prolifically and painting the government in a poor light. Anything rather than look at why Britain has done so terribly by any sensible international comparison.
Do you know how many people have died in the UK with only Covid-19 on their death certificate?
anyone asking this question doesn't understand how death certification is done.
True (@Isam, you can take a look at a guidance document here), but there is still a good question to be asked.
To summarise, the first part of the Cause of Death section of the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death asks for a reason chain of "direct" causes (death was directly "led to" by Ia, which can then be described as "led to" by Ib, which can then be described as "led to" by Ic) and the second ("other significant conditions contributing to death") asks for a reason spray of "underlying" background "contibutory" causes (or if you like, one or more conditions that "contributed" to death but weren't part of what "caused" it).
Covid may be listed either under I or II. Are there any public statistics on how many times it has appeared in I, how many in II, and how many in each of Ia, Ib, and Ic? (I suspect if it goes into I it may not be appropriate to list it under Ia but would be interested to hear from someone who knows.)
The following advice needs some light shed on it too: "For example, if before death the patient had symptoms typical of COVID-19 infection, but the test result has not been received, it would be satisfactory to give ‘COVID-19’ as the cause of death".
Rory Stewart kicked out of the party, Jeremy Hunt fired, whilst the incompetents in government screw up the response to the pandemic.
For that alone Boris Johnson and plenty of Brexiteers deserve the whirlwind coming their way.
You forgot David Gauke, Amber Rudd, Dominic Grieve, Phil Hammond, Nick Boles, Sajid Javid... we could have had a really good Conservative government. Instead we've ended up with a government in which we seem to have just one good Cabinet minister and one OKish but over-promoted one (Sunak and Hancock), the rest varying from the poor to the disastrous. It's hardly surprising that the results are sub-optimal.
At some point soon pb's Conservatives are going to blame the dead for dying so prolifically and painting the government in a poor light. Anything rather than look at why Britain has done so terribly by any sensible international comparison.
At some point soon pb's Conservatives are going to blame the dead for dying so prolifically and painting the government in a poor light. Anything rather than look at why Britain has done so terribly by any sensible international comparison.
What are the obligations for companies under modern anti-slavery legislation? Do they not have to have some kind of routines or policies in place? I’d be grateful if anyone could outline the key requirements, or point me in the right direction.
And do all companies in practice actively apply the routines?
Very few.
Tremendous. Big thanks!
But why do so few of the relevant companies actually bother publishing this statement, or bother updating every year? (And what is your source for “very few”?)
As far as I can make out, the failure to publish a statement, or the failure to update annually, has pretty much zero consequences. That seems very unwise to me. We are just building up massive problems in the future.
Wires crossed. I was trying to say "there are very few obligations on UK businesses under the Modern Slavery Act (MSA)": essentially, big companies just have to tell us what they're doing and most businesses are too small to be affected.
AFAIK, just about all co's affected by the Act HAVE filed - and updated - their statement.
And, as someone who advises businesses on their supply chain for a living, I'd say that failure to adjust a firm's operating policies now has potentially devastating effects. Just about every UK company >36mn involved in clothing is now under constant investigation by corporate shareholders and "consumer" activists for behaviour that might be contrary to the spirit of the MSA, even in areas (like arguably low wages) that aren't covered by the MSA.
While this is a pain, there's no doubt in my view that the MSA has stimulated this scrutiny and that such scrutiny is probably more effective than legal sanctions in upping the overall level of ethics (at least about how supply-chain employees are treated) among firms buying from developing countries.
Doesn't of course do anything about the commercial pressures Western buyers put on their developing-country suppliers - and it's arguable that pressure not to look vulnerable to "fashionable" ethical criticism (like on carbon use, or gender equal opportunities) undermines developing country suppliers' ability to pay living wages.
At some point soon pb's Conservatives are going to blame the dead for dying so prolifically and painting the government in a poor light. Anything rather than look at why Britain has done so terribly by any sensible international comparison.
Amid concerns that black and Asian communities have suffered disproportionate numbers of deaths from coronavirus in the UK, Labour MP Afzal Khan challenged the government in the House of Commons over why it chose the Isle of Wight to try out the NHS contact tracing mobile phone app.
Mr Khan says the island has an "overwhelmingly white population", while black and Asian people may be less likely to trust the app due to their experiences of discrimination and profiling.
But Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove said the Isle of Wight was the right place to conduct the trial because it was "geographically secure", so the government could learn lessons "rapidly" about the uptake of the app and its operation in a controlled setting.
The Economist has published their 2020 forecast, and it gives Biden a 5 in 6 chance of winning in November. Suspect when 538 and more models are published they will have vaguely similar (at least 65%+ probability) and the market will move accordingly, but we'll see.
To be clear, I expect there will be a gap between Betfair and forecasts until the votes are counted, but that the models will drag Betfair a bit more towards Biden nonetheless.
I remember John Edmunds from LSHTM saying that the Italy lockdown opened up the policy space to consider that option. Which to me seems totally backwards.
SAGE should be working out what's needed to stop the virus, prevent deaths etc. then go back to politicians to work out whether it's politically possible.
Yes. It does have an air of the scientists worrying about what is politically acceptable. I suppose that's part of the damage from the way in which scientists have been attacked over climate change.
No, I think its because SAGE includes behavioural scientists on it. If the behavioural scientists don't believe the public will follow instructions for long, that's due to them studying the public not due to criticisms of science.
Plus the notorious Cummings, of course. There to make sure that the scientists came up with the recommendation most convenient for the next Government policy.
Why do you waste time attacking behavioural scientists?
At some point soon pb's Conservatives are going to blame the dead for dying so prolifically and painting the government in a poor light. Anything rather than look at why Britain has done so terribly by any sensible international comparison.
Do you know how many people have died in the UK with only Covid-19 on their death certificate?
anyone asking this question doesn't understand how death certification is done.
True (@Isam, you can take a look at a guidance document here), but there is still a good question to be asked.
To summarise, the first part of the Cause of Death section of the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death asks for a reason chain of "direct" causes (death was directly "led to" by Ia, which can then be described as "led to" by Ib, which can then be described as "led to" by Ic) and the second ("other significant conditions contributing to death") asks for a reason spray of "underlying" background "contibutory" causes (or if you like, one or more conditions that "contributed" to death but weren't part of what "caused" it).
Covid may be listed either under I or II. Are there any public statistics on how many times it has appeared in I, how many in II, and how many in each of Ia, Ib, and Ic? (I suspect if it goes into I it may not be appropriate to list it under Ia but would be interested to hear from someone who knows.)
The following advice needs some light shed on it too: "For example, if before death the patient had symptoms typical of COVID-19 infection, but the test result has not been received, it would be satisfactory to give ‘COVID-19’ as the cause of death".
It would be interesting to know if the equivalent Guidance in other European countries said the same.
On a slightly different tack, if someone dies with a treatable condition because routine hospital admissions have been cancelled, would it also be "satisfactory" to give 'COVID-19' as the cause of death?
On the lockdown I have some sympathy with the idea that we should have locked down earlier, but I think it's the wrong question. Lockdown became a necessity due to the failure of testing, contact tracing, quarantine and other measures short of a lockdown (like encouraging working from home) that if deployed earlier would have avoided the need for a lockdown.
The overarching question would be: "Why is it that we had two weeks extra to react compared to Italy and wasted that time to the extent that we have a higher death toll?"
We should remember that Johnson was such an idiot that he was still encouraging people to shake hands about three weeks before he then imposed lockdown. Perhaps if he'd taken the problem seriously early enough there wouldn't even have been a need for lockdown.
You do realise that the Italian death figures for Covid 19 do not include care home deaths?
I'm basing my comparison on the excess deaths figures from the FT, not the official government counts that depends on deciding which deaths to include.
There is no way that the UK has had more Covid-19 deaths than Italy
The national lockdown in Italy was imposed on March 9th. In the UK, two weeks later on the 23rd. The comparison with Italy had the UK two weeks behind.
Therefore, all other things being equal you would expect the same rate of death.
However, there is the suspicion that, in order to avoid too much pressure on hospitals in the UK that sick people were told to stay at home and were not admitted to hospital until their condition had deteriorated beyond a stage where some of them could be helped with interventions (such as oxygen) that would have saved them if made earlier.
Thus a higher rate of death in the UK.
Did you not see the Itailian Hospitals?
They were leaving old people outside to die as they had no room for them.
The outbreak in Italy was much more concentrated in Lombardy than in the UK - and if people are right about British patients dying more quickly because they were admitted to hospital too late then you can have a higher death rate with apparently less pressure on the hospital - because patients die more quickly and so spend less time occupying a bed.
Using their figures, and updating with latest tally, it suggests an upper bound of 55,000 total deaths in Italy. FT excess deaths figures for UK is 64,000.
Does that mean that the 75% of your posts of the last month relating to that irrelevance can be safely ignored? I guess folk can make their own minds up about the remaining 25%.
I was talking to Ishmael. I'm afraid I don't know much about haggis-themed poetry.
p.s. I did notice you picked up on my mention of Visigoths, so at least you got something out of them...
Haggis-themed.
Good one, positively Juvenal-esque. Or a word not dissimilar anyway.
You are strongly encouraged to check in baggage to the aircraft hold and minimise any hand baggage. This will speed up boarding and disembarking and minimise the risk of transmission.
Seattle news: Trump may not have as many troops as he wanted protecting his palace in Washington DC but he is nonetheless doubling down on crushing disorder, telling the governor of Washington state and the mayor of Seattle that if they don't "take back" the city of Seattle (as he calls a precinct) then he will.
Isn't there a channel through which the country's chief executive can discuss security matters with state and city chief executives that doesn't involve typing dramatic "tweets" with lots of capital letters and exclamation marks like a 12-year-old girl chewing gum in a shopping mall? I bet there is in China.
Amid concerns that black and Asian communities have suffered disproportionate numbers of deaths from coronavirus in the UK, Labour MP Afzal Khan challenged the government in the House of Commons over why it chose the Isle of Wight to try out the NHS contact tracing mobile phone app.
Mr Khan says the island has an "overwhelmingly white population", while black and Asian people may be less likely to trust the app due to their experiences of discrimination and profiling.
But Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove said the Isle of Wight was the right place to conduct the trial because it was "geographically secure", so the government could learn lessons "rapidly" about the uptake of the app and its operation in a controlled setting.
The UK overall has an "overwhelmingly white" population.
The Economist has published their 2020 forecast, and it gives Biden a 5 in 6 chance of winning in November. Suspect when 538 and more models are published they will have vaguely similar (at least 65%+ probability) and the market will move accordingly, but we'll see.
To be clear, I expect there will be a gap between Betfair and forecasts until the votes are counted, but that the models will drag Betfair a bit more towards Biden nonetheless.
I remember the Economist a few weeks ago published a forecast of which countries' economies would be least affected by coronavirus. It said that the UK would be one of the least affected.
Sometimes I think that forecasts, no matter how intelligent, are little better than opinions.
The French hospital figures demonstrate that you cannot trust figures from other countries on infections and deaths
In what way are they wrong?
France currently has double the number of people in hospital than the UK with Covid-19. They were ahead of us on the virus curve, so if they truly have had less infections and less deaths than the UK then the number of people in their hospitals should be much less than the uk currently, but it is double the number.
That contains several logical leaps and assumptions. Being "ahead on the curve" should mean the situation is worse, until something comes along that forces the rate back down. After that has happened, the key consideration is the nature of whatever is improving. Further, admissions to hospital will depend very heavily on the criteria for admission.
In other news, Rory is now speaking on R4
You don't think that France and the UK have similar admission criteria to hospital for Covid-19? As most hospitals in the UK are currently empty I doubt that UK hospitals are playing particularly hardball on who they admit for Covid-19.
A friend of mine has been sick with the virus this past week and a half and it's clear from her experience that the advice in England hasn't changed. People are told to stay at home and not come to hospital.
That seems like a very obvious and sufficient explanation for the difference, whereas your explanation requires the French government to be hiding deaths numbering several times those they admit to. Which is the more likely explanation?
So you think French hospitals are full with people with very minor sysmptoms?
So why does France alse have double the number of people in ICU than the UK?
So why does the UK have many thousands more who have died, than France?
Does it? Thats what France are saying, but whose death figures can you trust when they are such a political football? The hospital figures simply do not tie up with their infection and death figures.
The simplest explanation looks likely to be correct: the French took a more aggressive view of who to admit to hospital and who to put in ICU, and quite possibly as a result saved many more lives. That requires no chauvinistic assumption that Britain is the only country honestly gathering statistics and seems entirely consistent with what we know.
Don't disagree, but the better stats thing (not for nefarious purposes, just due to the way things are organised) is somewhat true. I'm in epidemiology and our health data are some of the most complete in the world, partly due to the centralised organisation of the NHS with all hospitals submitting records centrally (for GP practices they use several different systems, don't submit centrally and you can't get a complete dataset).
Other countries with good data: Denmark and some other Scandinavian countries (Norway very good, I think) Canada (partly split by territories, but linked to admin data too) Australia (parts of, think it's NSW is very good, but haven't used personally)
Within UK, Scotland has by far the best data as it also fully links primary care.
I think other countries will get good data on COVID-19, but the way things are set up here probably does mean we have some of the best up to date data.
Scotland has the best data?
Don’t tell HY.
Ah, but only due to the foresight of a guy called Howard Newcombe in the 70s, so before SNP were in charge (and Newcombe himself was an English aristocrat with close links to the Tory establishment)*
*bit in brackets entirely made up. All Google would tell me was that he was a guitarist with the Casuals. May not be the same guy
The Economist has published their 2020 forecast, and it gives Biden a 5 in 6 chance of winning in November. Suspect when 538 and more models are published they will have vaguely similar (at least 65%+ probability) and the market will move accordingly, but we'll see.
To be clear, I expect there will be a gap between Betfair and forecasts until the votes are counted, but that the models will drag Betfair a bit more towards Biden nonetheless.
I remember John Edmunds from LSHTM saying that the Italy lockdown opened up the policy space to consider that option. Which to me seems totally backwards.
SAGE should be working out what's needed to stop the virus, prevent deaths etc. then go back to politicians to work out whether it's politically possible.
Yes. It does have an air of the scientists worrying about what is politically acceptable. I suppose that's part of the damage from the way in which scientists have been attacked over climate change.
No, I think its because SAGE includes behavioural scientists on it. If the behavioural scientists don't believe the public will follow instructions for long, that's due to them studying the public not due to criticisms of science.
Plus the notorious Cummings, of course. There to make sure that the scientists came up with the recommendation most convenient for the next Government policy.
Why do you waste time attacking behavioural scientists?
Boris Johnson’s most powerful political aide pressed the U.K.’s independent scientific advisers to recommend lockdown measures in an effort to stop the spread of coronavirus, according to people familiar with the matter....
Speaking on condition of anonymity because the meetings are private, the people said Cummings asked why a lockdown was not being imposed sooner, swayed the discussion toward faster action, and made clear he thought pubs and restaurants should be closed within two days. They then were.
I fear the UK response has been slowed by "Committee-itis" "On the one hand, on the other hand" - in Guernsey we have a CMO who is an epidemiologist and she was responsible for the recommendations to (effectively) the two politicians who took the decisions.
Seattle news: Trump may not have as many troops as he wanted protecting his palace in Washington DC but he is nonetheless doubling down on crushing disorder, telling the governor of Washington state and the mayor of Seattle that if they don't "take back" the city of Seattle (as he calls a precinct) then he will.
Isn't there a channel through which the country's chief executive can discuss security matters with state and city chief executives that doesn't involve typing dramatic "tweets" with lots of capital letters and exclamation marks like a 12-year-old girl chewing gum in a shopping mall? I bet there is in China.
I think it's pretty great to see this argument play out in full public view.
People complain about Trump's tweeting but it's like a permanent freedom-of-information request directly into his brain. Don't shoot the messenger, the problem is the brain.
On the lockdown I have some sympathy with the idea that we should have locked down earlier, but I think it's the wrong question. Lockdown became a necessity due to the failure of testing, contact tracing, quarantine and other measures short of a lockdown (like encouraging working from home) that if deployed earlier would have avoided the need for a lockdown.
The overarching question would be: "Why is it that we had two weeks extra to react compared to Italy and wasted that time to the extent that we have a higher death toll?"
We should remember that Johnson was such an idiot that he was still encouraging people to shake hands about three weeks before he then imposed lockdown. Perhaps if he'd taken the problem seriously early enough there wouldn't even have been a need for lockdown.
You do realise that the Italian death figures for Covid 19 do not include care home deaths?
I'm basing my comparison on the excess deaths figures from the FT, not the official government counts that depends on deciding which deaths to include.
There is no way that the UK has had more Covid-19 deaths than Italy
The national lockdown in Italy was imposed on March 9th. In the UK, two weeks later on the 23rd. The comparison with Italy had the UK two weeks behind.
Therefore, all other things being equal you would expect the same rate of death.
However, there is the suspicion that, in order to avoid too much pressure on hospitals in the UK that sick people were told to stay at home and were not admitted to hospital until their condition had deteriorated beyond a stage where some of them could be helped with interventions (such as oxygen) that would have saved them if made earlier.
Thus a higher rate of death in the UK.
Did you not see the Itailian Hospitals?
They were leaving old people outside to die as they had no room for them.
The outbreak in Italy was much more concentrated in Lombardy than in the UK - and if people are right about British patients dying more quickly because they were admitted to hospital too late then you can have a higher death rate with apparently less pressure on the hospital - because patients die more quickly and so spend less time occupying a bed.
Though the 50% uplift is mentioned in the abstract broadly consistent with the UK. We have just over 40 000 official deaths and just over 60 000 total excess deaths.
The Italian total excess mortality numbers (gold standard, we've been told) were at 46 700 on April 30. They will have gone up since then, but they are going to have to do a lot of catching up (500 a day?) to overtake the UK with 64 200 on May 29.
Yes, there are problems with international comparisons, because different countries are working to different standards. But in democracies, you can rely reasonably well on counts of dead people being honest and consistent.
The simplest way of reading the data we have is that the UK handled the Spring 2020 wave worse than most other countries, and that more UK citizens have died than citizens of Italy, France, Germany, quite probably Spain. That might be bad luck, or it might be bad judgement, or it might be a mixture of the two. But unless the UK as a whole accepts that information, we're hobbling ourselves about doing better in the future.
On the lockdown I have some sympathy with the idea that we should have locked down earlier, but I think it's the wrong question. Lockdown became a necessity due to the failure of testing, contact tracing, quarantine and other measures short of a lockdown (like encouraging working from home) that if deployed earlier would have avoided the need for a lockdown.
The overarching question would be: "Why is it that we had two weeks extra to react compared to Italy and wasted that time to the extent that we have a higher death toll?"
We should remember that Johnson was such an idiot that he was still encouraging people to shake hands about three weeks before he then imposed lockdown. Perhaps if he'd taken the problem seriously early enough there wouldn't even have been a need for lockdown.
You do realise that the Italian death figures for Covid 19 do not include care home deaths?
I'm basing my comparison on the excess deaths figures from the FT, not the official government counts that depends on deciding which deaths to include.
There is no way that the UK has had more Covid-19 deaths than Italy
The national lockdown in Italy was imposed on March 9th. In the UK, two weeks later on the 23rd. The comparison with Italy had the UK two weeks behind.
Therefore, all other things being equal you would expect the same rate of death.
However, there is the suspicion that, in order to avoid too much pressure on hospitals in the UK that sick people were told to stay at home and were not admitted to hospital until their condition had deteriorated beyond a stage where some of them could be helped with interventions (such as oxygen) that would have saved them if made earlier.
Thus a higher rate of death in the UK.
Did you not see the Itailian Hospitals?
They were leaving old people outside to die as they had no room for them.
The outbreak in Italy was much more concentrated in Lombardy than in the UK - and if people are right about British patients dying more quickly because they were admitted to hospital too late then you can have a higher death rate with apparently less pressure on the hospital - because patients die more quickly and so spend less time occupying a bed.
Using their figures, and updating with latest tally, it suggests an upper bound of 55,000 total deaths in Italy. FT excess deaths figures for UK is 64,000.
Lawyers of PB: since I finished my exams I’ve got “advanced certification” in both Lexis and Westlaw. Is there any other systems or software, in your view, it would be useful to familiarize myself with for CV purposes?
I wouldn’t worry too much about them, you’ll be shown how to use anything you need on the job.
If you have good Excel skills, you will be regarded by most lawyers as some kind of wizard. So advertise that if that applies to you.
The Economist has published their 2020 forecast, and it gives Biden a 5 in 6 chance of winning in November. Suspect when 538 and more models are published they will have vaguely similar (at least 65%+ probability) and the market will move accordingly, but we'll see.
To be clear, I expect there will be a gap between Betfair and forecasts until the votes are counted, but that the models will drag Betfair a bit more towards Biden nonetheless.
I remember the Economist a few weeks ago published a forecast of which countries' economies would be least affected by coronavirus. It said that the UK would be one of the least affected.
Sometimes I think that forecasts, no matter how intelligent, are little better than opinions.
I keep on meaning to check the predictions for 2016 to see whether they had the order of the States right, even if they were wrong on the overall result. Was the error national or local?
At some point soon pb's Conservatives are going to blame the dead for dying so prolifically and painting the government in a poor light. Anything rather than look at why Britain has done so terribly by any sensible international comparison.
Does this now mean if I contract a terminal disease, my family can cheerfully arrange and accompany me on my flight to Switzerland to check into the Dignitas Clinic for my early expiry with no recourse to UK law? Happy days!
On the lockdown I have some sympathy with the idea that we should have locked down earlier, but I think it's the wrong question. Lockdown became a necessity due to the failure of testing, contact tracing, quarantine and other measures short of a lockdown (like encouraging working from home) that if deployed earlier would have avoided the need for a lockdown.
The overarching question would be: "Why is it that we had two weeks extra to react compared to Italy and wasted that time to the extent that we have a higher death toll?"
We should remember that Johnson was such an idiot that he was still encouraging people to shake hands about three weeks before he then imposed lockdown. Perhaps if he'd taken the problem seriously early enough there wouldn't even have been a need for lockdown.
You do realise that the Italian death figures for Covid 19 do not include care home deaths?
I'm basing my comparison on the excess deaths figures from the FT, not the official government counts that depends on deciding which deaths to include.
There is no way that the UK has had more Covid-19 deaths than Italy
The national lockdown in Italy was imposed on March 9th. In the UK, two weeks later on the 23rd. The comparison with Italy had the UK two weeks behind.
Therefore, all other things being equal you would expect the same rate of death.
However, there is the suspicion that, in order to avoid too much pressure on hospitals in the UK that sick people were told to stay at home and were not admitted to hospital until their condition had deteriorated beyond a stage where some of them could be helped with interventions (such as oxygen) that would have saved them if made earlier.
Thus a higher rate of death in the UK.
Did you not see the Itailian Hospitals?
They were leaving old people outside to die as they had no room for them.
The outbreak in Italy was much more concentrated in Lombardy than in the UK - and if people are right about British patients dying more quickly because they were admitted to hospital too late then you can have a higher death rate with apparently less pressure on the hospital - because patients die more quickly and so spend less time occupying a bed.
Using their figures, and updating with latest tally, it suggests an upper bound of 55,000 total deaths in Italy. FT excess deaths figures for UK is 64,000.
My conclusion looks sound. Thanks for confirming.
55,000 Covid deaths over a month ago,
Their figure from a month ago was 53,000. I updated it using their uplift factor to 55,000.
Edit: I might have used the wrong figure for that though. Not sure where their 33,000 is from, as I have 34,000 for the "official tally" now.
You are strongly encouraged to check in baggage to the aircraft hold and minimise any hand baggage. This will speed up boarding and disembarking and minimise the risk of transmission.
What the actual what - hand luggage means no one else touches it, checked in baggage is touched by multiple people and usually requires talking to people as it's rarely automated.
I don't really like to focus on what has gone wrong - I prefer to focus on what could still go right. We are still in this pandemic after all. I am not a watcher of the daily press conferences, either from Boris et al or Nicola, so there may be some of this that hasn't been mentioned, but if it has, more could be made.
1. Sufferer outcomes from hospital treatment need to improve significantly, through best practice evolving, and more therapies being tried and discussed.
The NHS has been true to form - it has been a relatively efficient provider of a healthcare service (has not failed), but relatively weak in patient outcomes, and as ever given lots more people the bug. I am disappointed, though not surprised, that we seem not to have learned much in the way of Covid-19 best practise, apart from the crucial change of trying not to ventilate people, and proning. The NHS is nursing people through Corona, not doctored them through it. It seems clear to me as an informed member of the public that deficiencies of Vitamin D and Zinc are being implicated again and again. But as far as I know, vitamins and minerals aren't being significantly used in treatment. If they didn't do any good, they would still be a potentially beneficial placebo. Sharing best practice and learning from world best practise needs to be built into Doctor's working time, rather than just firefighting.
2. The 'Covid' NHS clearly needs to be separated from the main NHS, now.
The reasons for this are huge and obvious. This is apparently already taking place, by moving wings etc., but I think it needs to be in totally separate hospitals and nursing homes with their own staff. My favoured way of doing this would be to re-open small local hospitals and nursing homes that have been mothballed. Politically, this would also be a good move. It would neatly achieve the '40 hospitals' target. If Corona (or other infectious diseases) continues to be an issue, they will be invaluable. If they do not, there are probably other clinical uses for the restored hospitals.
3. The UK Cabinet would benefit from reinforcements.
It is unreasonable and unlikely to expect sackings of prominent Ministers, and equally unlikely that many 'big beasts' will re-enter the cabinet at a time when Boris looks tottery. It just isn't going to happen. However, the public probably would be heartened to see some new blood to give the front line some support, and this would imply no u-turn or weakness on the part of the Government. If the Covid were to be separated from the main NHS, I would suggest that this is two jobs. Matt Hancock would probably want to see Covid through, so another Minister would be acting Health Secretary. There also needs to be more support in the Business department. The PM also needs support, from a right hand with excellent PR skills who can smooth over the rough patches and allow Boris to be Boris. Even Margaret Thatcher had a lot of help.
4. There has been a huge lack of a strong public health message - there now needs to be one.
Short of telling us all to lose weight (a message that's diluted by the message to stay at home), it has been a pity that there's been very little health advice, to give people a better chance should they become infected. This would at worst have been useful displacement activity to people who've been bored or panicking over this time. Nutrition is a particularly important part of this. The message that we need to be better nourished in key areas, not just for Corona outcomes, but for healthier and longer lives, has been absent. This is something that can now come to the fore, as we move into higher-risk activities. Spreading this message would particularly suits Boris, as he is on his own health journey at the moment. Boris's 'Happy Birthday' whilst hand washing was a good piece of advice and resonated. Other similar vignettes would be good. That would be using the negative of coronavirus for a very lasting and positive reason.
At some point soon pb's Conservatives are going to blame the dead for dying so prolifically and painting the government in a poor light. Anything rather than look at why Britain has done so terribly by any sensible international comparison.
Does this now mean if I contract a terminal disease, my family can cheerfully arrange and accompany me on my flight to Switzerland to check into the Dignitas Clinic for my early expiry with no recourse to UK law? Happy days!
Sadly it isn't Dominic Cummings arguing the point so I don't think you get that get out of jail card.
You are strongly encouraged to check in baggage to the aircraft hold and minimise any hand baggage. This will speed up boarding and disembarking and minimise the risk of transmission.
What the actual what - hand luggage means no one else touches it, checked in baggage is touched by multiple people and usually requires talking to people as it's rarely automated.
I guess what they want to avoid is the nonsense that tends to go on before a flight where people take forever to sort their hand-luggage out and stand in the aisle blocking the path of other passengers from boarding.
At some point soon pb's Conservatives are going to blame the dead for dying so prolifically and painting the government in a poor light. Anything rather than look at why Britain has done so terribly by any sensible international comparison.
I am not a doctor etc etc... but your immune system declines as you get older. Perhaps for the more elderly, their less effective immune systems are not capable of producing the cytokine storm that seems to kill rather than the coughing and temperature phase?
So the danger is to the "younger" old rather than the "older" old?
well at least they show consistency - like Churchill he was a moral giant who had deep personal flaws - the statue thing seems to be like people suddenly discovering people are human and the geopolitical context they operated in was complex and it's making their heads explode.
Perhaps the medics will define a new mental illness - statuephobia?
At some point soon pb's Conservatives are going to blame the dead for dying so prolifically and painting the government in a poor light. Anything rather than look at why Britain has done so terribly by any sensible international comparison.
In a way I would say he's right, as the recent misadventures of Mrs PtP illustrate.
She was admitted for observation due to erratic C-19 symptoms. She certainly had it (despite a negative home test) but it seems that bacterial infections in the lungs and urinary tract had barged in through the door shoved open by the virus. Antibiotics blasted the bacteria away and the immune system of an unnaturally fit woman did the rest.
The outcome may not have been so positive on a more decrepit creature like myself. I suspect the certificate would as likely have blamed pneumonia as C-19.
When it's all done and dusted we'll have to look at 'excess death rates' as the most reliable guide. Meanwhile, Mrs PtP is recovering well with lots of R&R and of course my own special brand of TLC.
Thanks to all those who have enquired and sent their best wishes, by the way.
Glad to hear a happy ending to that unpleasant (!) experience.
Re "was dying anyway", if it means in 2020 the excess deaths figure for 2020 deals with this - since the base against which the excess is calculated is expected deaths in 2020. It's macro modelling rather than looking at individuals but is accepted as pretty accurate.
If it means would have died in 2021 we must wait to compare the total all-cause deaths figure for 2020 to that for 2021. Assuming the waters are not muddied by another epidemic next year of either this disease or a different one (e.g. flu) - or by something else unusual and causing much death - then if significant it should show up as negative excess deaths in 2021. Being the absence from the data of people who succumbed to Covid-19 in 2020 "a year before their time" (as it were).
But tbh all this has a futile and slightly "off" feel to me. You live until you die. 'How long you would have lived if you hadn't stop living' does not strike me as a particularly useful or interesting line of inquiry.
3. The UK Cabinet would benefit from reinforcements.
It is unreasonable and unlikely to expect sackings of prominent Ministers, and equally unlikely that many 'big beasts' will re-enter the cabinet at a time when Boris looks tottery. It just isn't going to happen. However, the public probably would be heartened to see some new blood to give the front line some support, and this would imply no u-turn or weakness on the part of the Government. If the Covid were to be separated from the main NHS, I would suggest that this is two jobs. Matt Hancock would probably want to see Covid through, so another Minister would be acting Health Secretary. There also needs to be more support in the Business department. The PM also needs support, from a right hand with excellent PR skills who can smooth over the rough patches and allow Boris to be Boris. Even Margaret Thatcher had a lot of help.
4. There has been a huge lack of a strong public health message - there now needs to be one.
Short of telling us all to lose weight (a message that's diluted by the message to stay at home), it has been a pity that there's been very little health advice, to give people a better chance should they become infected. This would at worst have been useful displacement activity to people who've been bored or panicking over this time. Nutrition is a particularly important part of this. The message that we need to be better nourished in key areas, not just for Corona outcomes, but for healthier and longer lives, has been absent. This is something that can now come to the fore, as we move into higher-risk activities. Spreading this message would particularly suits Boris, as he is on his own health journey at the moment. Boris's 'Happy Birthday' whilst hand washing was a good piece of advice and resonated. Other similar vignettes would be good. That would be using the negative of coronavirus for a very lasting and positive reason.
well at least they show consistency - like Churchill he was a moral giant who had deep personal flaws - the statue thing seems to be like people suddenly discovering people are human and the geopolitical context they operated in was complex and it's making their heads explode.
Not sure the Bengal famine falls within the scope of "personal flaws"
The Economist has published their 2020 forecast, and it gives Biden a 5 in 6 chance of winning in November. Suspect when 538 and more models are published they will have vaguely similar (at least 65%+ probability) and the market will move accordingly, but we'll see.
To be clear, I expect there will be a gap between Betfair and forecasts until the votes are counted, but that the models will drag Betfair a bit more towards Biden nonetheless.
Yes, I'm starting to suspect my bet on Trump to win PA at 2.75 is shaky odds. Not terrible odds, but I wouldn't place it today at that.
If you are confident in the Economist analysis in terms of the support in each State relative to other States, then there might be value in combining a bet on Trump in PA with one on Biden for the General.
You are strongly encouraged to check in baggage to the aircraft hold and minimise any hand baggage. This will speed up boarding and disembarking and minimise the risk of transmission.
What the actual what - hand luggage means no one else touches it, checked in baggage is touched by multiple people and usually requires talking to people as it's rarely automated.
The last few times we have flown we have used the BA recommended airportr service which collected our bags from us at our overnight hotel, sealed them, and we only saw them again at baggage reclaim in Rome and Vancouver, though we did have text updates throughout the process.
At £20 per case it was great value and it enabled us to go straight to security avoiding check in or bag drop desks
5. We need to provide much more in the way of Corona-care at home, to prevent hospital admission if possible.
We are seeing our friends and relatives through video calling apps. Can we see our NHS doctors through a video calling app? Can we buggery. The NHS is an organisation that still makes appointments by letter. Calling 111 is fine, but this should be evolved into a system of having a video-conference appointment with a doctor, where a prima facie diagnosis can be made. Testing (also at home) should then be an option. Care, in the way of advice, monitoring and potentially a course of drugs, should then also be available at home. The NHS would then have a big head start if the case became more severe and a hospital admission was necessary.
3. The UK Cabinet would benefit from reinforcements.
It is unreasonable and unlikely to expect sackings of prominent Ministers, and equally unlikely that many 'big beasts' will re-enter the cabinet at a time when Boris looks tottery. It just isn't going to happen. However, the public probably would be heartened to see some new blood to give the front line some support, and this would imply no u-turn or weakness on the part of the Government. If the Covid were to be separated from the main NHS, I would suggest that this is two jobs. Matt Hancock would probably want to see Covid through, so another Minister would be acting Health Secretary. There also needs to be more support in the Business department. The PM also needs support, from a right hand with excellent PR skills who can smooth over the rough patches and allow Boris to be Boris. Even Margaret Thatcher had a lot of help.
4. There has been a huge lack of a strong public health message - there now needs to be one.
Short of telling us all to lose weight (a message that's diluted by the message to stay at home), it has been a pity that there's been very little health advice, to give people a better chance should they become infected. This would at worst have been useful displacement activity to people who've been bored or panicking over this time. Nutrition is a particularly important part of this. The message that we need to be better nourished in key areas, not just for Corona outcomes, but for healthier and longer lives, has been absent. This is something that can now come to the fore, as we move into higher-risk activities. Spreading this message would particularly suits Boris, as he is on his own health journey at the moment. Boris's 'Happy Birthday' whilst hand washing was a good piece of advice and resonated. Other similar vignettes would be good. That would be using the negative of coronavirus for a very lasting and positive reason.
Every sympathy with this esp 4 (I have been puitting it into practice myself). But I wonder, with the exception of cycling, is Mr Johnson's regime the right one for this? He did oppose the sugar tax, for instance.
You are strongly encouraged to check in baggage to the aircraft hold and minimise any hand baggage. This will speed up boarding and disembarking and minimise the risk of transmission.
What the actual what - hand luggage means no one else touches it, checked in baggage is touched by multiple people and usually requires talking to people as it's rarely automated.
I guess what they want to avoid is the nonsense that tends to go on before a flight where people take forever to sort their hand-luggage out and stand in the aisle blocking the path of other passengers from boarding.
Oh I'm sat down in my window seat well before that occurs (the advantage of the sheer number of flights I've made over the past few years).
Does that mean that the 75% of your posts of the last month relating to that irrelevance can be safely ignored? I guess folk can make their own minds up about the remaining 25%.
I was talking to Ishmael. I'm afraid I don't know much about haggis-themed poetry.
p.s. I did notice you picked up on my mention of Visigoths, so at least you got something out of them...
Haggis-themed.
Good one, positively Juvenal-esque. Or a word not dissimilar anyway.
Er, one of the best-known and most frequently recited poems of the most famous Scottish poet deals luxuriously with precisely that topic. Don't blame me, blame Burns!
3. The UK Cabinet would benefit from reinforcements.
It is unreasonable and unlikely to expect sackings of prominent Ministers, and equally unlikely that many 'big beasts' will re-enter the cabinet at a time when Boris looks tottery. It just isn't going to happen. However, the public probably would be heartened to see some new blood to give the front line some support, and this would imply no u-turn or weakness on the part of the Government. If the Covid were to be separated from the main NHS, I would suggest that this is two jobs. Matt Hancock would probably want to see Covid through, so another Minister would be acting Health Secretary. There also needs to be more support in the Business department. The PM also needs support, from a right hand with excellent PR skills who can smooth over the rough patches and allow Boris to be Boris. Even Margaret Thatcher had a lot of help.
4. There has been a huge lack of a strong public health message - there now needs to be one.
Short of telling us all to lose weight (a message that's diluted by the message to stay at home), it has been a pity that there's been very little health advice, to give people a better chance should they become infected. This would at worst have been useful displacement activity to people who've been bored or panicking over this time. Nutrition is a particularly important part of this. The message that we need to be better nourished in key areas, not just for Corona outcomes, but for healthier and longer lives, has been absent. This is something that can now come to the fore, as we move into higher-risk activities. Spreading this message would particularly suits Boris, as he is on his own health journey at the moment. Boris's 'Happy Birthday' whilst hand washing was a good piece of advice and resonated. Other similar vignettes would be good. That would be using the negative of coronavirus for a very lasting and positive reason.
Every sympathy with this esp 4 (I have been puitting it into practice myself). But I wonder, with the exception of cycling, is Mr Johnson's regime the right one for this? He did oppose the sugar tax, for instance.
I think the zeal of the convert would be appropriate
3. The UK Cabinet would benefit from reinforcements.
It is unreasonable and unlikely to expect sackings of prominent Ministers, and equally unlikely that many 'big beasts' will re-enter the cabinet at a time when Boris looks tottery. It just isn't going to happen. However, the public probably would be heartened to see some new blood to give the front line some support, and this would imply no u-turn or weakness on the part of the Government. If the Covid were to be separated from the main NHS, I would suggest that this is two jobs. Matt Hancock would probably want to see Covid through, so another Minister would be acting Health Secretary. There also needs to be more support in the Business department. The PM also needs support, from a right hand with excellent PR skills who can smooth over the rough patches and allow Boris to be Boris. Even Margaret Thatcher had a lot of help.
4. There has been a huge lack of a strong public health message - there now needs to be one.
Short of telling us all to lose weight (a message that's diluted by the message to stay at home), it has been a pity that there's been very little health advice, to give people a better chance should they become infected. This would at worst have been useful displacement activity to people who've been bored or panicking over this time. Nutrition is a particularly important part of this. The message that we need to be better nourished in key areas, not just for Corona outcomes, but for healthier and longer lives, has been absent. This is something that can now come to the fore, as we move into higher-risk activities. Spreading this message would particularly suits Boris, as he is on his own health journey at the moment. Boris's 'Happy Birthday' whilst hand washing was a good piece of advice and resonated. Other similar vignettes would be good. That would be using the negative of coronavirus for a very lasting and positive reason.
Every sympathy with this esp 4 (I have been puitting it into practice myself). But I wonder, with the exception of cycling, is Mr Johnson's regime the right one for this? He did oppose the sugar tax, for instance.
At some point soon pb's Conservatives are going to blame the dead for dying so prolifically and painting the government in a poor light. Anything rather than look at why Britain has done so terribly by any sensible international comparison.
Does this now mean if I contract a terminal disease, my family can cheerfully arrange and accompany me on my flight to Switzerland to check into the Dignitas Clinic for my early expiry with no recourse to UK law? Happy days!
Footage of the government discussing how to prioritise their COVID response efforts:
In a way I would say he's right, as the recent misadventures of Mrs PtP illustrate.
She was admitted for observation due to erratic C-19 symptoms. She certainly had it (despite a negative home test) but it seems that bacterial infections in the lungs and urinary tract had barged in through the door shoved open by the virus. Antibiotics blasted the bacteria away and the immune system of an unnaturally fit woman did the rest.
The outcome may not have been so positive on a more decrepit creature like myself. I suspect the certificate would as likely have blamed pneumonia as C-19.
When it's all done and dusted we'll have to look at 'excess death rates' as the most reliable guide. Meanwhile, Mrs PtP is recovering well with lots of R&R and of course my own special brand of TLC.
Thanks to all those who have enquired and sent their best wishes, by the way.
I missed that, my apologies. I am glad to hear that Mrs Punter is recovering (Y)
The consensus has been that we are facing an economic calamity. I have very much been a part of that and that is probably still my view but it is worth thinking about why the Treasury might think otherwise. The first reason is the tale of 2 lockdowns. Of the roughly 32m people working in this country about 5m work for the public sector. They have continued to receive their full wages throughout. Another 7-8m have been on furlough. Many of the these have received full wages, some only 80%. Some of these are actually doing second jobs (as is permitted) whilst on furlough. My daughter is working for a Tesco call centre at the moment dealing with home shopping. Most of those hastily recruited with her are on furlough from their main jobs and some of them will return to those jobs in due course. Right now they are getting paid twice. Several million more are self employed. If they have been earning under the cap then they have had grant assistance. Those who earn above the cap (like me) have lost out a lot more but all of the above along with pensioners have been severely restricted in their spending for 3 months now. No nights out, no restaurants, no foreign holidays, very few new clothes, very few new cars, no commuting, etc.
I think that a plausible case can be made for a significant pent up demand waiting to be unleashed starting Saturday. It exists in part as a result of government generosity in its schemes and that is unsustainable and will be wound down but it should not be under estimated. Will this be enough to save businesses hamstrung by social distancing, the pressure to have people WFH, the holiday and tourist industries, universities who have grown fat on overseas fees etc? Only in some cases. But it just might not be as bad as we think.
If that is the case the implications for the government going forward are going to be a lot more positive than is being assumed.
In a way I would say he's right, as the recent misadventures of Mrs PtP illustrate.
She was admitted for observation due to erratic C-19 symptoms. She certainly had it (despite a negative home test) but it seems that bacterial infections in the lungs and urinary tract had barged in through the door shoved open by the virus. Antibiotics blasted the bacteria away and the immune system of an unnaturally fit woman did the rest.
The outcome may not have been so positive on a more decrepit creature like myself. I suspect the certificate would as likely have blamed pneumonia as C-19.
When it's all done and dusted we'll have to look at 'excess death rates' as the most reliable guide. Meanwhile, Mrs PtP is recovering well with lots of R&R and of course my own special brand of TLC.
Thanks to all those who have enquired and sent their best wishes, by the way.
I missed that, my apologies. I am glad to hear that Mrs Punter is recovering (Y)
The consensus has been that we are facing an economic calamity. I have very much been a part of that and that is probably still my view but it is worth thinking about why the Treasury might think otherwise. The first reason is the tale of 2 lockdowns. Of the roughly 32m people working in this country about 5m work for the public sector. They have continued to receive their full wages throughout. Another 7-8m have been on furlough. Many of the these have received full wages, some only 80%. Some of these are actually doing second jobs (as is permitted) whilst on furlough. My daughter is working for a Tesco call centre at the moment dealing with home shopping. Most of those hastily recruited with her are on furlough from their main jobs and some of them will return to those jobs in due course. Right now they are getting paid twice. Several million more are self employed. If they have been earning under the cap then they have had grant assistance. Those who earn above the cap (like me) have lost out a lot more but all of the above along with pensioners have been severely restricted in their spending for 3 months now. No nights out, no restaurants, no foreign holidays, very few new clothes, very few new cars, no commuting, etc.
I think that a plausible case can be made for a significant pent up demand waiting to be unleashed starting Saturday. It exists in part as a result of government generosity in its schemes and that is unsustainable and will be wound down but it should not be under estimated. Will this be enough to save businesses hamstrung by social distancing, the pressure to have people WFH, the holiday and tourist industries, universities who have grown fat on overseas fees etc? Only in some cases. But it just might not be as bad as we think.
If that is the case the implications for the government going forward are going to be a lot more positive than is being assumed.
This may sound mad but we are a M & E contractor in Hampshire and we are busier than ever. We are currently recruiting.
Update from Poole (I've been around the statue this morning) - not being taken away today, council getting flack from all angles. The public overwhelmingly backing it staying.
Deputy leader of the council is the ward councillor. I suspect he realises the reputational damage this is doing.
The Economist has published their 2020 forecast, and it gives Biden a 5 in 6 chance of winning in November. Suspect when 538 and more models are published they will have vaguely similar (at least 65%+ probability) and the market will move accordingly, but we'll see.
To be clear, I expect there will be a gap between Betfair and forecasts until the votes are counted, but that the models will drag Betfair a bit more towards Biden nonetheless.
Yes, I'm starting to suspect my bet on Trump to win PA at 2.75 is shaky odds. Not terrible odds, but I wouldn't place it today at that.
If you are confident in the Economist analysis in terms of the support in each State relative to other States, then there might be value in combining a bet on Trump in PA with one on Biden for the General.
538 has slightly better news for Biden than The Economist, based on Trumps popularity.
The consensus has been that we are facing an economic calamity. I have very much been a part of that and that is probably still my view but it is worth thinking about why the Treasury might think otherwise. The first reason is the tale of 2 lockdowns. Of the roughly 32m people working in this country about 5m work for the public sector. They have continued to receive their full wages throughout. Another 7-8m have been on furlough. Many of the these have received full wages, some only 80%. Some of these are actually doing second jobs (as is permitted) whilst on furlough. My daughter is working for a Tesco call centre at the moment dealing with home shopping. Most of those hastily recruited with her are on furlough from their main jobs and some of them will return to those jobs in due course. Right now they are getting paid twice. Several million more are self employed. If they have been earning under the cap then they have had grant assistance. Those who earn above the cap (like me) have lost out a lot more but all of the above along with pensioners have been severely restricted in their spending for 3 months now. No nights out, no restaurants, no foreign holidays, very few new clothes, very few new cars, no commuting, etc.
I think that a plausible case can be made for a significant pent up demand waiting to be unleashed starting Saturday. It exists in part as a result of government generosity in its schemes and that is unsustainable and will be wound down but it should not be under estimated. Will this be enough to save businesses hamstrung by social distancing, the pressure to have people WFH, the holiday and tourist industries, universities who have grown fat on overseas fees etc? Only in some cases. But it just might not be as bad as we think.
If that is the case the implications for the government going forward are going to be a lot more positive than is being assumed.
This may sound mad but we are a M & E contractor in Hampshire and we are busier than ever. We are currently recruiting.
We've just unsuspend hiring for 7 new roles in my department. Good thing too, I fear it's not going to be easy to fill the roles either.
Glad to hear that. There will be redundancies, possibly 1m, and there will be collapsing businesses, especially in retail and leisure. Some businesses who have been dependent upon imports will face disruption and struggle. But others, focused on the domestic market may thrive, just as @NerysHughes describes.
As a Tory Councillor (and one who sat on a Planning Committee for 11 glorious years), I'm sorry but Robert Jenrick has to go. Richard Desmond paid £12000 to sit next to him at a fundraising dinner, lobbied hard about his application. Although Jenrick says he couldn't talk about it (quite right too) a few days later he overrules the Planning Inspector (whom he himself - legally at least - appointed) who concurred with the Council that the application be refused. That is an extremely rare occurrence.
But then it all gets much much darker. Faced by a judicial review, Jenrick at once revokes the permission he's just granted so that all correspondence relating to it does not have to be published. And today he decides not to appear in the Commons to answer questions about his own personal actions.
It is simply not good enough. A Councillor in a similar position would very possibly face prosecution. He just walks away as if nothing had happened. A disgrace - he should be fired.
Does that mean that the 75% of your posts of the last month relating to that irrelevance can be safely ignored? I guess folk can make their own minds up about the remaining 25%.
I was talking to Ishmael. I'm afraid I don't know much about haggis-themed poetry.
p.s. I did notice you picked up on my mention of Visigoths, so at least you got something out of them...
Haggis-themed.
Good one, positively Juvenal-esque. Or a word not dissimilar anyway.
Er, one of the best-known and most frequently recited poems of the most famous Scottish poet deals luxuriously with precisely that topic. Don't blame me, blame Burns!
Golly, it appears that you do know something about haggis-themed poetry. I'm afraid my knowledge of a neigbouring culture yields nothing on the Yorkshire pudding front, my bad.
Glad to hear that. There will be redundancies, possibly 1m, and there will be collapsing businesses, especially in retail and leisure. Some businesses who have been dependent upon imports will face disruption and struggle. But others, focused on the domestic market may thrive, just as @NerysHughes describes.
From what I can tell the City is about to go on a hiring spree.
The consensus has been that we are facing an economic calamity. I have very much been a part of that and that is probably still my view but it is worth thinking about why the Treasury might think otherwise. The first reason is the tale of 2 lockdowns. Of the roughly 32m people working in this country about 5m work for the public sector. They have continued to receive their full wages throughout. Another 7-8m have been on furlough. Many of the these have received full wages, some only 80%. Some of these are actually doing second jobs (as is permitted) whilst on furlough. My daughter is working for a Tesco call centre at the moment dealing with home shopping. Most of those hastily recruited with her are on furlough from their main jobs and some of them will return to those jobs in due course. Right now they are getting paid twice. Several million more are self employed. If they have been earning under the cap then they have had grant assistance. Those who earn above the cap (like me) have lost out a lot more but all of the above along with pensioners have been severely restricted in their spending for 3 months now. No nights out, no restaurants, no foreign holidays, very few new clothes, very few new cars, no commuting, etc.
I think that a plausible case can be made for a significant pent up demand waiting to be unleashed starting Saturday. It exists in part as a result of government generosity in its schemes and that is unsustainable and will be wound down but it should not be under estimated. Will this be enough to save businesses hamstrung by social distancing, the pressure to have people WFH, the holiday and tourist industries, universities who have grown fat on overseas fees etc? Only in some cases. But it just might not be as bad as we think.
If that is the case the implications for the government going forward are going to be a lot more positive than is being assumed.
I hesitate to contribute an insensitive observation, but the Treasury has also shuffled off some long-term state pension liability.
Does that mean that the 75% of your posts of the last month relating to that irrelevance can be safely ignored? I guess folk can make their own minds up about the remaining 25%.
I was talking to Ishmael. I'm afraid I don't know much about haggis-themed poetry.
p.s. I did notice you picked up on my mention of Visigoths, so at least you got something out of them...
Haggis-themed.
Good one, positively Juvenal-esque. Or a word not dissimilar anyway.
Er, one of the best-known and most frequently recited poems of the most famous Scottish poet deals luxuriously with precisely that topic. Don't blame me, blame Burns!
Golly, it appears that you do know something about haggis-themed poetry. I'm afraid my knowledge of a neigbouring culture yields nothing on the Yorkshire pudding front, my bad.
Update from Poole (I've been around the statue this morning) - not being taken away today, council getting flack from all angles. The public overwhelmingly backing it staying.
Deputy leader of the council is the ward councillor. I suspect he realises the reputational damage this is doing.
We are not far away from pitched battles between statue defenders and statue removers.
The government should declare that NO statues are going down until we have had a proper debate about this very important matter and some votes on it.
Any statues that are taken down will be replaced immediately.
At some point soon pb's Conservatives are going to blame the dead for dying so prolifically and painting the government in a poor light. Anything rather than look at why Britain has done so terribly by any sensible international comparison.
Could also be legitimate to have COVID-19 as immediate cause of death if the immediate cause of death is seen as an inherent feature of COVID-19, but most of those who died will have other contributing factors as mostly they are older or have underlying conditions. Those contributing factors don't mean they were close to death before infection.
Also, as I've mentioned before, that's the theory, but the practice is unfortunately a lot more variable. I was involved in a study for people with terminal conditions and for many the terminal conditions did not make it on to the death certificate (because say, they died of an infection as immediate cause, but the terminal illness was still the underlying cause)
The official figure of "COVID-19 Deaths (confirmed by Public Health or NHS laboratory)" can be found here https://verify-it-c19data.co.uk/ But how accurate the official figures are is another matter.
Update from Poole (I've been around the statue this morning) - not being taken away today, council getting flack from all angles. The public overwhelmingly backing it staying.
Deputy leader of the council is the ward councillor. I suspect he realises the reputational damage this is doing.
We are not far away from pitched battles between statue defenders and statue removers.
The government should declare that NO statues are going down until we have had a proper debate about this very important matter and some votes on it.
Any statues that are taken down will be replaced immediately.
At risk statues will have extra CCTV installed.
The battles are lined up for this weekend apparently.
Maybe the lockdown should be reintroduced in order to clear the streets and calm everyone down?
It is simply not good enough. A Councillor in a similar position would very possibly face prosecution. He just walks away as if nothing had happened. A disgrace - he should be fired.
Comments
If however [the theory was] the UK locks down too early then even if we defeat the virus domestically only to see it surge back in from overseas where the pandemic is worse than the UK and we have a major second surge.
Its not playing out [yet] according to their warnings about a second wave. But its worth remembering why those warnings exist - the Spanish Flu, so infamous for killing so many, was most deadly during its second wave not the first wave. That is what the scientists were worrying and warning about.
She was admitted for observation due to erratic C-19 symptoms. She certainly had it (despite a negative home test) but it seems that bacterial infections in the lungs and urinary tract had barged in through the door shoved open by the virus. Antibiotics blasted the bacteria away and the immune system of an unnaturally fit woman did the rest.
The outcome may not have been so positive on a more decrepit creature like myself. I suspect the certificate would as likely have blamed pneumonia as C-19.
When it's all done and dusted we'll have to look at 'excess death rates' as the most reliable guide. Meanwhile, Mrs PtP is recovering well with lots of R&R and of course my own special brand of TLC.
Thanks to all those who have enquired and sent their best wishes, by the way.
Therefore, all other things being equal you would expect the same rate of death.
However, there is the suspicion that, in order to avoid too much pressure on hospitals in the UK that sick people were told to stay at home and were not admitted to hospital until their condition had deteriorated beyond a stage where some of them could be helped with interventions (such as oxygen) that would have saved them if made earlier.
Thus a higher rate of death in the UK.
Could also be legitimate to have COVID-19 as immediate cause of death if the immediate cause of death is seen as an inherent feature of COVID-19, but most of those who died will have other contributing factors as mostly they are older or have underlying conditions. Those contributing factors don't mean they were close to death before infection.
Also, as I've mentioned before, that's the theory, but the practice is unfortunately a lot more variable. I was involved in a study for people with terminal conditions and for many the terminal conditions did not make it on to the death certificate (because say, they died of an infection as immediate cause, but the terminal illness was still the underlying cause)
They were leaving old people outside to die as they had no room for them.
It is unfounded to claim that a large proportion of those who died from COVID-19 in 2020 would have died in any case this year....these would be alive now in the absense of coronavrius and would probably still be alive in several years' time.
https://www.theactuary.com/features/2020/05/07/co-morbidity-question
On the other hand I would expect Sturgeon (or whoever replaces her) to remain popular with 18-40 year old voters and that will probably remain a problem for Lab.
Ok it's not a disease that only kills the elderly or already ill, it just doesn't kill anyone else
It is that - on this logic, not mine (edit) - Mr Johnson was already dangerously unfit to be PM.
Are PBTories willing to accept responsibility for foisting such a PM on the UK?
Other prominent eugenicists are ... Darwin, many famous Liberal & Labour MPs from the late nineteenth century/early twentieth century, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, Harold Laski, John Maynard Keynes, Virginia Woolf, TS Eliot, DH Lawrence, Julian Huxley, Marie Stopes, George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells and William Beveridge.
Does he have any actual evidence for that ?
My own (anecdotal) experience is quite the opposite.
"Yes yes, it's unlikely the case will win, but if you insist we can give it a go I suppose."
"Our fees, ah yes."
Farage is a cancer survivor.
So Jo Swinson was correct in saying she was PM material after all!
To be clear, I expect there will be a gap between Betfair and forecasts until the votes are counted, but that the models will drag Betfair a bit more towards Biden nonetheless.
https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.15.20067074v3.full.pdf+html
To summarise, the first part of the Cause of Death section of the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death asks for a reason chain of "direct" causes (death was directly "led to" by Ia, which can then be described as "led to" by Ib, which can then be described as "led to" by Ic) and the second ("other significant conditions contributing to death") asks for a reason spray of "underlying" background "contibutory" causes (or if you like, one or more conditions that "contributed" to death but weren't part of what "caused" it).
Covid may be listed either under I or II. Are there any public statistics on how many times it has appeared in I, how many in II, and how many in each of Ia, Ib, and Ic? (I suspect if it goes into I it may not be appropriate to list it under Ia but would be interested to hear from someone who knows.)
The following advice needs some light shed on it too: "For example, if before death the patient had symptoms typical of COVID-19 infection, but the test result has not been received, it would be satisfactory to give ‘COVID-19’ as the cause of death".
https://genius.com/The-smiths-sweet-and-tender-hooligan-lyrics
AFAIK, just about all co's affected by the Act HAVE filed - and updated - their statement.
And, as someone who advises businesses on their supply chain for a living, I'd say that failure to adjust a firm's operating policies now has potentially devastating effects. Just about every UK company >36mn involved in clothing is now under constant investigation by corporate shareholders and "consumer" activists for behaviour that might be contrary to the spirit of the MSA, even in areas (like arguably low wages) that aren't covered by the MSA.
While this is a pain, there's no doubt in my view that the MSA has stimulated this scrutiny and that such scrutiny is probably more effective than legal sanctions in upping the overall level of ethics (at least about how supply-chain employees are treated) among firms buying from developing countries.
Doesn't of course do anything about the commercial pressures Western buyers put on their developing-country suppliers - and it's arguable that pressure not to look vulnerable to "fashionable" ethical criticism (like on carbon use, or gender equal opportunities) undermines developing country suppliers' ability to pay living wages.
Amid concerns that black and Asian communities have suffered disproportionate numbers of deaths from coronavirus in the UK, Labour MP Afzal Khan challenged the government in the House of Commons over why it chose the Isle of Wight to try out the NHS contact tracing mobile phone app.
Mr Khan says the island has an "overwhelmingly white population", while black and Asian people may be less likely to trust the app due to their experiences of discrimination and profiling.
But Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove said the Isle of Wight was the right place to conduct the trial because it was "geographically secure", so the government could learn lessons "rapidly" about the uptake of the app and its operation in a controlled setting.
Why do you waste time attacking behavioural scientists?
On a slightly different tack, if someone dies with a treatable condition because routine hospital admissions have been cancelled, would it also be "satisfactory" to give 'COVID-19' as the cause of death?
My conclusion looks sound. Thanks for confirming.
Good one, positively Juvenal-esque.
Or a word not dissimilar anyway.
You are strongly encouraged to check in baggage to the aircraft hold and minimise any hand baggage. This will speed up boarding and disembarking and minimise the risk of transmission.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-safer-air-travel-guidance-for-passengers
Isn't there a channel through which the country's chief executive can discuss security matters with state and city chief executives that doesn't involve typing dramatic "tweets" with lots of capital letters and exclamation marks like a 12-year-old girl chewing gum in a shopping mall? I bet there is in China.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1270914092295950337
Sometimes I think that forecasts, no matter how intelligent, are little better than opinions.
*bit in brackets entirely made up. All Google would tell me was that he was a guitarist with the Casuals. May not be the same guy
Speaking on condition of anonymity because the meetings are private, the people said Cummings asked why a lockdown was not being imposed sooner, swayed the discussion toward faster action, and made clear he thought pubs and restaurants should be closed within two days. They then were.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-28/top-aide-to-u-k-s-johnson-pushed-scientists-to-back-lockdown
I fear the UK response has been slowed by "Committee-itis" "On the one hand, on the other hand" - in Guernsey we have a CMO who is an epidemiologist and she was responsible for the recommendations to (effectively) the two politicians who took the decisions.
People complain about Trump's tweeting but it's like a permanent freedom-of-information request directly into his brain. Don't shoot the messenger, the problem is the brain.
As far as Seattle goes the mayor seems to be sensibly leaving the TAZ to collapse on its own internal contradictions.
The Italian total excess mortality numbers (gold standard, we've been told) were at 46 700 on April 30. They will have gone up since then, but they are going to have to do a lot of catching up (500 a day?) to overtake the UK with 64 200 on May 29.
Yes, there are problems with international comparisons, because different countries are working to different standards. But in democracies, you can rely reasonably well on counts of dead people being honest and consistent.
The simplest way of reading the data we have is that the UK handled the Spring 2020 wave worse than most other countries, and that more UK citizens have died than citizens of Italy, France, Germany, quite probably Spain. That might be bad luck, or it might be bad judgement, or it might be a mixture of the two. But unless the UK as a whole accepts that information, we're hobbling ourselves about doing better in the future.
Most people would not work and would live off a universal basic income funded by a robot tax
Does this now mean if I contract a terminal disease, my family can cheerfully arrange and accompany me on my flight to Switzerland to check into the Dignitas Clinic for my early expiry with no recourse to UK law? Happy days!
Edit: I might have used the wrong figure for that though. Not sure where their 33,000 is from, as I have 34,000 for the "official tally" now.
1. Sufferer outcomes from hospital treatment need to improve significantly, through best practice evolving, and more therapies being tried and discussed.
The NHS has been true to form - it has been a relatively efficient provider of a healthcare service (has not failed), but relatively weak in patient outcomes, and as ever given lots more people the bug. I am disappointed, though not surprised, that we seem not to have learned much in the way of Covid-19 best practise, apart from the crucial change of trying not to ventilate people, and proning. The NHS is nursing people through Corona, not doctored them through it. It seems clear to me as an informed member of the public that deficiencies of Vitamin D and Zinc are being implicated again and again. But as far as I know, vitamins and minerals aren't being significantly used in treatment. If they didn't do any good, they would still be a potentially beneficial placebo. Sharing best practice and learning from world best practise needs to be built into Doctor's working time, rather than just firefighting.
2. The 'Covid' NHS clearly needs to be separated from the main NHS, now.
The reasons for this are huge and obvious. This is apparently already taking place, by moving wings etc., but I think it needs to be in totally separate hospitals and nursing homes with their own staff. My favoured way of doing this would be to re-open small local hospitals and nursing homes that have been mothballed. Politically, this would also be a good move. It would neatly achieve the '40 hospitals' target. If Corona (or other infectious diseases) continues to be an issue, they will be invaluable. If they do not, there are probably other clinical uses for the restored hospitals.
It is unreasonable and unlikely to expect sackings of prominent Ministers, and equally unlikely that many 'big beasts' will re-enter the cabinet at a time when Boris looks tottery. It just isn't going to happen. However, the public probably would be heartened to see some new blood to give the front line some support, and this would imply no u-turn or weakness on the part of the Government. If the Covid were to be separated from the main NHS, I would suggest that this is two jobs. Matt Hancock would probably want to see Covid through, so another Minister would be acting Health Secretary. There also needs to be more support in the Business department. The PM also needs support, from a right hand with excellent PR skills who can smooth over the rough patches and allow Boris to be Boris. Even Margaret Thatcher had a lot of help.
4. There has been a huge lack of a strong public health message - there now needs to be one.
Short of telling us all to lose weight (a message that's diluted by the message to stay at home), it has been a pity that there's been very little health advice, to give people a better chance should they become infected. This would at worst have been useful displacement activity to people who've been bored or panicking over this time. Nutrition is a particularly important part of this. The message that we need to be better nourished in key areas, not just for Corona outcomes, but for healthier and longer lives, has been absent. This is something that can now come to the fore, as we move into higher-risk activities. Spreading this message would particularly suits Boris, as he is on his own health journey at the moment. Boris's 'Happy Birthday' whilst hand washing was a good piece of advice and resonated. Other similar vignettes would be good. That would be using the negative of coronavirus for a very lasting and positive reason.
So the danger is to the "younger" old rather than the "older" old?
Re "was dying anyway", if it means in 2020 the excess deaths figure for 2020 deals with this - since the base against which the excess is calculated is expected deaths in 2020. It's macro modelling rather than looking at individuals but is accepted as pretty accurate.
If it means would have died in 2021 we must wait to compare the total all-cause deaths figure for 2020 to that for 2021. Assuming the waters are not muddied by another epidemic next year of either this disease or a different one (e.g. flu) - or by something else unusual and causing much death - then if significant it should show up as negative excess deaths in 2021. Being the absence from the data of people who succumbed to Covid-19 in 2020 "a year before their time" (as it were).
But tbh all this has a futile and slightly "off" feel to me. You live until you die. 'How long you would have lived if you hadn't stop living' does not strike me as a particularly useful or interesting line of inquiry.
At £20 per case it was great value and it enabled us to go straight to security avoiding check in or bag drop desks
We are seeing our friends and relatives through video calling apps. Can we see our NHS doctors through a video calling app? Can we buggery. The NHS is an organisation that still makes appointments by letter. Calling 111 is fine, but this should be evolved into a system of having a video-conference appointment with a doctor, where a prima facie diagnosis can be made. Testing (also at home) should then be an option. Care, in the way of advice, monitoring and potentially a course of drugs, should then also be available at home. The NHS would then have a big head start if the case became more severe and a hospital admission was necessary.
(Starting at 1:32)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf9iTZ433zs&t=92
Another Project Fear lie bites the dust
The first reason is the tale of 2 lockdowns. Of the roughly 32m people working in this country about 5m work for the public sector. They have continued to receive their full wages throughout. Another 7-8m have been on furlough. Many of the these have received full wages, some only 80%. Some of these are actually doing second jobs (as is permitted) whilst on furlough. My daughter is working for a Tesco call centre at the moment dealing with home shopping. Most of those hastily recruited with her are on furlough from their main jobs and some of them will return to those jobs in due course. Right now they are getting paid twice. Several million more are self employed. If they have been earning under the cap then they have had grant assistance. Those who earn above the cap (like me) have lost out a lot more but all of the above along with pensioners have been severely restricted in their spending for 3 months now. No nights out, no restaurants, no foreign holidays, very few new clothes, very few new cars, no commuting, etc.
I think that a plausible case can be made for a significant pent up demand waiting to be unleashed starting Saturday. It exists in part as a result of government generosity in its schemes and that is unsustainable and will be wound down but it should not be under estimated.
Will this be enough to save businesses hamstrung by social distancing, the pressure to have people WFH, the holiday and tourist industries, universities who have grown fat on overseas fees etc? Only in some cases. But it just might not be as bad as we think.
If that is the case the implications for the government going forward are going to be a lot more positive than is being assumed.
I'm not in the 'at risk' group. For now.
Deputy leader of the council is the ward councillor. I suspect he realises the reputational damage this is doing.
But then it all gets much much darker. Faced by a judicial review, Jenrick at once revokes the permission he's just granted so that all correspondence relating to it does not have to be published. And today he decides not to appear in the Commons to answer questions about his own personal actions.
It is simply not good enough. A Councillor in a similar position would very possibly face prosecution. He just walks away as if nothing had happened. A disgrace - he should be fired.
https://www.poetrysoup.com/poems/best/yorkshire_pudding
The government should declare that NO statues are going down until we have had a proper debate about this very important matter and some votes on it.
Any statues that are taken down will be replaced immediately.
At risk statues will have extra CCTV installed.
But how accurate the official figures are is another matter.
Maybe the lockdown should be reintroduced in order to clear the streets and calm everyone down?
Never explain, never apologise.
Another giant Fuck You to the public