Was this site mostly pro or anti Brexit during the referendum?
By IQ? Overwhelmingly Remain.
Hmm, RCS1000 doesn't exactly have a low IQ...
A blind spot.
The biggest of which, common to many Leavers on here, was "this is not what I voted for/thought was going to happen/the action of any kind of sane government".
Then you have the @Richard_Tyndalls and @isams and @Casino_Royales of this world for whom any flavour of out is better than any flavour of in although don't mention EEA/EFTA or you'll have them fighting like cats in a sack.
That’s not true, I would happily have voted remain if they stopped FOM.
Gotit.
Although that is a hypothetical too far given it was an impossibility. To amend a popular aunt/uncle saying, it's like saying you would happily shag Gordon Brown if he was female, 5ft 8ins and a supermodel.
I edited my answer to say
“I’d say there wouldn’t have been a referendum, UKIP wouldn’t have got 12.5% in a GE and nobody would have heard of Nigel Farage had Blair handled A8 accession more carefully. No one cared about the EU before it had a tangible effect on their everyday life”
There was an EU, that we were part of, pre 2004, and there was not much desire from the public to leave it
Don't disagree at all. For me it was throwing the baby out with the bathwater but we have all had that discussion plus I benefited from cheap imported labour and again, now is not the time to look at the studies of what cheap imported labour does to the indigenous labour market.
Suffice to say people are rejoicing because factor input costs will rise which means prices will rise and many people think that is a good thing.
Was this site mostly pro or anti Brexit during the referendum?
Massively pro-Brexit. Only a few brave souls stayed to do their bit against the shrill rants of 'traitor. Traitor! TRAITOR!' that consumed the place.
No it wasn't, the only polling of PB voting intention had more LDs than average and fewer UKIP than the national average in 2015.
Those who did back Leave on here tended to be soft Brexiteers, you can count the pro WTO Terms Brexit backers on here on 1 hand
And yet the minuscule contingent of WTO-ers won hands down in the end. Just goes to show what a bunch of drooling eunuchs the Softies really were, their 'vision' a hollow mockery.
Ironically they will probably need a Starmer premiership to get to that soft Brexit now
The Government is honestly better off giving BT £500m for FTTP.
Um, James Ball isn't telling us anything we shouldn't already know, the reason why Huawei couldn't be binned immediately is that it's a core part of EE's (and BT's) systems
And because 5G is just an add-on to 4G for a lot of systems it's just a software update that is required
I would be really interested in how those numbers are arrived at, particularly fibre optics. As you say it must be Openreach or Virgin badged kit. Huawei must be the supplier to those people.
Was this site mostly pro or anti Brexit during the referendum?
Massively pro-Brexit. Only a few brave souls stayed to do their bit against the shrill rants of 'traitor. Traitor! TRAITOR!' that consumed the place.
No it wasn't, the only polling of PB voting intention had more LDs than average and fewer UKIP than the national average in 2015.
Those who did back Leave on here tended to be soft Brexiteers, you can count the pro WTO Terms Brexit backers on here on 1 hand
Not these days. There are now a great many PB posters who are up for some WTO. Perhaps this is the radicalization of Leavers that @AlastairMeeks used to sometimes refer to.
Was this site mostly pro or anti Brexit during the referendum?
Massively pro-Brexit. Only a few brave souls stayed to do their bit against the shrill rants of 'traitor. Traitor! TRAITOR!' that consumed the place.
No it wasn't, the only polling of PB voting intention had more LDs than average and fewer UKIP than the national average in 2015.
Those who did back Leave on here tended to be soft Brexiteers, you can count the pro WTO Terms Brexit backers on here on 1 hand
And yet the minuscule contingent of WTO-ers won hands down in the end. Just goes to show what a bunch of drooling eunuchs the Softies really were, their 'vision' a hollow mockery.
Ironically they will probably need a Starmer premiership to get to that soft Brexit now
Disagree. I think we will get a soft Brexit under this government.
Was this site mostly pro or anti Brexit during the referendum?
Massively pro-Brexit. Only a few brave souls stayed to do their bit against the shrill rants of 'traitor. Traitor! TRAITOR!' that consumed the place.
No it wasn't, the only polling of PB voting intention had more LDs than average and fewer UKIP than the national average in 2015.
Those who did back Leave on here tended to be soft Brexiteers, you can count the pro WTO Terms Brexit backers on here on 1 hand
And yet the minuscule contingent of WTO-ers won hands down in the end. Just goes to show what a bunch of drooling eunuchs the Softies really were, their 'vision' a hollow mockery.
Ironically they will probably need a Starmer premiership to get to that soft Brexit now
Disagree. I think we will get a soft Brexit under this government.
Not fully as it will still require an end to free movement to keep the Red Wall.
Plus even if it does the likes of Rees Mogg and Cash and Redwood and IDS and Francois and Dorries will be fuming if Boris concedes the regulatory alignment with the single market the EU wants for a trade deal
Was this site mostly pro or anti Brexit during the referendum?
Massively pro-Brexit. Only a few brave souls stayed to do their bit against the shrill rants of 'traitor. Traitor! TRAITOR!' that consumed the place.
No it wasn't, the only polling of PB voting intention had more LDs than average and fewer UKIP than the national average in 2015.
Those who did back Leave on here tended to be soft Brexiteers, you can count the pro WTO Terms Brexit backers on here on 1 hand
And yet the minuscule contingent of WTO-ers won hands down in the end. Just goes to show what a bunch of drooling eunuchs the Softies really were, their 'vision' a hollow mockery.
Ironically they will probably need a Starmer premiership to get to that soft Brexit now
Disagree. I think we will get a soft Brexit under this government.
Not fully as it will still require an end to free movement to keep the Red Wall.
Plus even if it does the likes of Rees Mogg and Cash and Redwood and IDS and Francois and Dorries will be fuming if Boris concedes the regulatory alignment with the single market the EU wants for a trade deal
We will see. Details tbc but I predict with great confidence that the agreement will leave us far closer to quasi EU membership than to WTO.
Boris - when in a hole never admit you are in a hole... Just keep digging and eventually you will get out.
Fairly soon I think this philosophy is going to result in him being buried alive..
Unfortunately, I'm increasingly of the view that the remarks made here by a government loyalist in the early days of Dom's Adventures in Durhamland were right. Not morally right, but an accurate reflection of reality.
Unless 40+ Conservative MPs defect to the opposition, or 183 vote against him in an internal vote of confidence, there's no reason for him to go anywhere. And having purged the most obvious traitors in 2019, those are both huge hurdles.
There's no actual process to get Boris or his favourites out before 2024. So until then, we plebs should just jog on. I think some of them enjoy the impotent rage.
Freezing Stamp Duty? £1.3 billion Cost of the Job Retention Scheme? £123 billion Watching Piers Morgan rant and wail because Boris dared to demure from his sacred view of Who Is To Blame?
Priceless
You've misspelt demur. I know as a classicist and alumni of one of the UK's great universities (as you never tire of telling us) that you're a stickler for that kind of thing, and would prefer to have it pointed out.
LOL, they churn out these thick as mince tossers with 2:1's by the barrow load
Is that a Grocer's barrow? It looks like his apostrophe.
Apparently the problem with Starkey's dropped bollock was down to a comprehension problem. I'm guessing it isn't his own comprehension he's talking about.
'The historian said the “misunderstanding of my words in no way reflects my views or practice on race”.'
Not dissimilar to the way we poor oiks have misunderstood “Too many care homes didn’t really follow the procedures”. We really need to up our game.
Johnson was defended by Alok Sharma this morning on the grounds that "there weren't any procedures" therefore he - Johnson - was not criticizing care home staff who had "done brilliantly".
Those Johnson comments again - "care homes did not always follow the procedures."
This is gaslighting but so as not to cause @TOPPING a brain-ache let's call it what it also is - trolling. Trolling care home workers. Trolling anybody with a care for integrity and competence in government.
We need another election asap imo. The country has made a clear and grievous error. We deserve a chance to rectify matters before too much damage is done.
The grievous error was that Labour decided to put up a not-so-crypto-Marxist as its candidate for the premiership because he tickled their funny bone and promised to make their wildest confiscatory fantasies come true. Just like said fantasies, they imagined that decision would be without cost. Well, it wasn't - the cost is half a decade in the wilderness watching the other side make all the decisions. And if Labour decide to go overboard on wealth taxes and wokeness, it'll be another five years after that, until they finally get the message...
This - the Con win was because of Corbyn - has become a self-serving trope for people. A comfort blanket.
"Get Brexit Done" was potent and the "Boris" brand had real appeal to the Leave voters he needed in swing seats in the North and the Midlands. I heard the vox pops and the focus groups. There is no question about this.
With a moderate Labour leader the margin would have been less than 80 but the Cons would still have won. It wasn't all about Corbyn. He was key but Brexit was also key and so was "Boris". Give the guy (and Cummings for the messaging) some credit.
As for you, you seem to be content with a government sans vision or integrity or competence, whose only objective in power is to flaunt the fact they have power and to rile opponents. Fair enough. I want you to be happy. But it does strike me as rather hollow.
Flaunting power and riling opponents is naturally fun, but my contentment with them comes largely from viewing what their job is from a different perspective. In general - global pandemics are obviously an exception - I want the government not to do or change things if possible, whereas your default is the opposite. Every tradition that remains intact, every institution that is not 'modernised' or subjected to 'progress', every tax that is not raised is a victory as far as I'm concerned, and yet to you it will appear that the government is doing nothing. It's not - it's conserving.
Honestly, I'd like to see how much he has taken out of his company over the last decade and then compare it to how much was spent on infectious disease planning. These owners are basically all shysters and troughers.
Do you have that attitude for all sectors of business?
The only reason energy is expensive is that the owners of energy companies are all shysters and troughers?
Should we nationalise everything and become a Communist utopia in your eyes?
Well no, they all went to their shareholders for cash calls in the last few months. That's what shareholders are for. I'm taking issue with this idea that the government should take the blame for carehome owners not wanting to spend the money they needed to.
The government pays for care (or private individuals do) so if the costs for PPE goes up then the government needs to pay more and/or fees need to go up.
Again, at the beginning of the pandemic, we know that the NHS with the unlimited resources of government behind it was unable to access adequate PPE for a time. Care homes, however well managed (and both we and government knew that many aren't), quite clearly would be in a worse situation. To expect that Covid patients could safely be dumped on care homes was simply irresponsible.
I think it was the complete lack of testing before putting residents back in care homes that was the most irresponsible decision of this crisis. It should have been possible to test a few thousand people for the virus before sending them back, that no one in PHE thought to do it is another indictment of that organisation which has completely failed the country time and again. The original decision to free up bed space for expected incoming patients made sense, but the manner in which it was achieved gave the worst possible outcome.
I don't disagree with that. The failings of public health are not, of course, the sole responsibility of the current government. The decline in capacity began two decades ago, and problems were likely exacerbated by Lansley separating the service out from the rest of healthcare.
PHE is, of course, the organisation tasked with contagious disease surveillance and control, and it seems clear that they were significantly lacking in capacity, whether management, number and scale of public health laboratories, or sheer numbers of staff available for (eg) contact tracing.
As an aside, the Deputy CMO, whose performance during the pandemic appears lamentable, was formerly a regional director of PHE.
While the decision to empty the hospitals of the clinically well , but in need of care, population is now seen as an error, we also know far more today about asymptotic transmission than we did in March. Someone with no symptoms in hospital for say 5 days would have been seen as not in need of a test back then. Now we know different.
The guff about asymptomatic transmission, in this context, is pure deflection.
For a start, there were numerous papers recommending a 14 day quarantine period for travellers from areas with outbreaks, as early as January this year.* It's basic public health not to move people from an area of infection into a vulnerable community.
Moreover, if you look at the actual discharge guidance, there is no reference to asymptomatic individuals. And those discharge requirements were issued at the same time as Public Health England removed Covid-19's classification as a "High consequence infectious disease".
(*edit - and references to asymptomatic viral shedding back in February. The Japanese found around 40% of the cruise ship infected to be asymptomatic, and noted the risk that they could be infectious. The paper was published on February 11th.)
And this paper first posted online on February 18th:
The suggestion by No.10 that the possibility of asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic infections wasn't known about very early on indeed is simply insulting.
My late father taught Mathematics to one of the victims, Samantha Badham. My father was shaken that someone from a Herefordshire Market Town would find herself caught up in such an event.
Was this site mostly pro or anti Brexit during the referendum?
By IQ? Overwhelmingly Remain.
Hmm, RCS1000 doesn't exactly have a low IQ...
A blind spot.
The biggest of which, common to many Leavers on here, was "this is not what I voted for/thought was going to happen/the action of any kind of sane government".
Then you have the @Richard_Tyndalls and @isams and @Casino_Royales of this world for whom any flavour of out is better than any flavour of in although don't mention EEA/EFTA or you'll have them fighting like cats in a sack.
That’s not true, I would happily have voted remain if they stopped FOM.
I’d say there wouldn’t have been a referendum, UKIP wouldn’t have got 12.5% in a GE and nobody would have heard of Nigel Farage had Blair handled A8 accession more carefully. No one cared about the EU before it had a tangible effect on their everyday life
So you could have lived with the ECJ interfering with our bananas?
For me, yes. FoM didn't become a popular issue until it applied to economies very divergent from ours. If there were no FoM (but of course high levels of immigration permitted under a UK policy ), and a permanent Euro opt out then two essentials of 'being a single state' would have been averted. While having all sorts of annoying features EU membership would have been OK for now. But, and it's a big but, 'Ever Closer Union' is still the agenda.
I never minded honest Europe supporters who favoured the big integrated state, but the deniers, who wanted all the EU while pretending it was something different from a Union of states were and are irritating.
I've assumed that there's a large element of dishonesty in Iran's reported Corona numbers, so I'm struggling to understand why they're now reporting a daily death toll of 200 - a new record for them.
Can it be that their second wave is really worse than the first, that there are some honest people at work, and there's only so many deaths the regime can hide?
If you look at the world, overall,there is now some very tentative evidence that the virus is slowing down, and weakening in its lethality (perhaps because of better treatments)
Badly. It's always nice when fact checker get their facts wrong. The internet was indeed an American invention. The 'fact checkers' have confused the internet with the World Wide Web (which wasn't actually much of an innovation anyway, since there were already hyperlink-based systems).
Honestly, I'd like to see how much he has taken out of his company over the last decade and then compare it to how much was spent on infectious disease planning. These owners are basically all shysters and troughers.
Do you have that attitude for all sectors of business?
The only reason energy is expensive is that the owners of energy companies are all shysters and troughers?
Should we nationalise everything and become a Communist utopia in your eyes?
Well no, they all went to their shareholders for cash calls in the last few months. That's what shareholders are for. I'm taking issue with this idea that the government should take the blame for carehome owners not wanting to spend the money they needed to.
The government pays for care (or private individuals do) so if the costs for PPE goes up then the government needs to pay more and/or fees need to go up.
Again, at the beginning of the pandemic, we know that the NHS with the unlimited resources of government behind it was unable to access adequate PPE for a time. Care homes, however well managed (and both we and government knew that many aren't), quite clearly would be in a worse situation. To expect that Covid patients could safely be dumped on care homes was simply irresponsible.
I think it was the complete lack of testing before putting residents back in care homes that was the most irresponsible decision of this crisis. It should have been possible to test a few thousand people for the virus before sending them back, that no one in PHE thought to do it is another indictment of that organisation which has completely failed the country time and again. The original decision to free up bed space for expected incoming patients made sense, but the manner in which it was achieved gave the worst possible outcome.
I don't disagree with that. The failings of public health are not, of course, the sole responsibility of the current government. The decline in capacity began two decades ago, and problems were likely exacerbated by Lansley separating the service out from the rest of healthcare.
PHE is, of course, the organisation tasked with contagious disease surveillance and control, and it seems clear that they were significantly lacking in capacity, whether management, number and scale of public health laboratories, or sheer numbers of staff available for (eg) contact tracing.
As an aside, the Deputy CMO, whose performance during the pandemic appears lamentable, was formerly a regional director of PHE.
While the decision to empty the hospitals of the clinically well , but in need of care, population is now seen as an error, we also know far more today about asymptotic transmission than we did in March. Someone with no symptoms in hospital for say 5 days would have been seen as not in need of a test back then. Now we know different.
The guff about asymptomatic transmission, in this context, is pure deflection.
For a start, there were numerous papers recommending a 14 day quarantine period for travellers from areas with outbreaks, as early as January this year.* It's basic public health not to move people from an area of infection into a vulnerable community.
Moreover, if you look at the actual discharge guidance, there is no reference to asymptomatic individuals. And those discharge requirements were issued at the same time as Public Health England removed Covid-19's classification as a "High consequence infectious disease".
(*edit - and references to asymptomatic viral shedding back in February. The Japanese found around 40% of the cruise ship infected to be asymptomatic, and noted the risk that they could be infectious. The paper was published on February 11th.)
And this paper first posted online on February 18th:
The suggestion by No.10 that the possibility of asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic infections wasn't known about very early on indeed is simply insulting.
And this one the 28th February. The nature of this disease (or at the very least, the strong evidence of its nature) ought to have been reasonably obvious to any health professional closely involved.
Closed environments facilitate secondary transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.28.20029272v2 To identify common features of cases with novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) so as to better understand what factors promote secondary transmission including superspreading events. Methods: A total of 110 cases were examined among eleven clusters and sporadic cases, and investigated who acquired infection from whom. The clusters included four in Tokyo and one each in Aichi, Fukuoka, Hokkaido, Ishikawa, Kanagawa and Wakayama prefectures. The number of secondary cases generated by each primary case was calculated using contact tracing data. Results: Of the 110 cases examined, 27 (24.6%) were primary cases who generated secondary cases. The odds that a primary case transmitted COVID-19 in a closed environment was 18.7 times greater compared to an open-air environment (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.0, 57.9). Conclusions: It is plausible that closed environments contribute to secondary transmission of COVID-19 and promote superspreading events. Our findings are also consistent with the declining incidence of COVID-19 cases in China, as gathering in closed environments was prohibited in the wake of the rapid spread of the disease.
Badly. It's always nice when fact checker get their facts wrong. The internet was indeed an American invention. The 'fact checkers' have confused the internet with the World Wide Web (which wasn't actually much of an innovation anyway, since there were already hyperlink-based systems).
Yes. Berners-Lee did the WWW. The original internet came from US Defence companies and agencies
And to conclude the BBC NEWS at ONE the BBC goes to Somerset where the staff at a Care Home have been living in the home for 3 months away from their families to protect the residents have finally met their families again...
Nice top and tail to the nice.
Top Boris says care workers didn't do enough Tail Care workers shown to have dropped everything for 3 months to care fo people....
Just one more thing to add to the "One Rule for us, another rule for you" message which will eventually destroy the tory party.
A pointless piece, though. Obviously some care workers did do enough.
But Boris didn't say ALL care homes, did he?
It would have been more enlightening to see what happened in the not-so-good establishments. Was the virus brought in mainly by care staff or by discharges from hospital? How many staff work at multiple care homes and why?
It doesn't seem to have been a problem unique to the UK, either. How did the virus get into so many care homes in Spain? France? Italy?
Badly. It's always nice when fact checker get their facts wrong. The internet was indeed an American invention. The 'fact checkers' have confused the internet with the World Wide Web (which wasn't actually much of an innovation anyway, since there were already hyperlink-based systems).
Yes. Berners-Lee did the WWW. The original internet came from US Defence companies and agencies
Badly. It's always nice when fact checker get their facts wrong. The internet was indeed an American invention. The 'fact checkers' have confused the internet with the World Wide Web (which wasn't actually much of an innovation anyway, since there were already hyperlink-based systems).
Yes. Berners-Lee did the WWW. The original internet came from US Defence companies and agencies
More from research into how to build resilient networks at US universities - which was sponsored by various US Defence agencies.
Badly. It's always nice when fact checker get their facts wrong. The internet was indeed an American invention. The 'fact checkers' have confused the internet with the World Wide Web (which wasn't actually much of an innovation anyway, since there were already hyperlink-based systems).
Indeed.
Also the "splitting the atom" here is almost certainly a reference to nuclear fission, not Rutherford's experiment that dissected the atom into its constituent parts. Though Americans didn't discover fission they were the first to employ it practically with reactors.
And of course Bell created the telephone in the US and became a US citizen.
Was this site mostly pro or anti Brexit during the referendum?
By IQ? Overwhelmingly Remain.
Hmm, RCS1000 doesn't exactly have a low IQ...
A blind spot.
The biggest of which, common to many Leavers on here, was "this is not what I voted for/thought was going to happen/the action of any kind of sane government".
Then you have the @Richard_Tyndalls and @isams and @Casino_Royales of this world for whom any flavour of out is better than any flavour of in although don't mention EEA/EFTA or you'll have them fighting like cats in a sack.
That’s not true, I would happily have voted remain if they stopped FOM.
I’d say there wouldn’t have been a referendum, UKIP wouldn’t have got 12.5% in a GE and nobody would have heard of Nigel Farage had Blair handled A8 accession more carefully. No one cared about the EU before it had a tangible effect on their everyday life
So you could have lived with the ECJ interfering with our bananas?
Yeah. I can live with FOM too, I just don’t think it’s fair on people who it affects negatively, and I have more time for their grievances than for those who are on an earner from it
Honestly, I'd like to see how much he has taken out of his company over the last decade and then compare it to how much was spent on infectious disease planning. These owners are basically all shysters and troughers.
Do you have that attitude for all sectors of business?
The only reason energy is expensive is that the owners of energy companies are all shysters and troughers?
Should we nationalise everything and become a Communist utopia in your eyes?
Well no, they all went to their shareholders for cash calls in the last few months. That's what shareholders are for. I'm taking issue with this idea that the government should take the blame for carehome owners not wanting to spend the money they needed to.
The government pays for care (or private individuals do) so if the costs for PPE goes up then the government needs to pay more and/or fees need to go up.
Again, at the beginning of the pandemic, we know that the NHS with the unlimited resources of government behind it was unable to access adequate PPE for a time. Care homes, however well managed (and both we and government knew that many aren't), quite clearly would be in a worse situation. To expect that Covid patients could safely be dumped on care homes was simply irresponsible.
I think it was the complete lack of testing before putting residents back in care homes that was the most irresponsible decision of this crisis. It should have been possible to test a few thousand people for the virus before sending them back, that no one in PHE thought to do it is another indictment of that organisation which has completely failed the country time and again. The original decision to free up bed space for expected incoming patients made sense, but the manner in which it was achieved gave the worst possible outcome.
I don't disagree with that. The failings of public health are not, of course, the sole responsibility of the current government. The decline in capacity began two decades ago, and problems were likely exacerbated by Lansley separating the service out from the rest of healthcare.
PHE is, of course, the organisation tasked with contagious disease surveillance and control, and it seems clear that they were significantly lacking in capacity, whether management, number and scale of public health laboratories, or sheer numbers of staff available for (eg) contact tracing.
As an aside, the Deputy CMO, whose performance during the pandemic appears lamentable, was formerly a regional director of PHE.
While the decision to empty the hospitals of the clinically well , but in need of care, population is now seen as an error, we also know far more today about asymptotic transmission than we did in March. Someone with no symptoms in hospital for say 5 days would have been seen as not in need of a test back then. Now we know different.
The guff about asymptomatic transmission, in this context, is pure deflection.
For a start, there were numerous papers recommending a 14 day quarantine period for travellers from areas with outbreaks, as early as January this year.* It's basic public health not to move people from an area of infection into a vulnerable community.
Moreover, if you look at the actual discharge guidance, there is no reference to asymptomatic individuals. And those discharge requirements were issued at the same time as Public Health England removed Covid-19's classification as a "High consequence infectious disease".
(*edit - and references to asymptomatic viral shedding back in February. The Japanese found around 40% of the cruise ship infected to be asymptomatic, and noted the risk that they could be infectious. The paper was published on February 11th.)
And this paper first posted online on February 18th:
The suggestion by No.10 that the possibility of asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic infections wasn't known about very early on indeed is simply insulting.
And this one the 28th February. The nature of this disease (or at the very least, the strong evidence of its nature) ought to have been reasonably obvious to any health professional closely involved.
Closed environments facilitate secondary transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.28.20029272v2 To identify common features of cases with novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) so as to better understand what factors promote secondary transmission including superspreading events. Methods: A total of 110 cases were examined among eleven clusters and sporadic cases, and investigated who acquired infection from whom. The clusters included four in Tokyo and one each in Aichi, Fukuoka, Hokkaido, Ishikawa, Kanagawa and Wakayama prefectures. The number of secondary cases generated by each primary case was calculated using contact tracing data. Results: Of the 110 cases examined, 27 (24.6%) were primary cases who generated secondary cases. The odds that a primary case transmitted COVID-19 in a closed environment was 18.7 times greater compared to an open-air environment (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.0, 57.9). Conclusions: It is plausible that closed environments contribute to secondary transmission of COVID-19 and promote superspreading events. Our findings are also consistent with the declining incidence of COVID-19 cases in China, as gathering in closed environments was prohibited in the wake of the rapid spread of the disease.
All of this is fair enough, but we are looking back, At the time there was a genuine fear that the NHS was going to be or could be overwhelmed, as per northern Italy (remember not treating elderly patients?). So the onus was to empty to the wards of the frail, but clinically well, patients, partly to protect them. Yes in an ideal world all would have been tested for Covid, but we were cr@p at testing early on (I think we all agree with this). That the Nightingales were barely used is a good thing, but perhaps the cost of getting the NHS hospitals ready was not just money, but also the care home deaths. I do wish the government would front up and admit that some things have been wrong. Decisions taken in good faith can be wrong. I feel that the horrifically adversarial media, front and centre the BBC, does no favours here. Any suggestions of mistakes will be seized on and hammered over an over again, so I understand why no one wants to say this.
Was this site mostly pro or anti Brexit during the referendum?
By IQ? Overwhelmingly Remain.
Hmm, RCS1000 doesn't exactly have a low IQ...
A blind spot.
The biggest of which, common to many Leavers on here, was "this is not what I voted for/thought was going to happen/the action of any kind of sane government".
Then you have the @Richard_Tyndalls and @isams and @Casino_Royales of this world for whom any flavour of out is better than any flavour of in although don't mention EEA/EFTA or you'll have them fighting like cats in a sack.
That’s not true, I would happily have voted remain if they stopped FOM.
I’d say there wouldn’t have been a referendum, UKIP wouldn’t have got 12.5% in a GE and nobody would have heard of Nigel Farage had Blair handled A8 accession more carefully. No one cared about the EU before it had a tangible effect on their everyday life
So you could have lived with the ECJ interfering with our bananas?
For me, yes. FoM didn't become a popular issue until it applied to economies very divergent from ours. If there were no FoM (but of course high levels of immigration permitted under a UK policy ), and a permanent Euro opt out then two essentials of 'being a single state' would have been averted. While having all sorts of annoying features EU membership would have been OK for now. But, and it's a big but, 'Ever Closer Union' is still the agenda.
I never minded honest Europe supporters who favoured the big integrated state, but the deniers, who wanted all the EU while pretending it was something different from a Union of states were and are irritating.
I don’t see why the EU don’t have an EU wide health service. The rich states pay for good hospitals in the poorer ones, and the poorer ones provide the Labour via FOM EU wide. Better than the exploitation of cheap labour for corporate greed the current system provides, and a sense of togetherness to boot.
Badly. It's always nice when fact checker get their facts wrong. The internet was indeed an American invention. The 'fact checkers' have confused the internet with the World Wide Web (which wasn't actually much of an innovation anyway, since there were already hyperlink-based systems).
Indeed.
Also the "splitting the atom" here is almost certainly a reference to nuclear fission, not Rutherford's experiment that dissected the atom into its constituent parts. Though Americans didn't discover fission they were the first to employ it practically with reactors.
And of course Bell created the telephone in the US and became a US citizen.
The first sustained chain reaction was in the Chicago squash court.
Frédéric Joliot-Curie was doing some very interesting work in the field of chain reactions before the war, in France. IIRC they were held up by a lack of heavy water.
Honestly, I'd like to see how much he has taken out of his company over the last decade and then compare it to how much was spent on infectious disease planning. These owners are basically all shysters and troughers.
Do you have that attitude for all sectors of business?
The only reason energy is expensive is that the owners of energy companies are all shysters and troughers?
Should we nationalise everything and become a Communist utopia in your eyes?
Well no, they all went to their shareholders for cash calls in the last few months. That's what shareholders are for. I'm taking issue with this idea that the government should take the blame for carehome owners not wanting to spend the money they needed to.
The government pays for care (or private individuals do) so if the costs for PPE goes up then the government needs to pay more and/or fees need to go up.
Again, at the beginning of the pandemic, we know that the NHS with the unlimited resources of government behind it was unable to access adequate PPE for a time. Care homes, however well managed (and both we and government knew that many aren't), quite clearly would be in a worse situation. To expect that Covid patients could safely be dumped on care homes was simply irresponsible.
I think it was the complete lack of testing before putting residents back in care homes that was the most irresponsible decision of this crisis. It should have been possible to test a few thousand people for the virus before sending them back, that no one in PHE thought to do it is another indictment of that organisation which has completely failed the country time and again. The original decision to free up bed space for expected incoming patients made sense, but the manner in which it was achieved gave the worst possible outcome.
I don't disagree with that. The failings of public health are not, of course, the sole responsibility of the current government. The decline in capacity began two decades ago, and problems were likely exacerbated by Lansley separating the service out from the rest of healthcare.
PHE is, of course, the organisation tasked with contagious disease surveillance and control, and it seems clear that they were significantly lacking in capacity, whether management, number and scale of public health laboratories, or sheer numbers of staff available for (eg) contact tracing.
As an aside, the Deputy CMO, whose performance during the pandemic appears lamentable, was formerly a regional director of PHE.
While the decision to empty the hospitals of the clinically well , but in need of care, population is now seen as an error, we also know far more today about asymptotic transmission than we did in March. Someone with no symptoms in hospital for say 5 days would have been seen as not in need of a test back then. Now we know different.
The guff about asymptomatic transmission, in this context, is pure deflection.
For a start, there were numerous papers recommending a 14 day quarantine period for travellers from areas with outbreaks, as early as January this year.* It's basic public health not to move people from an area of infection into a vulnerable community.
Moreover, if you look at the actual discharge guidance, there is no reference to asymptomatic individuals. And those discharge requirements were issued at the same time as Public Health England removed Covid-19's classification as a "High consequence infectious disease".
(*edit - and references to asymptomatic viral shedding back in February. The Japanese found around 40% of the cruise ship infected to be asymptomatic, and noted the risk that they could be infectious. The paper was published on February 11th.)
And this paper first posted online on February 18th:
The suggestion by No.10 that the possibility of asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic infections wasn't known about very early on indeed is simply insulting.
And this one the 28th February. The nature of this disease (or at the very least, the strong evidence of its nature) ought to have been reasonably obvious to any health professional closely involved.
Closed environments facilitate secondary transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.28.20029272v2 To identify common features of cases with novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) so as to better understand what factors promote secondary transmission including superspreading events. Methods: A total of 110 cases were examined among eleven clusters and sporadic cases, and investigated who acquired infection from whom. The clusters included four in Tokyo and one each in Aichi, Fukuoka, Hokkaido, Ishikawa, Kanagawa and Wakayama prefectures. The number of secondary cases generated by each primary case was calculated using contact tracing data. Results: Of the 110 cases examined, 27 (24.6%) were primary cases who generated secondary cases. The odds that a primary case transmitted COVID-19 in a closed environment was 18.7 times greater compared to an open-air environment (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.0, 57.9). Conclusions: It is plausible that closed environments contribute to secondary transmission of COVID-19 and promote superspreading events. Our findings are also consistent with the declining incidence of COVID-19 cases in China, as gathering in closed environments was prohibited in the wake of the rapid spread of the disease.
All of this is fair enough, but we are looking back, At the time there was a genuine fear that the NHS was going to be or could be overwhelmed, as per northern Italy (remember not treating elderly patients?). So the onus was to empty to the wards of the frail, but clinically well, patients, partly to protect them. Yes in an ideal world all would have been tested for Covid, but we were cr@p at testing early on (I think we all agree with this). That the Nightingales were barely used is a good thing, but perhaps the cost of getting the NHS hospitals ready was not just money, but also the care home deaths. I do wish the government would front up and admit that some things have been wrong. Decisions taken in good faith can be wrong. I feel that the horrifically adversarial media, front and centre the BBC, does no favours here. Any suggestions of mistakes will be seized on and hammered over an over again, so I understand why no one wants to say this.
Yes. Given the likelihood of viral spread within a hospital, it's possible that fewer people died because of the expedited discharge of elderly patients from hospital. I wonder if it's possible to make an estimate of that scenario?
It could be an example of the trolley problem, but with thousands of deaths either way.
Honestly, I'd like to see how much he has taken out of his company over the last decade and then compare it to how much was spent on infectious disease planning. These owners are basically all shysters and troughers.
Do you have that attitude for all sectors of business?
The only reason energy is expensive is that the owners of energy companies are all shysters and troughers?
Should we nationalise everything and become a Communist utopia in your eyes?
Well no, they all went to their shareholders for cash calls in the last few months. That's what shareholders are for. I'm taking issue with this idea that the government should take the blame for carehome owners not wanting to spend the money they needed to.
The government pays for care (or private individuals do) so if the costs for PPE goes up then the government needs to pay more and/or fees need to go up.
Again, at the beginning of the pandemic, we know that the NHS with the unlimited resources of government behind it was unable to access adequate PPE for a time. Care homes, however well managed (and both we and government knew that many aren't), quite clearly would be in a worse situation. To expect that Covid patients could safely be dumped on care homes was simply irresponsible.
I think it was the complete lack of testing before putting residents back in care homes that was the most irresponsible decision of this crisis. It should have been possible to test a few thousand people for the virus before sending them back, that no one in PHE thought to do it is another indictment of that organisation which has completely failed the country time and again. The original decision to free up bed space for expected incoming patients made sense, but the manner in which it was achieved gave the worst possible outcome.
I don't disagree with that. The failings of public health are not, of course, the sole responsibility of the current government. The decline in capacity began two decades ago, and problems were likely exacerbated by Lansley separating the service out from the rest of healthcare.
PHE is, of course, the organisation tasked with contagious disease surveillance and control, and it seems clear that they were significantly lacking in capacity, whether management, number and scale of public health laboratories, or sheer numbers of staff available for (eg) contact tracing.
As an aside, the Deputy CMO, whose performance during the pandemic appears lamentable, was formerly a regional director of PHE.
While the decision to empty the hospitals of the clinically well , but in need of care, population is now seen as an error, we also know far more today about asymptotic transmission than we did in March. Someone with no symptoms in hospital for say 5 days would have been seen as not in need of a test back then. Now we know different.
The guff about asymptomatic transmission, in this context, is pure deflection.
For a start, there were numerous papers recommending a 14 day quarantine period for travellers from areas with outbreaks, as early as January this year.* It's basic public health not to move people from an area of infection into a vulnerable community.
Moreover, if you look at the actual discharge guidance, there is no reference to asymptomatic individuals. And those discharge requirements were issued at the same time as Public Health England removed Covid-19's classification as a "High consequence infectious disease".
(*edit - and references to asymptomatic viral shedding back in February. The Japanese found around 40% of the cruise ship infected to be asymptomatic, and noted the risk that they could be infectious. The paper was published on February 11th.)
And this paper first posted online on February 18th:
The suggestion by No.10 that the possibility of asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic infections wasn't known about very early on indeed is simply insulting.
And this one the 28th February. The nature of this disease (or at the very least, the strong evidence of its nature) ought to have been reasonably obvious to any health professional closely involved.
Closed environments facilitate secondary transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.28.20029272v2 To identify common features of cases with novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) so as to better understand what factors promote secondary transmission including superspreading events. Methods: A total of 110 cases were examined among eleven clusters and sporadic cases, and investigated who acquired infection from whom. The clusters included four in Tokyo and one each in Aichi, Fukuoka, Hokkaido, Ishikawa, Kanagawa and Wakayama prefectures. The number of secondary cases generated by each primary case was calculated using contact tracing data. Results: Of the 110 cases examined, 27 (24.6%) were primary cases who generated secondary cases. The odds that a primary case transmitted COVID-19 in a closed environment was 18.7 times greater compared to an open-air environment (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.0, 57.9). Conclusions: It is plausible that closed environments contribute to secondary transmission of COVID-19 and promote superspreading events. Our findings are also consistent with the declining incidence of COVID-19 cases in China, as gathering in closed environments was prohibited in the wake of the rapid spread of the disease.
All of this is fair enough, but we are looking back, At the time there was a genuine fear that the NHS was going to be or could be overwhelmed, as per northern Italy (remember not treating elderly patients?). So the onus was to empty to the wards of the frail, but clinically well, patients, partly to protect them. Yes in an ideal world all would have been tested for Covid, but we were cr@p at testing early on (I think we all agree with this). That the Nightingales were barely used is a good thing, but perhaps the cost of getting the NHS hospitals ready was not just money, but also the care home deaths. I do wish the government would front up and admit that some things have been wrong. Decisions taken in good faith can be wrong. I feel that the horrifically adversarial media, front and centre the BBC, does no favours here. Any suggestions of mistakes will be seized on and hammered over an over again, so I understand why no one wants to say this.
Was this site mostly pro or anti Brexit during the referendum?
By IQ? Overwhelmingly Remain.
Hmm, RCS1000 doesn't exactly have a low IQ...
A blind spot.
The biggest of which, common to many Leavers on here, was "this is not what I voted for/thought was going to happen/the action of any kind of sane government".
Then you have the @Richard_Tyndalls and @isams and @Casino_Royales of this world for whom any flavour of out is better than any flavour of in although don't mention EEA/EFTA or you'll have them fighting like cats in a sack.
That’s not true, I would happily have voted remain if they stopped FOM.
I’d say there wouldn’t have been a referendum, UKIP wouldn’t have got 12.5% in a GE and nobody would have heard of Nigel Farage had Blair handled A8 accession more carefully. No one cared about the EU before it had a tangible effect on their everyday life
So you could have lived with the ECJ interfering with our bananas?
Yeah. I can live with FOM too, I just don’t think it’s fair on people who it affects negatively, and I have more time for their grievances than for those who are on an earner from it
Seriously, which people? Which people were negatively affected by FOM?
Was this site mostly pro or anti Brexit during the referendum?
By IQ? Overwhelmingly Remain.
Hmm, RCS1000 doesn't exactly have a low IQ...
A blind spot.
The biggest of which, common to many Leavers on here, was "this is not what I voted for/thought was going to happen/the action of any kind of sane government".
Then you have the @Richard_Tyndalls and @isams and @Casino_Royales of this world for whom any flavour of out is better than any flavour of in although don't mention EEA/EFTA or you'll have them fighting like cats in a sack.
That’s not true, I would happily have voted remain if they stopped FOM.
I’d say there wouldn’t have been a referendum, UKIP wouldn’t have got 12.5% in a GE and nobody would have heard of Nigel Farage had Blair handled A8 accession more carefully. No one cared about the EU before it had a tangible effect on their everyday life
So you could have lived with the ECJ interfering with our bananas?
Yeah. I can live with FOM too, I just don’t think it’s fair on people who it affects negatively, and I have more time for their grievances than for those who are on an earner from it
Seriously, which people? Which people were negatively affected by FOM?
People earning low wages which were forced lower still by cheap EU workers
People in areas where cheap EU workers lived ten to a room, to save money, putting huge pressure on local services
People in areas where antisocial EU citizens came in numbers
No one's going to have to vote for ages, not even in local elections, so most people are probably quite tuned out. There will be a lot of people not even aware of who Keir Starmer is or that Corbyn is no longer running Labour.
Most people are also not yet badly affected personally by the effects of the virus, so the reported mistakes made are somewhat academic. When the economic effects really feed through into everyday life will be when it gets interesting.
In short, I'm not really surprised. Would be interesting to see the don't-knows and whether they've increased - i.e. whether those actually positively answering Conservative has fallen.
Was this site mostly pro or anti Brexit during the referendum?
By IQ? Overwhelmingly Remain.
Hmm, RCS1000 doesn't exactly have a low IQ...
A blind spot.
The biggest of which, common to many Leavers on here, was "this is not what I voted for/thought was going to happen/the action of any kind of sane government".
Then you have the @Richard_Tyndalls and @isams and @Casino_Royales of this world for whom any flavour of out is better than any flavour of in although don't mention EEA/EFTA or you'll have them fighting like cats in a sack.
That’s not true, I would happily have voted remain if they stopped FOM.
I’d say there wouldn’t have been a referendum, UKIP wouldn’t have got 12.5% in a GE and nobody would have heard of Nigel Farage had Blair handled A8 accession more carefully. No one cared about the EU before it had a tangible effect on their everyday life
So you could have lived with the ECJ interfering with our bananas?
Yeah. I can live with FOM too, I just don’t think it’s fair on people who it affects negatively, and I have more time for their grievances than for those who are on an earner from it
Seriously, which people? Which people were negatively affected by FOM?
People earning low wages which were forced lower still by cheap EU workers
People in areas where cheap EU workers lived ten to a room, to save money, putting huge pressure on local services
People in areas where antisocial EU citizens came in numbers
Etc
You will still have all of those, except put the word Non in front of EU.
Some crude lefties regard all Lib Dem voters as Labour voters by right, but I think what recent polls perhaps indicate is that many are otherwise Tory voters.
A more active and successful Liberal Democrat Party would take voters from the Tories and make Labour's task easier. At the moment the anti-Labour vote is too concentrated for Labour to overcome.
It's almost as if that chart was designed to hide the Sweden figures. If you squint you can barely see the uptick that isn't there in the other nordic countries.
No one's going to have to vote for ages, not even in local elections, so most people are probably quite tuned out. There will be a lot of people not even aware of who Keir Starmer is or that Corbyn is no longer running Labour.
Most people are also not yet badly affected personally by the effects of the virus, so the reported mistakes made are somewhat academic. When the economic effects really feed through into everyday life will be when it gets interesting.
In short, I'm not really surprised. Would be interesting to see the don't-knows and whether they've increased - i.e. whether those actually positively answering Conservative has fallen.
Looking at the pre GE polls, it’s amazing to think that, before the election was called, the Lib Dem’s were getting 20+ scores. Labour kind of exceeded expectations actually
Was this site mostly pro or anti Brexit during the referendum?
By IQ? Overwhelmingly Remain.
Hmm, RCS1000 doesn't exactly have a low IQ...
A blind spot.
The biggest of which, common to many Leavers on here, was "this is not what I voted for/thought was going to happen/the action of any kind of sane government".
Then you have the @Richard_Tyndalls and @isams and @Casino_Royales of this world for whom any flavour of out is better than any flavour of in although don't mention EEA/EFTA or you'll have them fighting like cats in a sack.
That’s not true, I would happily have voted remain if they stopped FOM.
I’d say there wouldn’t have been a referendum, UKIP wouldn’t have got 12.5% in a GE and nobody would have heard of Nigel Farage had Blair handled A8 accession more carefully. No one cared about the EU before it had a tangible effect on their everyday life
So you could have lived with the ECJ interfering with our bananas?
Yeah. I can live with FOM too, I just don’t think it’s fair on people who it affects negatively, and I have more time for their grievances than for those who are on an earner from it
Seriously, which people? Which people were negatively affected by FOM?
People who had to compete for jobs, wages, school places, housing and doctors appointments with the immigrants
It's almost as if that chart was designed to hide the Sweden figures. If you squint you can barely see the uptick that isn't there in the other nordic countries.
I can see the words pointing it out without squinting!
It's almost as if that chart was designed to hide the Sweden figures. If you squint you can barely see the uptick that isn't there in the other nordic countries.
I can see the words pointing it out without squinting!
Then why do they claim they look similar to the other Nordic countries? None have the same uptick.
Was this site mostly pro or anti Brexit during the referendum?
By IQ? Overwhelmingly Remain.
Hmm, RCS1000 doesn't exactly have a low IQ...
A blind spot.
The biggest of which, common to many Leavers on here, was "this is not what I voted for/thought was going to happen/the action of any kind of sane government".
Then you have the @Richard_Tyndalls and @isams and @Casino_Royales of this world for whom any flavour of out is better than any flavour of in although don't mention EEA/EFTA or you'll have them fighting like cats in a sack.
That’s not true, I would happily have voted remain if they stopped FOM.
I’d say there wouldn’t have been a referendum, UKIP wouldn’t have got 12.5% in a GE and nobody would have heard of Nigel Farage had Blair handled A8 accession more carefully. No one cared about the EU before it had a tangible effect on their everyday life
So you could have lived with the ECJ interfering with our bananas?
Yeah. I can live with FOM too, I just don’t think it’s fair on people who it affects negatively, and I have more time for their grievances than for those who are on an earner from it
Seriously, which people? Which people were negatively affected by FOM?
People who had to compete for jobs, wages, school places, housing and doctors appointments with the immigrants
And people whose lives were scarred by the traffickers, drug dealers, gangsters, and other assorted serious criminals who homed in on Britain unhindered after FOM
And the taxpayers who had to pay for those Eurcrims to be caught, tried, convicted and imprisoned.
Was this site mostly pro or anti Brexit during the referendum?
By IQ? Overwhelmingly Remain.
Hmm, RCS1000 doesn't exactly have a low IQ...
A blind spot.
The biggest of which, common to many Leavers on here, was "this is not what I voted for/thought was going to happen/the action of any kind of sane government".
Then you have the @Richard_Tyndalls and @isams and @Casino_Royales of this world for whom any flavour of out is better than any flavour of in although don't mention EEA/EFTA or you'll have them fighting like cats in a sack.
That’s not true, I would happily have voted remain if they stopped FOM.
I’d say there wouldn’t have been a referendum, UKIP wouldn’t have got 12.5% in a GE and nobody would have heard of Nigel Farage had Blair handled A8 accession more carefully. No one cared about the EU before it had a tangible effect on their everyday life
So you could have lived with the ECJ interfering with our bananas?
Yeah. I can live with FOM too, I just don’t think it’s fair on people who it affects negatively, and I have more time for their grievances than for those who are on an earner from it
Seriously, which people? Which people were negatively affected by FOM?
People who had to compete for jobs, wages, school places, housing and doctors appointments with the immigrants
Always makes me laugh. "I'm not racist, but I don't like all these bloody foreigners". Of course when pushed most of the foreigners they don't like are black and asian so leaving the EU will do sod all about it. But not racist, not at all.
The care home thing is a damp squib, barely making any of the news.
Which news are you watching?
BBC website, all the papers. Complete non starter of a story that no one outside the twitter bubble cares about.
It is a story that will be remembered in the polling booth by those pondering whether they are at one with Johnson...or not.
Chance of this story being remembered at the next election? Nil.
It will only be important if Johnson is considerably less popular than he is at the moment. My guess is that may come to pass, and if so, it will be just one of many considerations contemplated when the cross goes next to a name.
You don't have to believe any of the above, but then you might find yourself disappointed too.
Wait, what, the WWW is not the same as the internet?
What's the difference??
The WWW means web pages you look at in a browser. It's a particular use case for the internet, which is a much broader set of technologies to connect devices together and allow them to communicate.
The care home thing is a damp squib, barely making any of the news.
Which news are you watching?
BBC website, all the papers. Complete non starter of a story that no one outside the twitter bubble cares about.
It is a story that will be remembered in the polling booth by those pondering whether they are at one with Johnson...or not.
Chance of this story being remembered at the next election? Nil.
It will only be important if Johnson is considerably less popular than he is at the moment. My guess is that may come to pass, and if so, it will be just one of many considerations contemplated when the cross goes next to a name.
You don't have to believe any of the above, but then you might find yourself disappointed too.
Johnson won't last. In trying to please everybody, he will end up pleasing nobody.
The care home thing is a damp squib, barely making any of the news.
Which news are you watching?
BBC website, all the papers. Complete non starter of a story that no one outside the twitter bubble cares about.
It is a story that will be remembered in the polling booth by those pondering whether they are at one with Johnson...or not.
Chance of this story being remembered at the next election? Nil.
It will only be important if Johnson is considerably less popular than he is at the moment. My guess is that may come to pass, and if so, it will be just one of many considerations contemplated when the cross goes next to a name.
You don't have to believe any of the above, but then you might find yourself disappointed too.
Johnson won't last. In trying to please everybody, he will end up pleasing nobody.
I don't often agree with you, but on this point you may well be correct.
Short term flitting about will have short (and increasingly shorter) results whilst long term losing the respect of everyone with a memory longer than a goldfish.
He should take the disease excuse and jump.
But he won't. Not until his claws are prised from the precious.
Was this site mostly pro or anti Brexit during the referendum?
By IQ? Overwhelmingly Remain.
Hmm, RCS1000 doesn't exactly have a low IQ...
A blind spot.
The biggest of which, common to many Leavers on here, was "this is not what I voted for/thought was going to happen/the action of any kind of sane government".
Then you have the @Richard_Tyndalls and @isams and @Casino_Royales of this world for whom any flavour of out is better than any flavour of in although don't mention EEA/EFTA or you'll have them fighting like cats in a sack.
That’s not true, I would happily have voted remain if they stopped FOM.
I’d say there wouldn’t have been a referendum, UKIP wouldn’t have got 12.5% in a GE and nobody would have heard of Nigel Farage had Blair handled A8 accession more carefully. No one cared about the EU before it had a tangible effect on their everyday life
So you could have lived with the ECJ interfering with our bananas?
Yeah. I can live with FOM too, I just don’t think it’s fair on people who it affects negatively, and I have more time for their grievances than for those who are on an earner from it
Seriously, which people? Which people were negatively affected by FOM?
People who had to compete for jobs, wages, school places, housing and doctors appointments with the immigrants
Always makes me laugh. "I'm not racist, but I don't like all these bloody foreigners". Of course when pushed most of the foreigners they don't like are black and asian so leaving the EU will do sod all about it. But not racist, not at all.
It is possible to believe there is too much immigration, and not be a racist. If UK net immigration was running at, say, 10m a year, I imagine even you would get a bit worried, no? Does that make you a racist?
No one gave those British people, who were concerned about immigration, the option to choose in detail how migration might be reduced, all the British people were offered was one big, clumsy lever marked Brexit.
Been disappointed last few days with the ones the Lincoln Project have done but that is good. The moment that the great man said about respecting the elderly overlaid with the old man getting pushed to the ground ... Powerful stuff.
Was this site mostly pro or anti Brexit during the referendum?
By IQ? Overwhelmingly Remain.
Hmm, RCS1000 doesn't exactly have a low IQ...
A blind spot.
The biggest of which, common to many Leavers on here, was "this is not what I voted for/thought was going to happen/the action of any kind of sane government".
Then you have the @Richard_Tyndalls and @isams and @Casino_Royales of this world for whom any flavour of out is better than any flavour of in although don't mention EEA/EFTA or you'll have them fighting like cats in a sack.
That’s not true, I would happily have voted remain if they stopped FOM.
I’d say there wouldn’t have been a referendum, UKIP wouldn’t have got 12.5% in a GE and nobody would have heard of Nigel Farage had Blair handled A8 accession more carefully. No one cared about the EU before it had a tangible effect on their everyday life
So you could have lived with the ECJ interfering with our bananas?
Yeah. I can live with FOM too, I just don’t think it’s fair on people who it affects negatively, and I have more time for their grievances than for those who are on an earner from it
Seriously, which people? Which people were negatively affected by FOM?
People who had to compete for jobs, wages, school places, housing and doctors appointments with the immigrants
Always makes me laugh. "I'm not racist, but I don't like all these bloody foreigners". Of course when pushed most of the foreigners they don't like are black and asian so leaving the EU will do sod all about it. But not racist, not at all.
It is possible to believe there is too much immigration, and not be a racist. If UK net immigration was running at, say, 10m a year, I imagine even you would get a bit worried, no? Does that make you a racist?
No one gave those British people, who were concerned about immigration, the option to choose in detail how migration might be reduced, all the British people were offered was one big, clumsy lever marked Brexit.
So they pulled it
Quite.
I know of one factory owner, for example, who had family links with an Eastern European country. Spoke the language etc.
So nearly everyone in the factory is from that country. Once they learn English and start demanding unpleasant things such as a safe working environment & genuine minimum wage*, he bins them and imports some more to exploit.
Strangely the locals, are not JoyJoy** enthused by this.
Are they racists?
*He skirts the edge of the law on this, of course. **Mildly obscure cultural reference
Short term flitting about will have short (and increasingly shorter) results whilst long term losing the respect of everyone with a memory longer than a goldfish.
He should take the disease excuse and jump.
But he won't. Not until his claws are prised from the precious.
In the end, somebody somewhere is going to have to pay for the explosion of interventionism we have seen in recent months. Big time. Enormous time.
There will have to either be huge spending cuts or huge tax rises. Possibly both. We just can't live like this. There is no new normal.
Comments
Suffice to say people are rejoicing because factor input costs will rise which means prices will rise and many people think that is a good thing.
Nelson's column!! BIG BEN!!!
https://twitter.com/MichelBarnier/status/1280488864784822274?s=20
https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/1280490193749979136?s=20
https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1280395600379461632?s=21
Plus even if it does the likes of Rees Mogg and Cash and Redwood and IDS and Francois and Dorries will be fuming if Boris concedes the regulatory alignment with the single market the EU wants for a trade deal
https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1280457599884935168?s=20
https://twitter.com/ToruOkada69/status/1280457318635880449?s=20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vk5K-4PGYQ
https://twitter.com/HelenBranswell/status/1280451867571609601
A Familial Cluster of Infection Associated With the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Indicating Possible Person-to-Person Transmission During the Incubation Period
https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/221/11/1757/5739751
The suggestion by No.10 that the possibility of asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic infections wasn't known about very early on indeed is simply insulting.
https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1279947673051815941?s=20
https://twitter.com/MrsTrellis4/status/1280395967171264514?s=20
https://twitter.com/ejwwest/status/1280388037541859328?s=20
Unequivocal wickedness!
I never minded honest Europe supporters who favoured the big integrated state, but the deniers, who wanted all the EU while pretending it was something different from a Union of states were and are irritating.
Can it be that their second wave is really worse than the first, that there are some honest people at work, and there's only so many deaths the regime can hide?
Headline - 36
7 days - 32
Yesterday - 7
As ever - last 3-5 days are subject to revision. Last 5 days present for completeness.
Bad:
Iran has just recorded its worst day ever for deaths: 200
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/iran/
Good:
If you look at the world, overall,there is now some very tentative evidence that the virus is slowing down, and weakening in its lethality (perhaps because of better treatments)
The nature of this disease (or at the very least, the strong evidence of its nature) ought to have been reasonably obvious to any health professional closely involved.
Closed environments facilitate secondary transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.28.20029272v2
To identify common features of cases with novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) so as to better understand what factors promote secondary transmission including superspreading events. Methods: A total of 110 cases were examined among eleven clusters and sporadic cases, and investigated who acquired infection from whom. The clusters included four in Tokyo and one each in Aichi, Fukuoka, Hokkaido, Ishikawa, Kanagawa and Wakayama prefectures. The number of secondary cases generated by each primary case was calculated using contact tracing data. Results: Of the 110 cases examined, 27 (24.6%) were primary cases who generated secondary cases. The odds that a primary case transmitted COVID-19 in a closed environment was 18.7 times greater compared to an open-air environment (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.0, 57.9). Conclusions: It is plausible that closed environments contribute to secondary transmission of COVID-19 and promote superspreading events. Our findings are also consistent with the declining incidence of COVID-19 cases in China, as gathering in closed environments was prohibited in the wake of the rapid spread of the disease.
But Boris didn't say ALL care homes, did he?
It would have been more enlightening to see what happened in the not-so-good establishments. Was the virus brought in mainly by care staff or by discharges from hospital? How many staff work at multiple care homes and why?
It doesn't seem to have been a problem unique to the UK, either. How did the virus get into so many care homes in Spain? France? Italy?
Also the "splitting the atom" here is almost certainly a reference to nuclear fission, not Rutherford's experiment that dissected the atom into its constituent parts. Though Americans didn't discover fission they were the first to employ it practically with reactors.
And of course Bell created the telephone in the US and became a US citizen.
What has changed? Dare I say, the prospect of no trade deal with the EU.
I am not worrying too much as I don't anticipate an exhumed Land Rover Defender will stir up too much excitement.
https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/1280498721420120067?s=20
I do wish the government would front up and admit that some things have been wrong. Decisions taken in good faith can be wrong. I feel that the horrifically adversarial media, front and centre the BBC, does no favours here. Any suggestions of mistakes will be seized on and hammered over an over again, so I understand why no one wants to say this.
Frédéric Joliot-Curie was doing some very interesting work in the field of chain reactions before the war, in France. IIRC they were held up by a lack of heavy water.
It could be an example of the trolley problem, but with thousands of deaths either way.
For the Tories to maintain a 7 point lead, at the moment, is quite something
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1280464888939282432?s=20
Which people were negatively affected by FOM?
Well, you learn something new every day :-)
Admittedly I was listening to the "care home thing" make lead story on the 3pm BBC radio news just as I read your comment.
People in areas where cheap EU workers lived ten to a room, to save money, putting huge pressure on local services
People in areas where antisocial EU citizens came in numbers
Etc
Most people are also not yet badly affected personally by the effects of the virus, so the reported mistakes made are somewhat academic. When the economic effects really feed through into everyday life will be when it gets interesting.
In short, I'm not really surprised. Would be interesting to see the don't-knows and whether they've increased - i.e. whether those actually positively answering Conservative has fallen.
Some crude lefties regard all Lib Dem voters as Labour voters by right, but I think what recent polls perhaps indicate is that many are otherwise Tory voters.
A more active and successful Liberal Democrat Party would take voters from the Tories and make Labour's task easier. At the moment the anti-Labour vote is too concentrated for Labour to overcome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election
Judging by the mentality of your average Joe in the pubs etc, a lot more people will have to die before they lose their majority. Still, early days...
By this time next year "if" might be doing a lot of heavy lifting.
And the taxpayers who had to pay for those Eurcrims to be caught, tried, convicted and imprisoned.
What's the difference??
https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/07/novavax-maker-of-a-covid-19-vaccine-is-backed-by-operation-warp-speed/
one of many considerations contemplated when the cross goes next to a name.
You don't have to believe any of the above, but then you might find yourself disappointed too.
Short term flitting about will have short (and increasingly shorter) results whilst long term losing the respect of everyone with a memory longer than a goldfish.
He should take the disease excuse and jump.
But he won't. Not until his claws are prised from the precious.
No one gave those British people, who were concerned about immigration, the option to choose in detail how migration might be reduced, all the British people were offered was one big, clumsy lever marked Brexit.
So they pulled it
Been disappointed last few days with the ones the Lincoln Project have done but that is good. The moment that the great man said about respecting the elderly overlaid with the old man getting pushed to the ground ... Powerful stuff.
https://twitter.com/DWUhlfelderLaw/status/1280496099036446723?s=20
I know of one factory owner, for example, who had family links with an Eastern European country. Spoke the language etc.
So nearly everyone in the factory is from that country. Once they learn English and start demanding unpleasant things such as a safe working environment & genuine minimum wage*, he bins them and imports some more to exploit.
Strangely the locals, are not JoyJoy** enthused by this.
Are they racists?
*He skirts the edge of the law on this, of course.
**Mildly obscure cultural reference
There will have to either be huge spending cuts or huge tax rises. Possibly both. We just can't live like this. There is no new normal.