By any measure Boris should be highly unpopular and his party well behind labour but this does not seem to be evidenced in the polls at present. This forum is dominated with posters who dislike Boris with a passion and jump on his every misdeed or error and yet the real world does seem indifferent
I believe Corbyn has a huge responsibility in this respect having shredded the labour brand and when a brand is shredded it takes a long time to get back on track. It is arguable Ratner never got back after his ill thought out comments on his own product
Starmer is providing a degree of competence but it is easy when you can criticise with hindsight and to date he has not laid out any proposition other than to say on any move by HMG, that it is too little and too late
The ECHR will be his next test but I do think he and labour need to take care with 'woke' culture as it will not go down well in the red wall seats
I find Boris embarrassing but I do not see him standing aside in the immediate future so no doubt we will just have to get used to the daily Scott and others twitter attacks into the foreseable future as brexit is happening, deal or no deal, and covid is a far bigger problem for all politicians for years to come
Good afternoon all. Some interesting stuff on Covid numbers today and in that context I offer a tale of two Wendys.
First, my Aunt Wendy died in a care home a couple of weeks or so ago. Her death certificate says Covid but the family are sceptical to say the least. She'd been bed bound for at least a year, and when I saw her for the last time at Christmas it was clear she was waiting to die. She'd lost any interest in anything and was existing rather than living. Covid may or may not have finally ended her life, but if so it was a mercy to all concerned.
We have a friend named Wendy whose Mum died a few weeks ago. She was 96 and died at home surrounded by her family. Again, her death certificate says Covid but the family think it was just old age. Maybe, maybe not.
Both of these cases appear in the statistics as Covid deaths. In neither case was death when it occurred anything of a surprise, nor was it accelerated, at least in the view of the family.
There are probably many such cases.
Which is why the best measure to look at is excess deaths. Hopefully we'll go through a period when it's running at less than the expected level.
It's already happening, deaths for the last two weeks are running at below the 5y average.
Averages are obviously quite useful if you understand that the average of 5 and 7 is 6 as is the average of 11 and 1. Volatility has to be considered also.
I think it was Matt Goodwin who pointed out that though Starmer is doing well, in the 'are labour ready for government?' category they are streets behind.
I've never been very clear what that means. I don't think it is very quantifiable. Most of us don't know who many secretaries of state are, let alone their shadows, so in terms of being ready for government I have no idea.
I know Starmer looks like he was cast in a tv show to play a Prime Minister - vaguely distinguished looking older white man.
It means things like: Might you find Richard Burgon or RL-B on the front bench. Might voting Labour bring Laura Pidcock back into play as next leader or Minister for Shouty People's Interests . Might voting Labour mean Scottish interests controlling the show.
But if we could have a front bench of Coopers, Benns, Kendalls, Nandys and Phillipses then maybe.
Labour "ready for government" is code for Labour "given up on the notion of changing much".
Radical policies that could be vote winners if sold right -
1) National Elderly Care Service - fully budgeted and costed 2) Simplify taxation to reduce loop holes. 3) UBI introduction 4) etc etc
One that would be interesting - without privatisation, introduce competition into the state sector. If Soviet Russia could do that for things they cared about (tanks, missiles etc) should be a doddle. Mutual societies competing to run parts of government?
I think it was Matt Goodwin who pointed out that though Starmer is doing well, in the 'are labour ready for government?' category they are streets behind.
I've never been very clear what that means. I don't think it is very quantifiable. Most of us don't know who many secretaries of state are, let alone their shadows, so in terms of being ready for government I have no idea.
I know Starmer looks like he was cast in a tv show to play a Prime Minister - vaguely distinguished looking older white man.
It means things like: Might you find Richard Burgon or RL-B on the front bench. Might voting Labour bring Laura Pidcock back into play as next leader or Minister for Shouty People's Interests . Might voting Labour mean Scottish interests controlling the show.
But if we could have a front bench of Coopers, Benns, Kendalls, Nandys and Phillipses then maybe.
Labour "ready for government" is code for Labour "given up on the notion of changing much".
That's what government is.
One of the things to watch in the years to come is what happens if/when Gove and Cummings come to terms with the reality that changing Head Office is easy, but making real positive revolutionary changes at a nationwide scale is even harder than they think.
@LadyG My sense is that it's overused. The idea of turning it off will have never crossed many minds even in mildly warm places. My anecdotal experience is China, about 15 years ago. Never appreciated that aircon was (I think) the global norm for shops and we're a bit of an outlier I think here.
Yes. The counter-example to my theory is East Asia.
Air-con is ubiquitous in Thailand, Hong Kong, Japan, where they have stinking hot humidity, but the virus is dormant there.
But I am still sure it is a vector. It is recycled air. It's the perfect way to infect whole rooms of people.
I'm not sure it's aircon per se.
Being confined indoors with poor ventilation is undoubtedly not a good idea. If fans are blowing exhaled air from one individual towards others (which seems to have been a patter in at least one documented Korean case), that doesn't help, either. Decent aircon systems should have HEPA filters, so the 'recycling' isn't necessarily the problem. Plenty of crappy systems around, though.
Yes, exactly: the analyses I've read say that a well-maintained modern aircon should not be much of a problem, if they take in enough fresh air and are thoroughly cleaned and so on.
But an old or bad aircon is a real risk.
I am certainly personally warier of aircon than I was.
I'm wary of any confined space with numbers of people in it.
This absurdly self-absorbed struggle between trans activists and feminists is one of the most unedifying spectacles of the left of the last 40 years. No wonder the simplistic identity politics of the right are equally able to make hay.
I think it was Matt Goodwin who pointed out that though Starmer is doing well, in the 'are labour ready for government?' category they are streets behind.
I've never been very clear what that means. I don't think it is very quantifiable. Most of us don't know who many secretaries of state are, let alone their shadows, so in terms of being ready for government I have no idea.
I know Starmer looks like he was cast in a tv show to play a Prime Minister - vaguely distinguished looking older white man.
It means things like: Might you find Richard Burgon or RL-B on the front bench. Might voting Labour bring Laura Pidcock back into play as next leader or Minister for Shouty People's Interests . Might voting Labour mean Scottish interests controlling the show.
But if we could have a front bench of Coopers, Benns, Kendalls, Nandys and Phillipses then maybe.
Labour "ready for government" is code for Labour "given up on the notion of changing much".
That's what government is.
Don't follow. How do you mean "that's what government is"?
On approval ratings Sir Keir Starmer is leading leader approval ratings, which on past performance Labour will win the most votes in a general election held tomorrow.
It feels a bit 2015 redux at the moment, the supplementaries are indicating Sir Keir is much better than Boris Johnson.
In 2012 Miliband led Cameron on approval ratings, and Labour led in the polls
Not in that YouGov poll of 20th Jan 2012, when 18% felt that Miliband was doing well, and 71% that he was doing badly, and Labour was still 5% behind in the polls.
By the end of the year Labour had an apparent lead of 10%, but even then Miliband was still badly regarded - 33% thought he was doing well and 54% badly.
By the start of 2015, Miliband was back to 18% well and 70% badly. By the end of the election campaign, Cameron was level pegging while Miliband was still a net 19% down.
Miliband consistently acted as a drag on Labour's ratings.
On approval ratings Sir Keir Starmer is leading leader approval ratings, which on past performance Labour will win the most votes in a general election held tomorrow.
It feels a bit 2015 redux at the moment, the supplementaries are indicating Sir Keir is much better than Boris Johnson.
In 2012 Miliband led Cameron on approval ratings, and Labour led in the polls
Not in that YouGov poll of 20th Jan 2012, when 18% felt that Miliband was doing well, and 71% that he was doing badly, and Labour was still 5% behind in the polls.
By the end of the year Labour had an apparent lead of 10%, but even then Miliband was still badly regarded - 33% thought he was doing well and 54% badly.
By the start of 2015, Miliband was back to 18% well and 70% badly. By the end of the election campaign, Cameron was level pegging while Miliband was still a net 19% down.
Miliband consistently acted as a drag on Labour's ratings.
For the first time since Blair (probably?), the leader is far more popular than the party.
I think it was Matt Goodwin who pointed out that though Starmer is doing well, in the 'are labour ready for government?' category they are streets behind.
I've never been very clear what that means. I don't think it is very quantifiable. Most of us don't know who many secretaries of state are, let alone their shadows, so in terms of being ready for government I have no idea.
I know Starmer looks like he was cast in a tv show to play a Prime Minister - vaguely distinguished looking older white man.
It means things like: Might you find Richard Burgon or RL-B on the front bench. Might voting Labour bring Laura Pidcock back into play as next leader or Minister for Shouty People's Interests . Might voting Labour mean Scottish interests controlling the show.
But if we could have a front bench of Coopers, Benns, Kendalls, Nandys and Phillipses then maybe.
Labour "ready for government" is code for Labour "given up on the notion of changing much".
Radical policies that could be vote winners if sold right -
1) National Elderly Care Service - fully budgeted and costed 2) Simplify taxation to reduce loop holes. 3) UBI introduction 4) etc etc
One that would be interesting - without privatisation, introduce competition into the state sector. If Soviet Russia could do that for things they cared about (tanks, missiles etc) should be a doddle. Mutual societies competing to run parts of government?
I'd like to think so. It's going to be really interesting how Starmer plays it. Will he retain a radical leftish policy platform - i.e one that attacks privilege and vested interests and seeks in serious fashion to redistribute wealth and opportunity - or will he be wary of this and try to win "from the centre", defining Labour as the more competent, more compassionate, "safe alternative" to the Tories?
@LadyG My sense is that it's overused. The idea of turning it off will have never crossed many minds even in mildly warm places. My anecdotal experience is China, about 15 years ago. Never appreciated that aircon was (I think) the global norm for shops and we're a bit of an outlier I think here.
Yes. The counter-example to my theory is East Asia.
Air-con is ubiquitous in Thailand, Hong Kong, Japan, where they have stinking hot humidity, but the virus is dormant there.
But I am still sure it is a vector. It is recycled air. It's the perfect way to infect whole rooms of people.
I'm not sure it's aircon per se.
Being confined indoors with poor ventilation is undoubtedly not a good idea. If fans are blowing exhaled air from one individual towards others (which seems to have been a patter in at least one documented Korean case), that doesn't help, either. Decent aircon systems should have HEPA filters, so the 'recycling' isn't necessarily the problem. Plenty of crappy systems around, though.
Yes, exactly: the analyses I've read say that a well-maintained modern aircon should not be much of a problem, if they take in enough fresh air and are thoroughly cleaned and so on.
But an old or bad aircon is a real risk.
I am certainly personally warier of aircon than I was.
I'm wary of any confined space with numbers of people in it.
LostPassword said: » show previous quotes The WWW is one thing that uses the internet. Email is another. There are yet more uses of the internet.
So people say "I saw it on the internet" they mean "i saw it on the world wide web"?
Hmmmm but everyone says hoover, not vacuum cleaner, think the difference has been lost now
We can understand loose language in context but the distinction between WWW and the Internet is critical and will be even more so with the rise of the Internet Of Things on top of all the current non Web services / protocols.
Politicians and academics have criticised a decision to withdraw US visas from foreign students whose courses move fully online.
US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) said people could face deportation unless they changed to an institution with in-person tuition.
A number of US universities are considering online teaching in the new academic year due to coronavirus. It is not clear how many people will be affected.
The Student and Exchange Visitor Programme, which is operated by ICE, had introduced a temporary exemption to allow students whose courses had moved online for the spring and summer semesters to remain in the US. However, the exemption will not be extended into the new academic year. The decision affects students who are in the US on F-1 and M-1 visas, according to the ICE statement.
Easy to mock. And fine to mock. Especially if combined with meaningful opposition to sexism.
Absolutely. The kind of meaningful opposition to sexism found on the trading floor of Goldman Sachs in the 80s/90s.
Well I was never like that. Embarrassing. I was the intense intellectual type. Eyes on screen at all times.
Well done for hiding that comment away on the old thread.
Oh wait...
I'm always happy with the spotlight. So long as people don't spit or throw things.
I mean you were bold and came out, so to speak, as working for the GVS and respec' for that but it does put your ardent support for far left wing politics somewhat into perspective.
Nothing wrong with that of course, and adds to the gaiety and diversity of PB.
And it shouldn't matter; everyone is free to think and support whatever they want, politically, whatever their background. But you know.
Absolutely. Keir Starmer doesn't suffer from unconscious bias, he suffers from a very conscious and deliberate decision to be completely uninterested in improving the material conditions of minorities. BLM is fighting for change, not for these kinds of hollow gestures.
Slightly aside from the main point, but have you ever undergone unconscious bias training? It's mandatory where I work* for all involved in hiring and our course, at least, is good. Some obvious bits, but one part that stood out was a group exercise where each group was shown a video of an altercation between two groups and had to work out what had happened, essentially who was to blame. Each group got a video with different actors (different ethnic groups, sex, age, dress, accent etc) and different turns of phrase, but essentially the same content - transcripts for all four were shared afterwards and were identical in substance. The groups came to different conclusions about blame based on who was in the videos.
Unconscious bias is real (and natural and a useful survival instinct through human evolution) and it is useful to be aware of it to try and question your own assumptions and prejudices. Labour should absolutely train their people given recent history with antisemitism and Starmer would be a hypocrite not to also do the training himself.
*a university, so yes, I know: wokeville
Great post. Our brains have a bunch of cognitive biases based on various heuristics evolved for our survival as a species. Simple awareness of these subconscious biases can help us go a long way to overcoming them - but by their nature we need outside help to recognize them. Unconscious racial bias is indeed real.
"I find it odd that the latest Opinium approval ratings had Johnson a net 27% behind Starmer while the voting numbers still had CON 4% ahead. I cannot recall a similar divergence in the past"
Surely, it's Brexit? I was polled online very recently and the question asked is 'Which party will you vote for if the General Election is tomorrow?' Until the transition period is out of the way many of us are sticking with Boris even while we disagree on a raft of issues.
I think it was Matt Goodwin who pointed out that though Starmer is doing well, in the 'are labour ready for government?' category they are streets behind.
I've never been very clear what that means. I don't think it is very quantifiable. Most of us don't know who many secretaries of state are, let alone their shadows, so in terms of being ready for government I have no idea.
I know Starmer looks like he was cast in a tv show to play a Prime Minister - vaguely distinguished looking older white man.
It means things like: Might you find Richard Burgon or RL-B on the front bench. Might voting Labour bring Laura Pidcock back into play as next leader or Minister for Shouty People's Interests . Might voting Labour mean Scottish interests controlling the show.
But if we could have a front bench of Coopers, Benns, Kendalls, Nandys and Phillipses then maybe.
Labour "ready for government" is code for Labour "given up on the notion of changing much".
That's what government is.
Don't follow. How do you mean "that's what government is"?
Government isn't about "changing much". It isn't about upending the apple cart, having a revolution and seeing everything change.
Good governance is about picking a few priorities, areas that need improving and addressing those.
Corbyn was never taken seriously because he wanted to transform and spend more on everything which anyone rational knows is impossible. When you prioritise everything you prioritise nothing.
Labour will be serious for government when it stops claiming it will fix every issue ever and instead picks some specific areas that need addressing with some specific ideas how it wants to do it.
In other words starts to make choices. Take sides. Have priorities.
This absurdly self-absorbed struggle between trans activists and feminists is one of the most unedifying spectacles of the left of the last 40 years. No wonder the simplistic identity politics of the right are equally able to make hay.
When I was very young I was surprised by Malcolm X not wanting white people to join the cause.
Then I met some of the people he would have been talking about.
Good afternoon all. Some interesting stuff on Covid numbers today and in that context I offer a tale of two Wendys.
First, my Aunt Wendy died in a care home a couple of weeks or so ago. Her death certificate says Covid but the family are sceptical to say the least. She'd been bed bound for at least a year, and when I saw her for the last time at Christmas it was clear she was waiting to die. She'd lost any interest in anything and was existing rather than living. Covid may or may not have finally ended her life, but if so it was a mercy to all concerned.
We have a friend named Wendy whose Mum died a few weeks ago. She was 96 and died at home surrounded by her family. Again, her death certificate says Covid but the family think it was just old age. Maybe, maybe not.
Both of these cases appear in the statistics as Covid deaths. In neither case was death when it occurred anything of a surprise, nor was it accelerated, at least in the view of the family.
There are probably many such cases.
Which is why the best measure to look at is excess deaths. Hopefully we'll go through a period when it's running at less than the expected level.
By any measure Boris should be highly unpopular and his party well behind labour but this does not seem to be evidenced in the polls at present. This forum is dominated with posters who dislike Boris with a passion and jump on his every misdeed or error and yet the real world does seem indifferent
I believe Corbyn has a huge responsibility in this respect having shredded the labour brand and when a brand is shredded it takes a long time to get back on track. It is arguable Ratner never got back after his ill thought out comments on his own product
Starmer is providing a degree of competence but it is easy when you can criticise with hindsight and to date he has not laid out any proposition other than to say on any move by HMG, that it is too little and too late
The ECHR will be his next test but I do think he and labour need to take care with 'woke' culture as it will not go down well in the red wall seats
I find Boris embarrassing but I do not see him standing aside in the immediate future so no doubt we will just have to get used to the daily Scott and others twitter attacks into the foreseable future as brexit is happening, deal or no deal, and covid is a far bigger problem for all politicians for years to come
The parallel between Corbyn and Ratner is interesting. Both did indeed shred the brand and I agree that recovery does take a long time.
Bear in mind though that Ratner's former company can now be described thus on wiki: "Signet Jewelers Ltd. (Ratner Group 1949–1993 then Signet Group plc to September 2008) is the world's largest retailer of diamond jewellery."
So Ratner resigned and his former company recovered. Corbyn has resigned and Labour's recovery is clearly underway. Starmer has another 4 years to complete it, which is a long time in politics.
I think it was Matt Goodwin who pointed out that though Starmer is doing well, in the 'are labour ready for government?' category they are streets behind.
I've never been very clear what that means. I don't think it is very quantifiable. Most of us don't know who many secretaries of state are, let alone their shadows, so in terms of being ready for government I have no idea.
I know Starmer looks like he was cast in a tv show to play a Prime Minister - vaguely distinguished looking older white man.
It means things like: Might you find Richard Burgon or RL-B on the front bench. Might voting Labour bring Laura Pidcock back into play as next leader or Minister for Shouty People's Interests . Might voting Labour mean Scottish interests controlling the show.
But if we could have a front bench of Coopers, Benns, Kendalls, Nandys and Phillipses then maybe.
Labour "ready for government" is code for Labour "given up on the notion of changing much".
Radical policies that could be vote winners if sold right -
1) National Elderly Care Service - fully budgeted and costed 2) Simplify taxation to reduce loop holes. 3) UBI introduction 4) etc etc
One that would be interesting - without privatisation, introduce competition into the state sector. If Soviet Russia could do that for things they cared about (tanks, missiles etc) should be a doddle. Mutual societies competing to run parts of government?
I'd like to think so. It's going to be really interesting how Starmer plays it. Will he retain a radical leftish policy platform - i.e one that attacks privilege and vested interests and seeks in serious fashion to redistribute wealth and opportunity - or will he be wary of this and try to win "from the centre", defining Labour as the more competent, more compassionate, "safe alternative" to the Tories?
It can't be a retread of Blairism, because the social conditions have changed. Probably some innovative coalition of Corbynite radical edges, Wilsonian/Milibandite Labour-Centrism and aspirational Blairism is what is needed to get Labour over the line. The obstacle is generally reconciling those groups, but Wilson was able to, and Wilson is Starmer's hero.
I notice in another article today the Johnson government fusion of science-tech optimism and high spending is also being described as "Wilsonian". Maybe Wilson's reputation will be climbing again in the next few decades.
Absolutely. Keir Starmer doesn't suffer from unconscious bias, he suffers from a very conscious and deliberate decision to be completely uninterested in improving the material conditions of minorities. BLM is fighting for change, not for these kinds of hollow gestures.
Slightly aside from the main point, but have you ever undergone unconscious bias training? It's mandatory where I work* for all involved in hiring and our course, at least, is good. Some obvious bits, but one part that stood out was a group exercise where each group was shown a video of an altercation between two groups and had to work out what had happened, essentially who was to blame. Each group got a video with different actors (different ethnic groups, sex, age, dress, accent etc) and different turns of phrase, but essentially the same content - transcripts for all four were shared afterwards and were identical in substance. The groups came to different conclusions about blame based on who was in the videos.
Unconscious bias is real (and natural and a useful survival instinct through human evolution) and it is useful to be aware of it to try and question your own assumptions and prejudices. Labour should absolutely train their people given recent history with antisemitism and Starmer would be a hypocrite not to also do the training himself.
*a university, so yes, I know: wokeville
Great post. Our brains have a bunch of cognitive biases based on various heuristics evolved for our survival as a species. Simple awareness of these subconscious biases can help us go a long way to overcoming them - but by their nature we need outside help to recognize them. Unconscious racial bias is indeed real.
Interesting. It doesn't seem on the surface that losing mental shortcuts evolved for our survival should be considered an automatic improvement.
A strong retort. Rowling is nevertheless spouting a lot of drivel on this topic.
I don't understand the TERF wars, but can you tell me one single important thing that JKR has said, on this subject, that is obviously "drivel"?
As far as I can see she just talks common sense most of the time, or at least the common sense of ten years back.
But I accept my ignorance and am happy to be educated. If you would be so kind.
Long ago, I tried my hand at science fiction.
One attempt was a short story - time traveller arrives in the future. He recounts his views - all the finest, kindest saintly ideas you can conceive of.
His hosts are so horrific that they re-invent the death penalty. They can't even tell him why - his ideas are too horrific for them to express.
There are only 4 polls making up the average, so I would not read too much into small changes in the average, particularly when the new one is Trafalgar Group, which seems to have an house GOP bias.
There are only 4 polls making up the average, so I would not read too much into small changes in the average, particularly when the new one is Trafalgar Group, which seems to have an house GOP bias.
I'm not reading very much into it, but some data is better than no data.
"I find it odd that the latest Opinium approval ratings had Johnson a net 27% behind Starmer while the voting numbers still had CON 4% ahead. I cannot recall a similar divergence in the past"
Surely, it's Brexit? I was polled online very recently and the question asked is 'Which party will you vote for if the General Election is tomorrow?' Until the transition period is out of the way many of us are sticking with Boris even while we disagree on a raft of issues.
How salient will relations with the EU be as an issue by 2024? I suspect that the election could be similar to that in 2017, with the Conservatives talking about nothing else but Brexit, while Labour's focus is elsewhere.
Absolutely. Keir Starmer doesn't suffer from unconscious bias, he suffers from a very conscious and deliberate decision to be completely uninterested in improving the material conditions of minorities. BLM is fighting for change, not for these kinds of hollow gestures.
Slightly aside from the main point, but have you ever undergone unconscious bias training? It's mandatory where I work* for all involved in hiring and our course, at least, is good. Some obvious bits, but one part that stood out was a group exercise where each group was shown a video of an altercation between two groups and had to work out what had happened, essentially who was to blame. Each group got a video with different actors (different ethnic groups, sex, age, dress, accent etc) and different turns of phrase, but essentially the same content - transcripts for all four were shared afterwards and were identical in substance. The groups came to different conclusions about blame based on who was in the videos.
Unconscious bias is real (and natural and a useful survival instinct through human evolution) and it is useful to be aware of it to try and question your own assumptions and prejudices. Labour should absolutely train their people given recent history with antisemitism and Starmer would be a hypocrite not to also do the training himself.
*a university, so yes, I know: wokeville
Great post. Our brains have a bunch of cognitive biases based on various heuristics evolved for our survival as a species. Simple awareness of these subconscious biases can help us go a long way to overcoming them - but by their nature we need outside help to recognize them. Unconscious racial bias is indeed real.
Interesting. It doesn't seem on the surface that losing mental shortcuts evolved for our survival should be considered an automatic improvement.
Quick and dirty can be a life-saver but does not always need to be right if it is to be useful. It is good to jump away from everything that might be a snake before our conscious brain can determine whether it is indeed a venomous snake or a piece of old rope.
Likewise, rapidly recognizing in-group and out-group subconsciously and preparing the body to react before the conscious brain is able to process the data must have had some survival benefit even if it meant losing some friend-making opportunities.
This absurdly self-absorbed struggle between trans activists and feminists is one of the most unedifying spectacles of the left of the last 40 years. No wonder the simplistic identity politics of the right are equally able to make hay.
Yes. If you drop the heat and fury and focus on practicalities most reasonable people would imo reach common ground. I hope we have a really good airing of this one at some point.
@LadyG My sense is that it's overused. The idea of turning it off will have never crossed many minds even in mildly warm places. My anecdotal experience is China, about 15 years ago. Never appreciated that aircon was (I think) the global norm for shops and we're a bit of an outlier I think here.
Yes. The counter-example to my theory is East Asia.
Air-con is ubiquitous in Thailand, Hong Kong, Japan, where they have stinking hot humidity, but the virus is dormant there.
But I am still sure it is a vector. It is recycled air. It's the perfect way to infect whole rooms of people.
I'm not sure it's aircon per se.
Being confined indoors with poor ventilation is undoubtedly not a good idea. If fans are blowing exhaled air from one individual towards others (which seems to have been a patter in at least one documented Korean case), that doesn't help, either. Decent aircon systems should have HEPA filters, so the 'recycling' isn't necessarily the problem. Plenty of crappy systems around, though.
Yes, exactly: the analyses I've read say that a well-maintained modern aircon should not be much of a problem, if they take in enough fresh air and are thoroughly cleaned and so on.
But an old or bad aircon is a real risk.
I am certainly personally warier of aircon than I was.
I'm wary of any confined space with numbers of people in it.
Re; air conditioning, at one point in my misspent youth experienced two summers in Baton Rouge, LA with NOT a/c in my (very) humble abode. Was working my way through school driving a taxi. Only time that car's a/c worked was when you had a paying fare. I knew every shady spot in town where you could park a Checker cab!
Hot in south Louisiana is NOT nice, dry desert heat. It is muggy, wet swamp heat. Ugh!
Good afternoon all. Some interesting stuff on Covid numbers today and in that context I offer a tale of two Wendys.
First, my Aunt Wendy died in a care home a couple of weeks or so ago. Her death certificate says Covid but the family are sceptical to say the least. She'd been bed bound for at least a year, and when I saw her for the last time at Christmas it was clear she was waiting to die. She'd lost any interest in anything and was existing rather than living. Covid may or may not have finally ended her life, but if so it was a mercy to all concerned.
We have a friend named Wendy whose Mum died a few weeks ago. She was 96 and died at home surrounded by her family. Again, her death certificate says Covid but the family think it was just old age. Maybe, maybe not.
Both of these cases appear in the statistics as Covid deaths. In neither case was death when it occurred anything of a surprise, nor was it accelerated, at least in the view of the family.
There are probably many such cases.
Which is why the best measure to look at is excess deaths. Hopefully we'll go through a period when it's running at less than the expected level.
It's already happening, deaths for the last two weeks are running at below the 5y average.
It seems inevitable that is going to happen doesnt it, If loads of 80+ year olds pass away a bit earlier than expected?
@partypoliticalorphan, interesting point on the transition period and I wonder how many voters rally around Johnson as the Brexit man until they perceive it to be truly out of the way. After that, do these voters carry on voting, give up, go back to their old parties? What do you think?
Good afternoon all. Some interesting stuff on Covid numbers today and in that context I offer a tale of two Wendys.
First, my Aunt Wendy died in a care home a couple of weeks or so ago. Her death certificate says Covid but the family are sceptical to say the least. She'd been bed bound for at least a year, and when I saw her for the last time at Christmas it was clear she was waiting to die. She'd lost any interest in anything and was existing rather than living. Covid may or may not have finally ended her life, but if so it was a mercy to all concerned.
We have a friend named Wendy whose Mum died a few weeks ago. She was 96 and died at home surrounded by her family. Again, her death certificate says Covid but the family think it was just old age. Maybe, maybe not.
Both of these cases appear in the statistics as Covid deaths. In neither case was death when it occurred anything of a surprise, nor was it accelerated, at least in the view of the family.
There are probably many such cases.
Which is why the best measure to look at is excess deaths. Hopefully we'll go through a period when it's running at less than the expected level.
It's already happening, deaths for the last two weeks are running at below the 5y average.
It seems inevitable that is going to happen doesnt it, If loads of 80+ year olds pass away a bit earlier than expected?
Has your father managed to get an appointment now?
On approval ratings Sir Keir Starmer is leading leader approval ratings, which on past performance Labour will win the most votes in a general election held tomorrow.
It feels a bit 2015 redux at the moment, the supplementaries are indicating Sir Keir is much better than Boris Johnson.
In 2012 Miliband led Cameron on approval ratings, and Labour led in the polls
Not in that YouGov poll of 20th Jan 2012, when 18% felt that Miliband was doing well, and 71% that he was doing badly, and Labour was still 5% behind in the polls.
By the end of the year Labour had an apparent lead of 10%, but even then Miliband was still badly regarded - 33% thought he was doing well and 54% badly.
By the start of 2015, Miliband was back to 18% well and 70% badly. By the end of the election campaign, Cameron was level pegging while Miliband was still a net 19% down.
Miliband consistently acted as a drag on Labour's ratings.
Cameron vs Miliband ISOS-MORI
Navy is Cameron leader ratings lead Red is Tory VI lead Light blue is Cameron Personality lead
80% asymptomatic is a massive iceberg effect and could explain why this is dying down so quickly in areas that have already had a peak like London. Hopefully it means we avoid a second peak.
This absurdly self-absorbed struggle between trans activists and feminists is one of the most unedifying spectacles of the left of the last 40 years. No wonder the simplistic identity politics of the right are equally able to make hay.
Yes. If you drop the heat and fury and focus on practicalities most reasonable people would imo reach common ground. I hope we have a really good airing of this one at some point.
Hello
Did you see my question earlier on?
You said JKRowling talks a lot of "obvious drivel" about trans rights.
I asked if you could provide one example of this outright drivel. Because I genuinely don't understand he venom nor the nuance in this debate.
I think it was Matt Goodwin who pointed out that though Starmer is doing well, in the 'are labour ready for government?' category they are streets behind.
I've never been very clear what that means. I don't think it is very quantifiable. Most of us don't know who many secretaries of state are, let alone their shadows, so in terms of being ready for government I have no idea.
I know Starmer looks like he was cast in a tv show to play a Prime Minister - vaguely distinguished looking older white man.
It means things like: Might you find Richard Burgon or RL-B on the front bench. Might voting Labour bring Laura Pidcock back into play as next leader or Minister for Shouty People's Interests . Might voting Labour mean Scottish interests controlling the show.
But if we could have a front bench of Coopers, Benns, Kendalls, Nandys and Phillipses then maybe.
Labour "ready for government" is code for Labour "given up on the notion of changing much".
That's what government is.
Don't follow. How do you mean "that's what government is"?
Government isn't about "changing much". It isn't about upending the apple cart, having a revolution and seeing everything change.
Good governance is about picking a few priorities, areas that need improving and addressing those.
Corbyn was never taken seriously because he wanted to transform and spend more on everything which anyone rational knows is impossible. When you prioritise everything you prioritise nothing.
Labour will be serious for government when it stops claiming it will fix every issue ever and instead picks some specific areas that need addressing with some specific ideas how it wants to do it.
In other words starts to make choices. Take sides. Have priorities.
OK. Very good post. I agree.
But for Labour one of those priorities must imo be to redistribute wealth, power and opportunity. If not, I'm unenthused - although I will always vote for them.
A strong retort. Rowling is nevertheless spouting a lot of drivel on this topic.
I don't understand the TERF wars, but can you tell me one single important thing that JKR has said, on this subject, that is obviously "drivel"?
As far as I can see she just talks common sense most of the time, or at least the common sense of ten years back.
But I accept my ignorance and am happy to be educated. If you would be so kind.
OK. Only one for today though.
The notion that many people are being railroaded into changing gender and often regret doing it.
This is false.
Has she said that?
I think that it is reasonable to say that before changing gender someone should be given professional medical support first. Which is why I oppose self identification but support those who transition after speaking to medical professionals.
A strong retort. Rowling is nevertheless spouting a lot of drivel on this topic.
I don't understand the TERF wars, but can you tell me one single important thing that JKR has said, on this subject, that is obviously "drivel"?
As far as I can see she just talks common sense most of the time, or at least the common sense of ten years back.
But I accept my ignorance and am happy to be educated. If you would be so kind.
OK. Only one for today though.
The notion that many people are being railroaded into changing gender and often regret doing it.
This is false.
I don't know about railroading but the evidence for people transitioning and regretting it is overwhelming. Even without the evidence, it would be astonishing if nobody ever regretted a decision so life-changing and with such unpredictable consequences. It's like saying nobody in history has ever regretted getting married.
I think it was Matt Goodwin who pointed out that though Starmer is doing well, in the 'are labour ready for government?' category they are streets behind.
I've never been very clear what that means. I don't think it is very quantifiable. Most of us don't know who many secretaries of state are, let alone their shadows, so in terms of being ready for government I have no idea.
I know Starmer looks like he was cast in a tv show to play a Prime Minister - vaguely distinguished looking older white man.
It means things like: Might you find Richard Burgon or RL-B on the front bench. Might voting Labour bring Laura Pidcock back into play as next leader or Minister for Shouty People's Interests . Might voting Labour mean Scottish interests controlling the show.
But if we could have a front bench of Coopers, Benns, Kendalls, Nandys and Phillipses then maybe.
Labour "ready for government" is code for Labour "given up on the notion of changing much".
Radical policies that could be vote winners if sold right -
1) National Elderly Care Service - fully budgeted and costed 2) Simplify taxation to reduce loop holes. 3) UBI introduction 4) etc etc
One that would be interesting - without privatisation, introduce competition into the state sector. If Soviet Russia could do that for things they cared about (tanks, missiles etc) should be a doddle. Mutual societies competing to run parts of government?
I'd like to think so. It's going to be really interesting how Starmer plays it. Will he retain a radical leftish policy platform - i.e one that attacks privilege and vested interests and seeks in serious fashion to redistribute wealth and opportunity - or will he be wary of this and try to win "from the centre", defining Labour as the more competent, more compassionate, "safe alternative" to the Tories?
It can't be a retread of Blairism, because the social conditions have changed. Probably some innovative coalition of Corbynite radical edges, Wilsonian/Milibandite Labour-Centrism and aspirational Blairism is what is needed to get Labour over the line. The obstacle is generally reconciling those groups, but Wilson was able to, and Wilson is Starmer's hero.
I notice in another article today the Johnson government fusion of science-tech optimism and high spending is also being described as "Wilsonian". Maybe Wilson's reputation will be climbing again in the next few decades.
I've always been very interested in Wilson and his era. Crossland, Jenkins, Benn, Castle, that group of people. Read quite a few books on the subject. They strike me as giants compared to today and I say this even though I hate saying old fogey things like that.
I think it was Matt Goodwin who pointed out that though Starmer is doing well, in the 'are labour ready for government?' category they are streets behind.
I've never been very clear what that means. I don't think it is very quantifiable. Most of us don't know who many secretaries of state are, let alone their shadows, so in terms of being ready for government I have no idea.
I know Starmer looks like he was cast in a tv show to play a Prime Minister - vaguely distinguished looking older white man.
It means things like: Might you find Richard Burgon or RL-B on the front bench. Might voting Labour bring Laura Pidcock back into play as next leader or Minister for Shouty People's Interests . Might voting Labour mean Scottish interests controlling the show.
But if we could have a front bench of Coopers, Benns, Kendalls, Nandys and Phillipses then maybe.
Labour "ready for government" is code for Labour "given up on the notion of changing much".
That's what government is.
Don't follow. How do you mean "that's what government is"?
Government isn't about "changing much". It isn't about upending the apple cart, having a revolution and seeing everything change.
Good governance is about picking a few priorities, areas that need improving and addressing those.
Corbyn was never taken seriously because he wanted to transform and spend more on everything which anyone rational knows is impossible. When you prioritise everything you prioritise nothing.
Labour will be serious for government when it stops claiming it will fix every issue ever and instead picks some specific areas that need addressing with some specific ideas how it wants to do it.
In other words starts to make choices. Take sides. Have priorities.
OK. Very good post. I agree.
But for Labour one of those priorities must imo be to redistribute wealth, power and opportunity. If not, I'm unenthused - although I will always vote for them.
Redistribute wealth, power and opportunity from whom to whom though ?
People tend to support that redistribution when its from 'people like them' to 'people like us'.
Less so when its from 'people like us' to 'people like them'.
Someone who headed the PR for the Lib Dems 2015 campaign, the PR for the 2016 Remain campaign now wishes to head the PR for Hong Kong's government with its new security law?
I think it was Matt Goodwin who pointed out that though Starmer is doing well, in the 'are labour ready for government?' category they are streets behind.
I've never been very clear what that means. I don't think it is very quantifiable. Most of us don't know who many secretaries of state are, let alone their shadows, so in terms of being ready for government I have no idea.
I know Starmer looks like he was cast in a tv show to play a Prime Minister - vaguely distinguished looking older white man.
It means things like: Might you find Richard Burgon or RL-B on the front bench. Might voting Labour bring Laura Pidcock back into play as next leader or Minister for Shouty People's Interests . Might voting Labour mean Scottish interests controlling the show.
But if we could have a front bench of Coopers, Benns, Kendalls, Nandys and Phillipses then maybe.
Labour "ready for government" is code for Labour "given up on the notion of changing much".
Radical policies that could be vote winners if sold right -
1) National Elderly Care Service - fully budgeted and costed 2) Simplify taxation to reduce loop holes. 3) UBI introduction 4) etc etc
One that would be interesting - without privatisation, introduce competition into the state sector. If Soviet Russia could do that for things they cared about (tanks, missiles etc) should be a doddle. Mutual societies competing to run parts of government?
I'd like to think so. It's going to be really interesting how Starmer plays it. Will he retain a radical leftish policy platform - i.e one that attacks privilege and vested interests and seeks in serious fashion to redistribute wealth and opportunity - or will he be wary of this and try to win "from the centre", defining Labour as the more competent, more compassionate, "safe alternative" to the Tories?
It can't be a retread of Blairism, because the social conditions have changed. Probably some innovative coalition of Corbynite radical edges, Wilsonian/Milibandite Labour-Centrism and aspirational Blairism is what is needed to get Labour over the line. The obstacle is generally reconciling those groups, but Wilson was able to, and Wilson is Starmer's hero.
I notice in another article today the Johnson government fusion of science-tech optimism and high spending is also being described as "Wilsonian". Maybe Wilson's reputation will be climbing again in the next few decades.
Spot on, I think. Starmerism will be a bit like Wilsonianism. It will need to appeal to aspiration, alongside Labour's normal support for the marginalised - Corbyn singularly failed to do this. He will make sure Labour is patriotic, but not nationalistic. Anti-semitism will be vanquished, and wokeness will be marginalised as a term but reframed as good British manners. It will be the green heat of technology, rather than Wilson's white hot heat or whatever he said. But Starmerism will be pretty left wing on many matters, particularly economics. And he will major in good governance and competence, in contrast to Johnson' anarchic government and Cummings's demolition of the state ideas. His able shadow cabinet will grow on people, with more exposure over 2-3 years; those who don't perform well will go.
And Starmer will win handsomely in 2024...... just possibly.
I think it was Matt Goodwin who pointed out that though Starmer is doing well, in the 'are labour ready for government?' category they are streets behind.
I've never been very clear what that means. I don't think it is very quantifiable. Most of us don't know who many secretaries of state are, let alone their shadows, so in terms of being ready for government I have no idea.
I know Starmer looks like he was cast in a tv show to play a Prime Minister - vaguely distinguished looking older white man.
It means things like: Might you find Richard Burgon or RL-B on the front bench. Might voting Labour bring Laura Pidcock back into play as next leader or Minister for Shouty People's Interests . Might voting Labour mean Scottish interests controlling the show.
But if we could have a front bench of Coopers, Benns, Kendalls, Nandys and Phillipses then maybe.
Labour "ready for government" is code for Labour "given up on the notion of changing much".
That's what government is.
Don't follow. How do you mean "that's what government is"?
Government isn't about "changing much". It isn't about upending the apple cart, having a revolution and seeing everything change.
Good governance is about picking a few priorities, areas that need improving and addressing those.
Corbyn was never taken seriously because he wanted to transform and spend more on everything which anyone rational knows is impossible. When you prioritise everything you prioritise nothing.
Labour will be serious for government when it stops claiming it will fix every issue ever and instead picks some specific areas that need addressing with some specific ideas how it wants to do it.
In other words starts to make choices. Take sides. Have priorities.
OK. Very good post. I agree.
But for Labour one of those priorities must imo be to redistribute wealth, power and opportunity. If not, I'm unenthused - although I will always vote for them.
Redistribute wealth, power and opportunity from whom to whom though ?
People tend to support that redistribution when its from 'people like them' to 'people like us'.
Less so when its from 'people like us' to 'people like them'.
No, I should lose out. If I don't lose out from a Labour government then something has gone badly wrong.
Redistribute from those who have a lot to those who have little.
Someone who headed the PR for the Lib Dems 2015 campaign, the PR for the 2016 Remain campaign now wishes to head the PR for Hong Kong's government with its new security law?
The one thing that really disturbs me is the medical fashion for giving kids, often really young kids, puberty blocking drugs that can drastically change them for life.
“That treatment is given to children – not just under the age of 16, but under the age of 12 – on the basis that those children themselves consent to the treatment and gave fully informed consent to that treatment, even though the nature of the treatment has side-effects which, we say, supported by the evidence, they cannot properly take into account.”"
How can a child of 12 entirely understand puberty and puberty blocking, and therefore give informed consent?
Good afternoon all. Some interesting stuff on Covid numbers today and in that context I offer a tale of two Wendys.
First, my Aunt Wendy died in a care home a couple of weeks or so ago. Her death certificate says Covid but the family are sceptical to say the least. She'd been bed bound for at least a year, and when I saw her for the last time at Christmas it was clear she was waiting to die. She'd lost any interest in anything and was existing rather than living. Covid may or may not have finally ended her life, but if so it was a mercy to all concerned.
We have a friend named Wendy whose Mum died a few weeks ago. She was 96 and died at home surrounded by her family. Again, her death certificate says Covid but the family think it was just old age. Maybe, maybe not.
Both of these cases appear in the statistics as Covid deaths. In neither case was death when it occurred anything of a surprise, nor was it accelerated, at least in the view of the family.
There are probably many such cases.
Which is why the best measure to look at is excess deaths. Hopefully we'll go through a period when it's running at less than the expected level.
It's already happening, deaths for the last two weeks are running at below the 5y average.
It seems inevitable that is going to happen doesnt it, If loads of 80+ year olds pass away a bit earlier than expected?
Someone (?NigelB) posted a great article written by an actuary, saying that even for the over 80s your "a bit earlier than expected" is on average 3 years.
Slightly aside from the main point, but have you ever undergone unconscious bias training? It's mandatory where I work* for all involved in hiring and our course, at least, is good. Some obvious bits, but one part that stood out was a group exercise where each group was shown a video of an altercation between two groups and had to work out what had happened, essentially who was to blame. Each group got a video with different actors (different ethnic groups, sex, age, dress, accent etc) and different turns of phrase, but essentially the same content - transcripts for all four were shared afterwards and were identical in substance. The groups came to different conclusions about blame based on who was in the videos.
Identical in content does not mean identical....identical in content doesn't take into account phrases actually used, it doesn't take into account body language, it doesn't take into account intonation, it doesn't take into account volume.....seeing a transcript and judging them identical on content is meaningless
A strong retort. Rowling is nevertheless spouting a lot of drivel on this topic.
I don't understand the TERF wars, but can you tell me one single important thing that JKR has said, on this subject, that is obviously "drivel"?
As far as I can see she just talks common sense most of the time, or at least the common sense of ten years back.
But I accept my ignorance and am happy to be educated. If you would be so kind.
OK. Only one for today though.
The notion that many people are being railroaded into changing gender and often regret doing it.
This is false.
I don't know about railroading but the evidence for people transitioning and regretting it is overwhelming. Even without the evidence, it would be astonishing if nobody ever regretted a decision so life-changing and with such unpredictable consequences. It's like saying nobody in history has ever regretted getting married.
There is regret. It's not unheard of. But it's rare compared to positive outcomes.
I think it was Matt Goodwin who pointed out that though Starmer is doing well, in the 'are labour ready for government?' category they are streets behind.
I've never been very clear what that means. I don't think it is very quantifiable. Most of us don't know who many secretaries of state are, let alone their shadows, so in terms of being ready for government I have no idea.
I know Starmer looks like he was cast in a tv show to play a Prime Minister - vaguely distinguished looking older white man.
It means things like: Might you find Richard Burgon or RL-B on the front bench. Might voting Labour bring Laura Pidcock back into play as next leader or Minister for Shouty People's Interests . Might voting Labour mean Scottish interests controlling the show.
But if we could have a front bench of Coopers, Benns, Kendalls, Nandys and Phillipses then maybe.
Labour "ready for government" is code for Labour "given up on the notion of changing much".
That's what government is.
Don't follow. How do you mean "that's what government is"?
Government isn't about "changing much". It isn't about upending the apple cart, having a revolution and seeing everything change.
Good governance is about picking a few priorities, areas that need improving and addressing those.
Corbyn was never taken seriously because he wanted to transform and spend more on everything which anyone rational knows is impossible. When you prioritise everything you prioritise nothing.
Labour will be serious for government when it stops claiming it will fix every issue ever and instead picks some specific areas that need addressing with some specific ideas how it wants to do it.
In other words starts to make choices. Take sides. Have priorities.
OK. Very good post. I agree.
But for Labour one of those priorities must imo be to redistribute wealth, power and opportunity. If not, I'm unenthused - although I will always vote for them.
Redistribute wealth, power and opportunity from whom to whom though ?
People tend to support that redistribution when its from 'people like them' to 'people like us'.
Less so when its from 'people like us' to 'people like them'.
No, I should lose out. If I don't lose out from a Labour government then something has gone badly wrong.
Redistribute from those who have a lot to those who have little.
The opposite of what happens if you don't.
You are happy to be a little financially worse off in order for the country to run more as you prefer. Perfectly sensible
Why did Remain think talking about incremental GDP and 10 year ONS forecasts would sway people who hated the way the country was being run?
"They are literally voting to make themselves poorer", middle class people who vote Labour were chuckling
A strong retort. Rowling is nevertheless spouting a lot of drivel on this topic.
I don't understand the TERF wars, but can you tell me one single important thing that JKR has said, on this subject, that is obviously "drivel"?
As far as I can see she just talks common sense most of the time, or at least the common sense of ten years back.
But I accept my ignorance and am happy to be educated. If you would be so kind.
OK. Only one for today though.
The notion that many people are being railroaded into changing gender and often regret doing it.
This is false.
Has she said that?
I think that it is reasonable to say that before changing gender someone should be given professional medical support first. Which is why I oppose self identification but support those who transition after speaking to medical professionals.
A strong retort. Rowling is nevertheless spouting a lot of drivel on this topic.
I don't understand the TERF wars, but can you tell me one single important thing that JKR has said, on this subject, that is obviously "drivel"?
As far as I can see she just talks common sense most of the time, or at least the common sense of ten years back.
But I accept my ignorance and am happy to be educated. If you would be so kind.
OK. Only one for today though.
The notion that many people are being railroaded into changing gender and often regret doing it.
This is false.
I don't know about railroading but the evidence for people transitioning and regretting it is overwhelming. Even without the evidence, it would be astonishing if nobody ever regretted a decision so life-changing and with such unpredictable consequences. It's like saying nobody in history has ever regretted getting married.
There is regret. It's not unheard of. But it's rare compared to positive outcomes.
I think it was Matt Goodwin who pointed out that though Starmer is doing well, in the 'are labour ready for government?' category they are streets behind.
I've never been very clear what that means. I don't think it is very quantifiable. Most of us don't know who many secretaries of state are, let alone their shadows, so in terms of being ready for government I have no idea.
I know Starmer looks like he was cast in a tv show to play a Prime Minister - vaguely distinguished looking older white man.
It means things like: Might you find Richard Burgon or RL-B on the front bench. Might voting Labour bring Laura Pidcock back into play as next leader or Minister for Shouty People's Interests . Might voting Labour mean Scottish interests controlling the show.
But if we could have a front bench of Coopers, Benns, Kendalls, Nandys and Phillipses then maybe.
Labour "ready for government" is code for Labour "given up on the notion of changing much".
That's what government is.
Don't follow. How do you mean "that's what government is"?
Government isn't about "changing much". It isn't about upending the apple cart, having a revolution and seeing everything change.
Good governance is about picking a few priorities, areas that need improving and addressing those.
Corbyn was never taken seriously because he wanted to transform and spend more on everything which anyone rational knows is impossible. When you prioritise everything you prioritise nothing.
Labour will be serious for government when it stops claiming it will fix every issue ever and instead picks some specific areas that need addressing with some specific ideas how it wants to do it.
In other words starts to make choices. Take sides. Have priorities.
OK. Very good post. I agree.
But for Labour one of those priorities must imo be to redistribute wealth, power and opportunity. If not, I'm unenthused - although I will always vote for them.
Redistribute wealth, power and opportunity from whom to whom though ?
People tend to support that redistribution when its from 'people like them' to 'people like us'.
Less so when its from 'people like us' to 'people like them'.
No, I should lose out. If I don't lose out from a Labour government then something has gone badly wrong.
Redistribute from those who have a lot to those who have little.
The opposite of what happens if you don't.
Yet the likes of Blair and Brown and the Kinnocks and Milibands end up with wealth redistributed to them.
If Labour politicians had the principles of Dave Nellist talk of redistribution would be more believable.
A strong retort. Rowling is nevertheless spouting a lot of drivel on this topic.
But at least she has the wealth and reserve to not be cowed from the debate, and that has to be a good thing, as it is one of those areas people like to declare there is no debate to be had.
LadyG said: » show previous quotes There is a theory as to why some countries/regions are getting rebounds in cases, whereas others, behaving identically, are not.
Take two as an example. Israel and Denmark.
They are both affluent, advanced countries. They have similar sized populations and similar population density. Both have good health care. Both flattened the curve early, then did unlockdown
Israel reported 522 new cases today.
Denmark reported.... 10.
So what's happening? The theory is that it's aircon.
Israel is a hot country in summer and it's often much more comfortable to be inside during the heat of the day. Down in the south - Eilat, the Negev it is unbearable and you HAVE to get inside for aircon.
Denmark has cool summers like ours, they barely need aircon. Few places use it.
Aircon is probably spreading this. Aircon explains (in part) the surge in the southern USA as the weather has really warmed up.
Was a theory of @Luckyguy1983 – a known crank on many issues but certainly right in his laudable views on food quality and welfare and probably right on this matter.
@LadyG My sense is that it's overused. The idea of turning it off will have never crossed many minds even in mildly warm places. My anecdotal experience is China, about 15 years ago. Never appreciated that aircon was (I think) the global norm for shops and we're a bit of an outlier I think here.
Yes. The counter-example to my theory is East Asia.
Air-con is ubiquitous in Thailand, Hong Kong, Japan, where they have stinking hot humidity, but the virus is dormant there.
But I am still sure it is a vector. It is recycled air. It's the perfect way to infect whole rooms of people.
I'm not sure it's aircon per se.
Being confined indoors with poor ventilation is undoubtedly not a good idea. If fans are blowing exhaled air from one individual towards others (which seems to have been a patter in at least one documented Korean case), that doesn't help, either. Decent aircon systems should have HEPA filters, so the 'recycling' isn't necessarily the problem. Plenty of crappy systems around, though.
Yes, exactly: the analyses I've read say that a well-maintained modern aircon should not be much of a problem, if they take in enough fresh air and are thoroughly cleaned and so on.
But an old or bad aircon is a real risk.
I am certainly personally warier of aircon than I was.
I'm wary of any confined space with numbers of people in it.
Even if that number is 1?
Worst possible number - who knows what they are up to in the room which might contaminate it?
LadyG said: » show previous quotes There is a theory as to why some countries/regions are getting rebounds in cases, whereas others, behaving identically, are not.
Take two as an example. Israel and Denmark.
They are both affluent, advanced countries. They have similar sized populations and similar population density. Both have good health care. Both flattened the curve early, then did unlockdown
Israel reported 522 new cases today.
Denmark reported.... 10.
So what's happening? The theory is that it's aircon.
Israel is a hot country in summer and it's often much more comfortable to be inside during the heat of the day. Down in the south - Eilat, the Negev it is unbearable and you HAVE to get inside for aircon.
Denmark has cool summers like ours, they barely need aircon. Few places use it.
Aircon is probably spreading this. Aircon explains (in part) the surge in the southern USA as the weather has really warmed up.
Was a theory of @Luckyguy1983 – a known crank on many issues but certainly right in his laudable views on food quality and welfare and probably right on this matter.
Ta for the mention.
TBF this theory is quite widespread.
I believe there was once a poster on here back in January who was convinced he caught a dose via the aircon of a Bangkok bar
Disgusting, anyone who takes a position with the Chinese regime against HK should face sanctions.
They're just effectively banning even talking about certain subjects and totally ignoring any obligations to the area as a separate territory, what's hard about defending that?
LadyG said: » show previous quotes There is a theory as to why some countries/regions are getting rebounds in cases, whereas others, behaving identically, are not.
Take two as an example. Israel and Denmark.
They are both affluent, advanced countries. They have similar sized populations and similar population density. Both have good health care. Both flattened the curve early, then did unlockdown
Israel reported 522 new cases today.
Denmark reported.... 10.
So what's happening? The theory is that it's aircon.
Israel is a hot country in summer and it's often much more comfortable to be inside during the heat of the day. Down in the south - Eilat, the Negev it is unbearable and you HAVE to get inside for aircon.
Denmark has cool summers like ours, they barely need aircon. Few places use it.
Aircon is probably spreading this. Aircon explains (in part) the surge in the southern USA as the weather has really warmed up.
Was a theory of @Luckyguy1983 – a known crank on many issues but certainly right in his laudable views on food quality and welfare and probably right on this matter.
Ta for the mention.
TBF this theory is quite widespread.
I believe there was once a poster on here back in January who was convinced he caught a dose via the aircon of a Bangkok bar
It was no criticism of you bringing it up, I don't have copyright! I was just thanking Anabobazina for the hat tip.
The one thing that really disturbs me is the medical fashion for giving kids, often really young kids, puberty blocking drugs that can drastically change them for life.
“That treatment is given to children – not just under the age of 16, but under the age of 12 – on the basis that those children themselves consent to the treatment and gave fully informed consent to that treatment, even though the nature of the treatment has side-effects which, we say, supported by the evidence, they cannot properly take into account.”"
How can a child of 12 entirely understand puberty and puberty blocking, and therefore give informed consent?
That is one area I simply cannot understand the logic outside of genuine medical need. People argue about where the line is between child and adult, and our laws are inconsistent about it (though the counter to that is that not all things can reasonably have the same dividing line between childhood and adulthood), but whatever the personal feelings of a child we don't allow them to make so many choices, particularly ones with major consequences because we decide they are not able to make such a choice.
Absolutely. Keir Starmer doesn't suffer from unconscious bias, he suffers from a very conscious and deliberate decision to be completely uninterested in improving the material conditions of minorities. BLM is fighting for change, not for these kinds of hollow gestures.
Slightly aside from the main point, but have you ever undergone unconscious bias training? It's mandatory where I work* for all involved in hiring and our course, at least, is good. Some obvious bits, but one part that stood out was a group exercise where each group was shown a video of an altercation between two groups and had to work out what had happened, essentially who was to blame. Each group got a video with different actors (different ethnic groups, sex, age, dress, accent etc) and different turns of phrase, but essentially the same content - transcripts for all four were shared afterwards and were identical in substance. The groups came to different conclusions about blame based on who was in the videos.
Unconscious bias is real (and natural and a useful survival instinct through human evolution) and it is useful to be aware of it to try and question your own assumptions and prejudices. Labour should absolutely train their people given recent history with antisemitism and Starmer would be a hypocrite not to also do the training himself.
*a university, so yes, I know: wokeville
Great post. Our brains have a bunch of cognitive biases based on various heuristics evolved for our survival as a species. Simple awareness of these subconscious biases can help us go a long way to overcoming them - but by their nature we need outside help to recognize them. Unconscious racial bias is indeed real.
I believe it can be real, cognitive bias is definitely a thing and people can be bad at recognising positive and negative things about themselves and how they think. As is often the case activists are the worst people to make any case about these issues though, since they give the impression that the answer is that we should all obsess about race all the time, and hyper focus on people' racial and ethnic makeups, which seems to go beyond helpful action to counter productiveness.
Easy to mock. And fine to mock. Especially if combined with meaningful opposition to sexism.
Absolutely. The kind of meaningful opposition to sexism found on the trading floor of Goldman Sachs in the 80s/90s.
Well I was never like that. Embarrassing. I was the intense intellectual type. Eyes on screen at all times.
Well done for hiding that comment away on the old thread.
Oh wait...
I'm always happy with the spotlight. So long as people don't spit or throw things.
I mean you were bold and came out, so to speak, as working for the GVS and respec' for that but it does put your ardent support for far left wing politics somewhat into perspective.
Nothing wrong with that of course, and adds to the gaiety and diversity of PB.
And it shouldn't matter; everyone is free to think and support whatever they want, politically, whatever their background. But you know.
Kind sentiments.
But, no, point of order, I never worked for the actual Squid.
Bet you have though. Bet you've puffed your wares in there.
The one thing that really disturbs me is the medical fashion for giving kids, often really young kids, puberty blocking drugs that can drastically change them for life.
“That treatment is given to children – not just under the age of 16, but under the age of 12 – on the basis that those children themselves consent to the treatment and gave fully informed consent to that treatment, even though the nature of the treatment has side-effects which, we say, supported by the evidence, they cannot properly take into account.”"
How can a child of 12 entirely understand puberty and puberty blocking, and therefore give informed consent?
That is one area I simply cannot understand the logic outside of genuine medical need. People argue about where the line is between child and adult, and our laws are inconsistent about it (though the counter to that is that not all things can reasonably have the same dividing line between childhood and adulthood), but whatever the personal feelings of a child we don't allow them to make so many choices, particularly ones with major consequences because we decide they are not able to make such a choice.
I'm all for adult trans rights. I have a very good friend who is trans, went from male to female in her 30s, and now lives contentedly as a woman. Yay for her and her right to do that.
Comments
'Joke' candidate elected President of the Oxford Union
James Price admitted he only entered the race to be "funny" but has now won the contest to lead the debating society
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/07/joke-candidate-elected-president-oxford-union/
I believe Corbyn has a huge responsibility in this respect having shredded the labour brand and when a brand is shredded it takes a long time to get back on track. It is arguable Ratner never got back after his ill thought out comments on his own product
Starmer is providing a degree of competence but it is easy when you can criticise with hindsight and to date he has not laid out any proposition other than to say on any move by HMG, that it is too little and too late
The ECHR will be his next test but I do think he and labour need to take care with 'woke' culture as it will not go down well in the red wall seats
I find Boris embarrassing but I do not see him standing aside in the immediate future so no doubt we will just have to get used to the daily Scott and others twitter attacks into the foreseable future as brexit is happening, deal or no deal, and covid is a far bigger problem for all politicians for years to come
1) National Elderly Care Service - fully budgeted and costed
2) Simplify taxation to reduce loop holes.
3) UBI introduction
4) etc etc
One that would be interesting - without privatisation, introduce competition into the state sector. If Soviet Russia could do that for things they cared about (tanks, missiles etc) should be a doddle. Mutual societies competing to run parts of government?
By the end of the year Labour had an apparent lead of 10%, but even then Miliband was still badly regarded - 33% thought he was doing well and 54% badly.
By the start of 2015, Miliband was back to 18% well and 70% badly. By the end of the election campaign, Cameron was level pegging while Miliband was still a net 19% down.
Miliband consistently acted as a drag on Labour's ratings.
Peak PB?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com
Politicians and academics have criticised a decision to withdraw US visas from foreign students whose courses move fully online.
US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) said people could face deportation unless they changed to an institution with in-person tuition.
A number of US universities are considering online teaching in the new academic year due to coronavirus.
It is not clear how many people will be affected.
The Student and Exchange Visitor Programme, which is operated by ICE, had introduced a temporary exemption to allow students whose courses had moved online for the spring and summer semesters to remain in the US.
However, the exemption will not be extended into the new academic year. The decision affects students who are in the US on F-1 and M-1 visas, according to the ICE statement.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53320336
Nothing wrong with that of course, and adds to the gaiety and diversity of PB.
And it shouldn't matter; everyone is free to think and support whatever they want, politically, whatever their background. But you know.
Surely, it's Brexit? I was polled online very recently and the question asked is 'Which party will you vote for if the General Election is tomorrow?' Until the transition period is out of the way many of us are sticking with Boris even while we disagree on a raft of issues.
Good governance is about picking a few priorities, areas that need improving and addressing those.
Corbyn was never taken seriously because he wanted to transform and spend more on everything which anyone rational knows is impossible. When you prioritise everything you prioritise nothing.
Labour will be serious for government when it stops claiming it will fix every issue ever and instead picks some specific areas that need addressing with some specific ideas how it wants to do it.
In other words starts to make choices. Take sides. Have priorities.
Then I met some of the people he would have been talking about.
As far as I can see she just talks common sense most of the time, or at least the common sense of ten years back.
But I accept my ignorance and am happy to be educated. If you would be so kind.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/weekending26june2020
Bear in mind though that Ratner's former company can now be described thus on wiki: "Signet Jewelers Ltd. (Ratner Group 1949–1993 then Signet Group plc to September 2008) is the world's largest retailer of diamond jewellery."
So Ratner resigned and his former company recovered. Corbyn has resigned and Labour's recovery is clearly underway. Starmer has another 4 years to complete it, which is a long time in politics.
I notice in another article today the Johnson government fusion of science-tech optimism and high spending is also being described as "Wilsonian". Maybe Wilson's reputation will be climbing again in the next few decades.
(a) the people are presymptomatic
(b) the people will be asymptomatic
(c) the people being tested skew younger
Plus:
(d) given how important viral load is, are the people shedding less material?
One attempt was a short story - time traveller arrives in the future. He recounts his views - all the finest, kindest saintly ideas you can conceive of.
His hosts are so horrific that they re-invent the death penalty. They can't even tell him why - his ideas are too horrific for them to express.
Likewise, rapidly recognizing in-group and out-group subconsciously and preparing the body to react before the conscious brain is able to process the data must have had some survival benefit even if it meant losing some friend-making opportunities.
Hot in south Louisiana is NOT nice, dry desert heat. It is muggy, wet swamp heat. Ugh!
Am starting to think that Boris Johnson may be the modern- (and sloppy-) dress re-run of Sir Anthony Eden.
Funny, I was thinking just last night that the GOP has left me (even though I do not have the vote).
Navy is Cameron leader ratings lead
Red is Tory VI lead
Light blue is Cameron Personality lead
https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1280457599884935168
The notion that many people are being railroaded into changing gender and often regret doing it.
This is false.
Did you see my question earlier on?
You said JKRowling talks a lot of "obvious drivel" about trans rights.
I asked if you could provide one example of this outright drivel. Because I genuinely don't understand he venom nor the nuance in this debate.
Serious question!
Where has she said that?
Charlie Evans, 28, was born female but identified as male for nearly 10 years before detransitioning.
https://news.sky.com/story/hundreds-of-young-trans-people-seeking-help-to-return-to-original-sex-11827740
But for Labour one of those priorities must imo be to redistribute wealth, power and opportunity. If not, I'm unenthused - although I will always vote for them.
I think that it is reasonable to say that before changing gender someone should be given professional medical support first. Which is why I oppose self identification but support those who transition after speaking to medical professionals.
People tend to support that redistribution when its from 'people like them' to 'people like us'.
Less so when its from 'people like us' to 'people like them'.
Yeah that's going to be successful (!)
And Starmer will win handsomely in 2024...... just possibly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Avcp-e4bOs&feature=youtu.be
Redistribute from those who have a lot to those who have little.
The opposite of what happens if you don't.
The one thing that really disturbs me is the medical fashion for giving kids, often really young kids, puberty blocking drugs that can drastically change them for life.
We're talking about kids under TWELVE
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/22/high-court-stop-nhs-giving-puberty-blockers-children
“That treatment is given to children – not just under the age of 16, but under the age of 12 – on the basis that those children themselves consent to the treatment and gave fully informed consent to that treatment, even though the nature of the treatment has side-effects which, we say, supported by the evidence, they cannot properly take into account.”"
How can a child of 12 entirely understand puberty and puberty blocking, and therefore give informed consent?
Having worked for Nick Clegg, he’s now spinning for the Saudis and China.
Wonder how he sleeps at night.
https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1280551824320315398
Why did Remain think talking about incremental GDP and 10 year ONS forecasts would sway people who hated the way the country was being run?
"They are literally voting to make themselves poorer", middle class people who vote Labour were chuckling
As to your position. Exactly the same as mine.
If Labour politicians had the principles of Dave Nellist talk of redistribution would be more believable.
Ta for the mention.
TBF this theory is quite widespread.
I believe there was once a poster on here back in January who was convinced he caught a dose via the aircon of a Bangkok bar
You may well be right, but you can't just make bald assertions without some proof
But, no, point of order, I never worked for the actual Squid.
Bet you have though. Bet you've puffed your wares in there.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2385677/nine-year-old-transgender-kid-is-uks-youngest-user-of-anti-puberty-jabs/
To be fair these injections are "temporary" but still. Nine? Hmm.
In America they are socially transitioning at the age of three
https://www.kqed.org/futureofyou/440851/can-you-really-know-that-a-3-year-old-is-transgender
I'm all for adult trans rights. I have a very good friend who is trans, went from male to female in her 30s, and now lives contentedly as a woman. Yay for her and her right to do that.
But these examples of children disturb me.