Looking at yesterday and today's polling in the US, Trump's only chance now is for a vaccine to hit in time to impact voter's perception of what is the most important issue - the economy or the virus.
So, while on a personal and humanitarian level, I am hoping for an effective and safe vaccine to be available as soon as possible, there is part of me hoping that it won't arrive in time to impact health perceptions until after 4 November.
This is a perfectly valid dilemma. And if you were to say that the "part of you" hoping the vaccine comes too late for Trump is the largest part, I would not one iota condemn you for it. The end of him as POTUS is an event with enormous utility.
If my post was 'she deserves to face justice, preferably the noose', then yes, the fact that her actions happened when she was 15 would be pertinent. But my point was about the safety of the public. Unless someone radicalised when young is less of an ongoing threat than someone radicalised when an adult, her age has no bearing at all.
My viewpoint is that she was born in the UK and radicalised in the UK so it's our own screw up that we need to take responsibility for and fix..
Trying to throw the problem at Bangladesh was neither fair or moral..
My viewpoint is she chose to leave the country to fight for ISIS so f**k her she can take her chances out in the wide world without us.
So if your child stole sweets from the corner shop you wouldn't take responsibility for her actions?
It's a view I suppose...
If she stole sweets from the corner shop then I would.
If she got herself out of the country to take up arms for another state then that's a different matter. And if her parents wish to leave the country to join her then they should be able to do so, but I see no reason to welcome her back when she committed treason.
At the risk of Godwinisation -
A number of times during WWII, members of the Hitler Youth Division were captured. Complete with evidence of war crimes they had committed.
Given they had grown up in German, which was Nazi controlled since 1933 - so a decade of indoctrination - were they guilty?
Unless they were compelled to do so then yes absolutely. If they were compelled to do so or they'd get shot themselves (a common problem with some third world warzones today) then that's different, they're victims as well as culprits.
If these youth had grown up in the UK and had gone to Germany voluntarily to join the Hitler Youth despite having been brought up in the UK then 100% yes they would have been.
The "would have been shot" for committing war crimes in Germany during WWII was not true.
There have been studies - many, many people said "No, not for me". Most were quietly transferred. Not even a rude word in their file.
It was a popular excuse. But genocide was optional under the Third Reich.
If my post was 'she deserves to face justice, preferably the noose', then yes, the fact that her actions happened when she was 15 would be pertinent. But my point was about the safety of the public. Unless someone radicalised when young is less of an ongoing threat than someone radicalised when an adult, her age has no bearing at all.
My viewpoint is that she was born in the UK and radicalised in the UK so it's our own screw up that we need to take responsibility for and fix..
Trying to throw the problem at Bangladesh was neither fair or moral..
My viewpoint is she chose to leave the country to fight for ISIS so f**k her she can take her chances out in the wide world without us.
Even if that breaks the law? I know we are regrettably in the age of one rule for some and another for others, but it is a dangerous path. This woman deserves no sympathy, but the law is there to protect everyone, however odious they might be.
If my post was 'she deserves to face justice, preferably the noose', then yes, the fact that her actions happened when she was 15 would be pertinent. But my point was about the safety of the public. Unless someone radicalised when young is less of an ongoing threat than someone radicalised when an adult, her age has no bearing at all.
My viewpoint is that she was born in the UK and radicalised in the UK so it's our own screw up that we need to take responsibility for and fix..
Trying to throw the problem at Bangladesh was neither fair or moral..
My viewpoint is she chose to leave the country to fight for ISIS so f**k her she can take her chances out in the wide world without us.
So if your child stole sweets from the corner shop you wouldn't take responsibility for her actions?
It's a view I suppose...
If she stole sweets from the corner shop then I would.
If she got herself out of the country to take up arms for another state then that's a different matter. And if her parents wish to leave the country to join her then they should be able to do so, but I see no reason to welcome her back when she committed treason.
At the risk of Godwinisation -
A number of times during WWII, members of the Hitler Youth Division were captured. Complete with evidence of war crimes they had committed.
Given they had grown up in Germany, which was Nazi controlled since 1933 - so a decade of indoctrination - were they guilty?
Guilty, but indoctrination (especially as a minor) can be a valid mitigating factor.
How old were the soldiers in 12.SS Panzer Division (ie rather than the Hitlerjugend proper)? Were they mostly minors when they committed the crimes?
"Two top Oxford University statisticians today claimed the government is inflating the actual daily death toll and said fewer than 40 people are actually succumbing to the illness every day. Dr Jason Oke and Professor Carl Heneghan claimed government figures were misleading because officials lump historical deaths onto random days — and include fatalities that happened weeks or even months ago. "
Looking at yesterday and today's polling in the US, Trump's only chance now is for a vaccine to hit in time to impact voter's perception of what is the most important issue - the economy or the virus.
So, while on a personal and humanitarian level, I am hoping for an effective and safe vaccine to be available as soon as possible, there is part of me hoping that it won't arrive in time to impact health perceptions until after 4 November.
This is a perfectly valid dilemma. And if you were to say that the "part of you" hoping the vaccine comes too late for Trump is the largest part, I would not one iota condemn you for it. The end of him as POTUS is an event with enormous utility.
I can't see how a vaccine can arrive in time for November 4th in such a way that it will help Trump.
The vaccine may be available but I doubt your typical american voter will have received it in time for the economy to have returned to anything like normal.
Looking at yesterday and today's polling in the US, Trump's only chance now is for a vaccine to hit in time to impact voter's perception of what is the most important issue - the economy or the virus.
So, while on a personal and humanitarian level, I am hoping for an effective and safe vaccine to be available as soon as possible, there is part of me hoping that it won't arrive in time to impact health perceptions until after 4 November.
This is a perfectly valid dilemma. And if you were to say that the "part of you" hoping the vaccine comes too late for Trump is the largest part, I would not one iota condemn you for it. The end of him as POTUS is an event with enormous utility.
I can't see how a vaccine can arrive in time for November 4th in such a way that it will help Trump.
The vaccine may be available but I doubt your typical american voter will have received it in time for the economy to have returned to anything like normal.
"The vaccine may be available but I doubt your typical american voter will have received it in time for the economy to have returned to anything like normal."
That is not what I was saying. I was saying that perceptions of what was the most important - the economy or the virus - going forward is the key.
Even if the virus is still rampant, if American voters think that a vaccine is available and will available to most Americans who want it within months, then that will be enough to persuade a chunk of them to conclude that the virus issue, while still with us, is solved, and that getting the economy back to full health is the top priority.
Similarly the Brexiteers will be very silent on Russian interference in Ref 2016
A slightly underestimated issue about Russia and other enemies interfering is this: So what? They are the enemies of all we stand for. What they are doing is exactly the sorts of thing enemies do. Our sort of liberal democracy allows for all sorts of shady tactics. Voters are the jury, they are not stupid.
(And despite the best efforts of enemies the recent GEs, the EU Ref and the Scottish Referendum all resulted in outcomes which were in all the circumstances entirely rational and within quite narrow 'Overton Windows' even if you don't agree with them all.)
That’s at least two doublings of the number of infections.... SAGE advised government to impose lockdown on 16 or 18 March
Vallance told the committee that SAGE advised the government to impose lockdown measures “as soon as possible” on the 16 or 18 March.
He said this happened as soon as data showed further restrictions were needed. “Looking back, you can see the data may have preceded that but the data was not available before that.”...
That week, when things were visibly crumbling and the government wasn't acting with anything like enough urgency, defines everything. All else is noise.
And from the same Select Committee hearing:
Sir Patrick Vallance has just been asked if there were any instances in which the government had gone against scientific advice on Covid-19.
“In general, what I can be absolutely clear about is that those making policy decisions have heard and understood the scientific advice,” Vallance said.
Up there with "Have you read the report?" / "I am aware of the report."
Looking at yesterday and today's polling in the US, Trump's only chance now is for a vaccine to hit in time to impact voter's perception of what is the most important issue - the economy or the virus.
So, while on a personal and humanitarian level, I am hoping for an effective and safe vaccine to be available as soon as possible, there is part of me hoping that it won't arrive in time to impact health perceptions until after 4 November.
How quickly would "health perception" be impacted? How long will it take to vaccinate the willing, a week, a month, or longer than that? How many overall are willing to be vaccinated? How many among Trump's voter base?
Social engineering is still hacking especially as it seems Twitter didn't have mitigating steps in place (heck even Namecheap has those as a month of trying to access my account confirmed after my mobile disappeared taking my 2FA on it)...
Looking at yesterday and today's polling in the US, Trump's only chance now is for a vaccine to hit in time to impact voter's perception of what is the most important issue - the economy or the virus.
So, while on a personal and humanitarian level, I am hoping for an effective and safe vaccine to be available as soon as possible, there is part of me hoping that it won't arrive in time to impact health perceptions until after 4 November.
This is a perfectly valid dilemma. And if you were to say that the "part of you" hoping the vaccine comes too late for Trump is the largest part, I would not one iota condemn you for it. The end of him as POTUS is an event with enormous utility.
I can't see how a vaccine can arrive in time for November 4th in such a way that it will help Trump.
The vaccine may be available but I doubt your typical american voter will have received it in time for the economy to have returned to anything like normal.
I personally think he's a goner regardless but there is just that faintly worrying finding that he still has a net positive rating on "handling the economy".
If my post was 'she deserves to face justice, preferably the noose', then yes, the fact that her actions happened when she was 15 would be pertinent. But my point was about the safety of the public. Unless someone radicalised when young is less of an ongoing threat than someone radicalised when an adult, her age has no bearing at all.
My viewpoint is that she was born in the UK and radicalised in the UK so it's our own screw up that we need to take responsibility for and fix..
Trying to throw the problem at Bangladesh was neither fair or moral..
My viewpoint is she chose to leave the country to fight for ISIS so f**k her she can take her chances out in the wide world without us.
So if your child stole sweets from the corner shop you wouldn't take responsibility for her actions?
It's a view I suppose...
If she stole sweets from the corner shop then I would.
If she got herself out of the country to take up arms for another state then that's a different matter. And if her parents wish to leave the country to join her then they should be able to do so, but I see no reason to welcome her back when she committed treason.
Which country was she born in and which country was she a citizen of before she was illegally (under international law) stripped of it due to incorrect information provided by the home office?
Hint in neither case is Bangladesh the accurate answer..
She was born in the UK She was a citizen of the UK and Bangladesh.
The UK was entitled to strip her of her citizenship because we haven't left her stateless. Oh well, job done. She shouldn't have left the country and done that and expected to be welcomed back.
No she wasn't she was a citizen of the UK but had not sent any paperwork to Bangladesh - so when the Home office stated she had dual citizenship Bangladesh pointed out that, that wasn't actually the case - her right to Bangladesh citizenship had expired before she had applied for it.
Now if she had had a Bangladesh passport it would have been legally correct (albeit it morally wrong, given that her radicalisation occurred in the UK) to strip her of her citizenship - but as she didn't have said passport it was legally incorrect to strip her of her British citizenship.
EVen more pedantically - that’s still not correct. It was accepted she didn’t have Bangladeshi citizenship. The question was, whether she was eligible for it. The Home Office judges that she was, and therefore could be stripped of British nationality. The government of Bangladesh disagrees.
That’s at least two doublings of the number of infections.... SAGE advised government to impose lockdown on 16 or 18 March
Vallance told the committee that SAGE advised the government to impose lockdown measures “as soon as possible” on the 16 or 18 March.
He said this happened as soon as data showed further restrictions were needed. “Looking back, you can see the data may have preceded that but the data was not available before that.”...
That week, when things were visibly crumbling and the government wasn't acting with anything like enough urgency, defines everything. All else is noise.
And from the same Select Committee hearing:
Sir Patrick Vallance has just been asked if there were any instances in which the government had gone against scientific advice on Covid-19.
“In general, what I can be absolutely clear about is that those making policy decisions have heard and understood the scientific advice,” Vallance said.
Up there with "Have you read the report?" / "I am aware of the report."
And an exactly contemporaneous report of what proactive looked like:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/04/coronavirus-san-francisco-london-breed/609808/ ...Breed ordered businesses closed and issued a citywide shelter-in-place policy effective on March 17, at a point when San Francisco had fewer than 50 confirmed coronavirus cases. (California Governor Gavin Newsom followed with a similar statewide order a few days later.) On that date, New York City already had more than 2,000 positive cases. But New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, reluctant either to shutter schools or issue a stay-at-home directive for the nation’s largest city, didn’t take similar action for several days. By the time New York City fully shut down on March 22, more than 10,000 cases were reported across its five boroughs.
Breed’s aggressiveness was not initially popular. As she ratcheted up the city’s social-distancing mandates, prominent San Franciscans began calling one of the mayor’s political mentors, Senator Kamala Harris. “London Breed’s about to shut down the city,” they complained, Harris told me. She told them to trust Breed…
One of the most fundamental principles of English common law - guilt and mitigating circumstances are to be separated. A very good book on this - Cannibalism and the Common Law.
If my post was 'she deserves to face justice, preferably the noose', then yes, the fact that her actions happened when she was 15 would be pertinent. But my point was about the safety of the public. Unless someone radicalised when young is less of an ongoing threat than someone radicalised when an adult, her age has no bearing at all.
My viewpoint is that she was born in the UK and radicalised in the UK so it's our own screw up that we need to take responsibility for and fix..
Trying to throw the problem at Bangladesh was neither fair or moral..
My viewpoint is she chose to leave the country to fight for ISIS so f**k her she can take her chances out in the wide world without us.
Even if that breaks the law? I know we are regrettably in the age of one rule for some and another for others, but it is a dangerous path. This woman deserves no sympathy, but the law is there to protect everyone, however odious they might be.
If this breaks the law no. But if this can be done, even with a technicality because she is eligible to Bangladeshi citizenship then she's made her bed and she can lie in it.
"Two top Oxford University statisticians today claimed the government is inflating the actual daily death toll and said fewer than 40 people are actually succumbing to the illness every day. Dr Jason Oke and Professor Carl Heneghan claimed government figures were misleading because officials lump historical deaths onto random days — and include fatalities that happened weeks or even months ago. "
A well known fact here on PB. Less known to Oxford dons apparently.
So, it's a well known fact that the relevant authorities fail to identify every Covid related fatality immediately. They are often identified and reported belatedly. That constitutes "inflating the daily death toll".
What's the solution to that problem? Excluding the numbers of belatedly identified Covid fatalities from the official count, and not reporting them?
Or reporting them and adding the information when in fact these fatalities happened? I thought that was what they are doing. What's your proposal?
On the discussion that SAGE recommended lockdown on 16 March ... its worth noting that lockdown began to be announced on 18 March.
Yes, 16 March was the day they told people not to travel for work etc. The stay at home speech was on 23 March.
18 March is when school closures were announced for 20 March.
It seems clear to me the government immediately began closing things down, though it take a week to get to the point of the final stay at home speech . . . but we were effectively advised to stay at home by 20 March already and the whole discussion that weekend was about the people flouting that advice.
"Two top Oxford University statisticians today claimed the government is inflating the actual daily death toll and said fewer than 40 people are actually succumbing to the illness every day. Dr Jason Oke and Professor Carl Heneghan claimed government figures were misleading because officials lump historical deaths onto random days — and include fatalities that happened weeks or even months ago. "
A well known fact here on PB. Less known to Oxford dons apparently.
So, it's well known fact that the relevant authorities fail to identify every Covid related fatality immediately. They are often identified and reported belatedly. That constitutes "inflating the daily death toll".
What's the solution to that problem? Excluding the numbers of belatedly identified Covid fatalities from the official count, and not reporting them?
Or reporting them and adding the information when in fact these fatalities happened? I thought that was what they are doing. What's your proposal?
I think his comment was a sarcastic one.
Actually I think it is quite well known to the Oxford scientists.
If my post was 'she deserves to face justice, preferably the noose', then yes, the fact that her actions happened when she was 15 would be pertinent. But my point was about the safety of the public. Unless someone radicalised when young is less of an ongoing threat than someone radicalised when an adult, her age has no bearing at all.
My viewpoint is that she was born in the UK and radicalised in the UK so it's our own screw up that we need to take responsibility for and fix..
Trying to throw the problem at Bangladesh was neither fair or moral..
My viewpoint is she chose to leave the country to fight for ISIS so f**k her she can take her chances out in the wide world without us.
Even if that breaks the law? I know we are regrettably in the age of one rule for some and another for others, but it is a dangerous path. This woman deserves no sympathy, but the law is there to protect everyone, however odious they might be.
If this breaks the law no. But if this can be done, even with a technicality because she is eligible to Bangladeshi citizenship then she's made her bed and she can lie in it.
She wasn't but don't let facts get away with excusing the Government from breaking international law.
If my post was 'she deserves to face justice, preferably the noose', then yes, the fact that her actions happened when she was 15 would be pertinent. But my point was about the safety of the public. Unless someone radicalised when young is less of an ongoing threat than someone radicalised when an adult, her age has no bearing at all.
My viewpoint is that she was born in the UK and radicalised in the UK so it's our own screw up that we need to take responsibility for and fix..
Trying to throw the problem at Bangladesh was neither fair or moral..
My viewpoint is she chose to leave the country to fight for ISIS so f**k her she can take her chances out in the wide world without us.
Even if that breaks the law? I know we are regrettably in the age of one rule for some and another for others, but it is a dangerous path. This woman deserves no sympathy, but the law is there to protect everyone, however odious they might be.
If this breaks the law no. But if this can be done, even with a technicality because she is eligible to Bangladeshi citizenship then she's made her bed and she can lie in it.
She wasn't but don't let facts get away with excusing the Government from breaking international law.
So far the appeals have held that the Government acted legally. She can appeal that further but as it stands there's been no ruling that they acted illegally whatsoever.
Governor of Oklahoma is first state governor in US to contract Covid. How did he get it? Don't know. But DO know he was in attendance at Trumpsky's Tulsa Crudfest.
"Two top Oxford University statisticians today claimed the government is inflating the actual daily death toll and said fewer than 40 people are actually succumbing to the illness every day. Dr Jason Oke and Professor Carl Heneghan claimed government figures were misleading because officials lump historical deaths onto random days — and include fatalities that happened weeks or even months ago. "
A well known fact here on PB. Less known to Oxford dons apparently.
So, it's well known fact that the relevant authorities fail to identify every Covid related fatality immediately. They are often identified and reported belatedly. That constitutes "inflating the daily death toll".
What's the solution to that problem? Excluding the numbers of belatedly identified Covid fatalities from the official count, and not reporting them?
Or reporting them and adding the information when in fact these fatalities happened? I thought that was what they are doing. What's your proposal?
I think his comment was a sarcastic one.
Actually I think it is quite well known to the Oxford scientists.
It's the journalists that have problems with it.
The original post from AndyJS cited voices who said that the government's reporting practice was "misleading". Is that true?
I've seen instances of some journalists reporting ambiguously or misleadingly, but these seem to be a minority. Most media reports do point out that the "daily death count" is compiled of fatalities over a longer period. So, do all the journalists have a problem there?
"Two top Oxford University statisticians today claimed the government is inflating the actual daily death toll and said fewer than 40 people are actually succumbing to the illness every day. Dr Jason Oke and Professor Carl Heneghan claimed government figures were misleading because officials lump historical deaths onto random days — and include fatalities that happened weeks or even months ago. "
A well known fact here on PB. Less known to Oxford dons apparently.
So, it's a well known fact that the relevant authorities fail to identify every Covid related fatality immediately. They are often identified and reported belatedly. That constitutes "inflating the daily death toll".
What's the solution to that problem? Excluding the numbers of belatedly identified Covid fatalities from the official count, and not reporting them?
Or reporting them and adding the information when in fact these fatalities happened? I thought that was what they are doing. What's your proposal?
Well in the press briefings they should have had a plot of number of deaths on this date as well as the one they were showing of reported deaths. Of course you'd need the caveat that it would be filled in over time, and the last few days are not complete.
That’s at least two doublings of the number of infections.... SAGE advised government to impose lockdown on 16 or 18 March
Vallance told the committee that SAGE advised the government to impose lockdown measures “as soon as possible” on the 16 or 18 March.
He said this happened as soon as data showed further restrictions were needed. “Looking back, you can see the data may have preceded that but the data was not available before that.”...
It is sobering to think how much impact decisions made in that week had. In a sense, being a week late is a small mistake with gargantuan and horrible consequences.
Macron announced lockdown on March 16, starting on March 17. That's what we needed.
"Two top Oxford University statisticians today claimed the government is inflating the actual daily death toll and said fewer than 40 people are actually succumbing to the illness every day. Dr Jason Oke and Professor Carl Heneghan claimed government figures were misleading because officials lump historical deaths onto random days — and include fatalities that happened weeks or even months ago. "
A well known fact here on PB. Less known to Oxford dons apparently.
So, it's well known fact that the relevant authorities fail to identify every Covid related fatality immediately. They are often identified and reported belatedly. That constitutes "inflating the daily death toll".
What's the solution to that problem? Excluding the numbers of belatedly identified Covid fatalities from the official count, and not reporting them?
Or reporting them and adding the information when in fact these fatalities happened? I thought that was what they are doing. What's your proposal?
I think his comment was a sarcastic one.
Actually I think it is quite well known to the Oxford scientists.
It's the journalists that have problems with it.
The original post from AndyJS cited voices who said that the government's reporting practice was "misleading". Is that true?
I've seen instances of some journalists reporting ambiguously or misleadingly, but these seem to be a minority. Most media reports do point out that the "daily death count" is compiled of fatalities over a longer period. So, do all the journalists have a problem there?
You don't see the Daily Express headlines (for example), or the stuff some journalists tweet, it seems.
Which strongly suggests you have taste and intelligence.....
Looking at yesterday and today's polling in the US, Trump's only chance now is for a vaccine to hit in time to impact voter's perception of what is the most important issue - the economy or the virus.
So, while on a personal and humanitarian level, I am hoping for an effective and safe vaccine to be available as soon as possible, there is part of me hoping that it won't arrive in time to impact health perceptions until after 4 November.
How quickly would "health perception" be impacted? How long will it take to vaccinate the willing, a week, a month, or longer than that? How many overall are willing to be vaccinated? How many among Trump's voter base?
Trump's base is unimportant, as it is insufficient. How long it takes to vaccinate is not the issue - it is whether sufficient people for whom the economy would normally be an overriding concern but who currently believe COVID to be the top priority perceive COVID to have been sorted, even if implementation will take a while. What is important is if people believe that there are the means and a realistic plan to make COVID a non-problem so that they can have afford to turn their priorities back to the economy.
So none of your questions apart from the first are relevant. And I believe health perceptions can be impacted very quickly if people truly believe the problem has a solution which is in the process of being implemented.
I wonder if that would survive a challenge under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. I suspect the federal Electoral College would probably fall foul of that if it wasn't for the entrenched equal representation of states in the US Senate provision.
If my post was 'she deserves to face justice, preferably the noose', then yes, the fact that her actions happened when she was 15 would be pertinent. But my point was about the safety of the public. Unless someone radicalised when young is less of an ongoing threat than someone radicalised when an adult, her age has no bearing at all.
My viewpoint is that she was born in the UK and radicalised in the UK so it's our own screw up that we need to take responsibility for and fix..
Trying to throw the problem at Bangladesh was neither fair or moral..
My viewpoint is she chose to leave the country to fight for ISIS so f**k her she can take her chances out in the wide world without us.
Even if that breaks the law? I know we are regrettably in the age of one rule for some and another for others, but it is a dangerous path. This woman deserves no sympathy, but the law is there to protect everyone, however odious they might be.
If this breaks the law no. But if this can be done, even with a technicality because she is eligible to Bangladeshi citizenship then she's made her bed and she can lie in it.
She wasn't but don't let facts get away with excusing the Government from breaking international law.
So far the appeals have held that the Government acted legally. She can appeal that further but as it stands there's been no ruling that they acted illegally whatsoever.
I don't think you understand the question the appeals have been asked to review...
That’s at least two doublings of the number of infections.... SAGE advised government to impose lockdown on 16 or 18 March
Vallance told the committee that SAGE advised the government to impose lockdown measures “as soon as possible” on the 16 or 18 March.
He said this happened as soon as data showed further restrictions were needed. “Looking back, you can see the data may have preceded that but the data was not available before that.”...
That week, when things were visibly crumbling and the government wasn't acting with anything like enough urgency, defines everything. All else is noise.
And from the same Select Committee hearing:
Sir Patrick Vallance has just been asked if there were any instances in which the government had gone against scientific advice on Covid-19.
“In general, what I can be absolutely clear about is that those making policy decisions have heard and understood the scientific advice,” Vallance said.
Up there with "Have you read the report?" / "I am aware of the report."
And an exactly contemporaneous report of what proactive looked like:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/04/coronavirus-san-francisco-london-breed/609808/ ...Breed ordered businesses closed and issued a citywide shelter-in-place policy effective on March 17, at a point when San Francisco had fewer than 50 confirmed coronavirus cases. (California Governor Gavin Newsom followed with a similar statewide order a few days later.) On that date, New York City already had more than 2,000 positive cases. But New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, reluctant either to shutter schools or issue a stay-at-home directive for the nation’s largest city, didn’t take similar action for several days. By the time New York City fully shut down on March 22, more than 10,000 cases were reported across its five boroughs.
Breed’s aggressiveness was not initially popular. As she ratcheted up the city’s social-distancing mandates, prominent San Franciscans began calling one of the mayor’s political mentors, Senator Kamala Harris. “London Breed’s about to shut down the city,” they complained, Harris told me. She told them to trust Breed…
San Francisco does appear to be in a much better state still than the rest of California.
Looking at yesterday and today's polling in the US, Trump's only chance now is for a vaccine to hit in time to impact voter's perception of what is the most important issue - the economy or the virus.
So, while on a personal and humanitarian level, I am hoping for an effective and safe vaccine to be available as soon as possible, there is part of me hoping that it won't arrive in time to impact health perceptions until after 4 November.
How quickly would "health perception" be impacted? How long will it take to vaccinate the willing, a week, a month, or longer than that? How many overall are willing to be vaccinated? How many among Trump's voter base?
Trump's base is unimportant, as it is insufficient. How long it takes to vaccinate is not the issue - it is whether sufficient people for whom the economy would normally be an overriding concern but who currently believe COVID to be the top priority perceive COVID to have been sorted, even if implementation will take a while. What is important is if people believe that there are the means and a realistic plan to make COVID a non-problem so that they can have afford to turn their priorities back to the economy.
So none of your questions apart from the first are relevant. And I believe health perceptions can be impacted very quickly if people truly believe the problem has a solution which is in the process of being implemented.
The question whether many "people truly believe that the problem has a solution which is in the process of being implemented" does relate, in my view, quite strongly to the last two questions I asked.
Looking at yesterday and today's polling in the US, Trump's only chance now is for a vaccine to hit in time to impact voter's perception of what is the most important issue - the economy or the virus.
So, while on a personal and humanitarian level, I am hoping for an effective and safe vaccine to be available as soon as possible, there is part of me hoping that it won't arrive in time to impact health perceptions until after 4 November.
How quickly would "health perception" be impacted? How long will it take to vaccinate the willing, a week, a month, or longer than that? How many overall are willing to be vaccinated? How many among Trump's voter base?
Trump's base is unimportant, as it is insufficient. How long it takes to vaccinate is not the issue - it is whether sufficient people for whom the economy would normally be an overriding concern but who currently believe COVID to be the top priority perceive COVID to have been sorted, even if implementation will take a while. What is important is if people believe that there are the means and a realistic plan to make COVID a non-problem so that they can have afford to turn their priorities back to the economy.
So none of your questions apart from the first are relevant. And I believe health perceptions can be impacted very quickly if people truly believe the problem has a solution which is in the process of being implemented.
I think you are wrong there - I suspect once you get past the vaccine question - the next one will be the economy.
And because people won't be confident of it returning to normal, that would also hit Trump.....
Looking at yesterday and today's polling in the US, Trump's only chance now is for a vaccine to hit in time to impact voter's perception of what is the most important issue - the economy or the virus.
So, while on a personal and humanitarian level, I am hoping for an effective and safe vaccine to be available as soon as possible, there is part of me hoping that it won't arrive in time to impact health perceptions until after 4 November.
How quickly would "health perception" be impacted? How long will it take to vaccinate the willing, a week, a month, or longer than that? How many overall are willing to be vaccinated? How many among Trump's voter base?
Trump's base is unimportant, as it is insufficient. How long it takes to vaccinate is not the issue - it is whether sufficient people for whom the economy would normally be an overriding concern but who currently believe COVID to be the top priority perceive COVID to have been sorted, even if implementation will take a while. What is important is if people believe that there are the means and a realistic plan to make COVID a non-problem so that they can have afford to turn their priorities back to the economy.
So none of your questions apart from the first are relevant. And I believe health perceptions can be impacted very quickly if people truly believe the problem has a solution which is in the process of being implemented.
With USA lighting up like a Christmas Tree, fat chance of shift in public opinion quick enough to save Trumpsky from himself.
Looking at yesterday and today's polling in the US, Trump's only chance now is for a vaccine to hit in time to impact voter's perception of what is the most important issue - the economy or the virus.
So, while on a personal and humanitarian level, I am hoping for an effective and safe vaccine to be available as soon as possible, there is part of me hoping that it won't arrive in time to impact health perceptions until after 4 November.
How quickly would "health perception" be impacted? How long will it take to vaccinate the willing, a week, a month, or longer than that? How many overall are willing to be vaccinated? How many among Trump's voter base?
Trump's base is unimportant, as it is insufficient. How long it takes to vaccinate is not the issue - it is whether sufficient people for whom the economy would normally be an overriding concern but who currently believe COVID to be the top priority perceive COVID to have been sorted, even if implementation will take a while. What is important is if people believe that there are the means and a realistic plan to make COVID a non-problem so that they can have afford to turn their priorities back to the economy.
So none of your questions apart from the first are relevant. And I believe health perceptions can be impacted very quickly if people truly believe the problem has a solution which is in the process of being implemented.
The question whether many "people truly believe that the problem has a solution which is in the process of being implemented" does relate, in my view, quite heavily to the last two questions I asked.
If there is a viable vaccine in time Trump would be well advised to make a big song and dance of getting vaccinated.
"Was there a point when you started to have second thoughts about your life under Islamic State? Only at the end, after my son died. I realised I had to get out for the sake of my children - for the sake of my daughter and my baby. Yeah.
Only at the end? Yeah.
You didn't have any regrets up until that point? No.
What was it about Islamic State that attracted you? What did you like about it? The way they showed that you can go [to Syria] and they'll take care of you. You can have your own family, do anything. You're living under Islamic law.
Did you know what Islamic State were doing when you left for Syria? Because they had beheaded people. There were executions. Yeah, I knew about those things and I was okay with it. Because, you know, I started becoming religious just before I left. From what I heard, Islamically that is all allowed. So I was okay with it.
You didn't question that? No, not at all."
"The head of the intelligence services in the UK says people like you are potentially very dangerous. What would you say to him? They don't have any evidence against me doing anything dangerous."
"Do you feel that you have made a mistake? When you look back at what you've been through over the last four years, do you feel like you've made a mistake? A mistake in going to al-Dawla?
Yes, a mistake in coming here, living under Islamic State. In a way, yes, but I don't regret it because it's changed me as a person. It's made me stronger, tougher. I married my husband. I wouldn't have found someone like him back in the UK. I had my kids. I did have a good time there, it's just that at the end things got harder and I couldn't take it anymore. I had to leave."
Please for god's sake keep this to yourself, but a deradicalisation programme is designed for people who have been radicalised.
See how that works? The child was radicalised, and, from your post, may remain radicalised, and hence everything she says is all part of the deal of radicalisation. As a child. And she was, as I understand it, rendered stateless by the Home Secretary which is the basis of the challenge.
Is it any clearer now? Please don't hesitate to ask if so. You know the only stupid question is an unasked one.
Hitler likely became a monster because of his brutal father, who beat him mercilessly. Hitler was a child at the time, and had no choice in the matter.
Yet we still held, and would hold, Hitler responsible for the crimes he committed as an adult.
Why is Begum different? We are all formed by positive or negative influences in childhood.
We hold children responsible for the crimes they commit in proportion to the expectation we have of awareness that these things are crimes & the responsibility the child has for enacting them. Hence Begum should be tried in the UK for the crimes she committed as an adult.
Sure, she makes for a difficult case, but she is a UK citizen who was radicalised in the UK. Where else should she be treated or tried (as appropriate) ? Syria would probably hang her from the rafters, which we rightly find objectionable. She is our responsibility: we have to deal with her, somehow.
Sometimes doing the right thing is hard & the person having the right thing done to them is objectionable. Neither of those change the judgement as to the rightness of the actions.
Spot on.
She is/was a British citizen. As a society that looks after its individuals, she is our responsibility. We cocked up, we should lock up for life (if that's the fair punishment), here, for her to live out her crimes.
Looking at yesterday and today's polling in the US, Trump's only chance now is for a vaccine to hit in time to impact voter's perception of what is the most important issue - the economy or the virus.
So, while on a personal and humanitarian level, I am hoping for an effective and safe vaccine to be available as soon as possible, there is part of me hoping that it won't arrive in time to impact health perceptions until after 4 November.
How quickly would "health perception" be impacted? How long will it take to vaccinate the willing, a week, a month, or longer than that? How many overall are willing to be vaccinated? How many among Trump's voter base?
Trump's base is unimportant, as it is insufficient. How long it takes to vaccinate is not the issue - it is whether sufficient people for whom the economy would normally be an overriding concern but who currently believe COVID to be the top priority perceive COVID to have been sorted, even if implementation will take a while. What is important is if people believe that there are the means and a realistic plan to make COVID a non-problem so that they can have afford to turn their priorities back to the economy.
So none of your questions apart from the first are relevant. And I believe health perceptions can be impacted very quickly if people truly believe the problem has a solution which is in the process of being implemented.
The question whether many "people truly believe that the problem has a solution which is in the process of being implemented" does relate, in my view, quite heavily to the last two questions I asked.
If there is a viable vaccine in time Trump would be well advised to make a big song and dance of getting vaccinated.
In a way yes, but how will this play with the heavily anti-vax Trump voter base?
Looking at yesterday and today's polling in the US, Trump's only chance now is for a vaccine to hit in time to impact voter's perception of what is the most important issue - the economy or the virus.
So, while on a personal and humanitarian level, I am hoping for an effective and safe vaccine to be available as soon as possible, there is part of me hoping that it won't arrive in time to impact health perceptions until after 4 November.
How quickly would "health perception" be impacted? How long will it take to vaccinate the willing, a week, a month, or longer than that? How many overall are willing to be vaccinated? How many among Trump's voter base?
Trump's base is unimportant, as it is insufficient. How long it takes to vaccinate is not the issue - it is whether sufficient people for whom the economy would normally be an overriding concern but who currently believe COVID to be the top priority perceive COVID to have been sorted, even if implementation will take a while. What is important is if people believe that there are the means and a realistic plan to make COVID a non-problem so that they can have afford to turn their priorities back to the economy.
So none of your questions apart from the first are relevant. And I believe health perceptions can be impacted very quickly if people truly believe the problem has a solution which is in the process of being implemented.
I think you are wrong there - I suspect once you get past the vaccine question - the next one will be the economy.
And because people won't be confident of it returning to normal, that would also hit Trump.....
The polling data shows that the economy is the only issue on which Trump stands a fighting chance. Back to my original comment - his only chance is if COVID is sorted enough for the economy to become the dominant issue in the election. For that to happen, COVID needs to have been sorted.
Looking at yesterday and today's polling in the US, Trump's only chance now is for a vaccine to hit in time to impact voter's perception of what is the most important issue - the economy or the virus.
So, while on a personal and humanitarian level, I am hoping for an effective and safe vaccine to be available as soon as possible, there is part of me hoping that it won't arrive in time to impact health perceptions until after 4 November.
How quickly would "health perception" be impacted? How long will it take to vaccinate the willing, a week, a month, or longer than that? How many overall are willing to be vaccinated? How many among Trump's voter base?
Trump's base is unimportant, as it is insufficient. How long it takes to vaccinate is not the issue - it is whether sufficient people for whom the economy would normally be an overriding concern but who currently believe COVID to be the top priority perceive COVID to have been sorted, even if implementation will take a while. What is important is if people believe that there are the means and a realistic plan to make COVID a non-problem so that they can have afford to turn their priorities back to the economy.
So none of your questions apart from the first are relevant. And I believe health perceptions can be impacted very quickly if people truly believe the problem has a solution which is in the process of being implemented.
The question whether many "people truly believe that the problem has a solution which is in the process of being implemented" does relate, in my view, quite heavily to the last two questions I asked.
If there is a viable vaccine in time Trump would be well advised to make a big song and dance of getting vaccinated.
In a way yes, but how will this play with the heavily anti-vax Trump voter base?
In other words, can he afford to be seen in cahoots with Bill "Satanas" Gates?
"Was there a point when you started to have second thoughts about your life under Islamic State? Only at the end, after my son died. I realised I had to get out for the sake of my children - for the sake of my daughter and my baby. Yeah.
Only at the end? Yeah.
You didn't have any regrets up until that point? No.
What was it about Islamic State that attracted you? What did you like about it? The way they showed that you can go [to Syria] and they'll take care of you. You can have your own family, do anything. You're living under Islamic law.
Did you know what Islamic State were doing when you left for Syria? Because they had beheaded people. There were executions. Yeah, I knew about those things and I was okay with it. Because, you know, I started becoming religious just before I left. From what I heard, Islamically that is all allowed. So I was okay with it.
You didn't question that? No, not at all."
"The head of the intelligence services in the UK says people like you are potentially very dangerous. What would you say to him? They don't have any evidence against me doing anything dangerous."
"Do you feel that you have made a mistake? When you look back at what you've been through over the last four years, do you feel like you've made a mistake? A mistake in going to al-Dawla?
Yes, a mistake in coming here, living under Islamic State. In a way, yes, but I don't regret it because it's changed me as a person. It's made me stronger, tougher. I married my husband. I wouldn't have found someone like him back in the UK. I had my kids. I did have a good time there, it's just that at the end things got harder and I couldn't take it anymore. I had to leave."
Please for god's sake keep this to yourself, but a deradicalisation programme is designed for people who have been radicalised.
See how that works? The child was radicalised, and, from your post, may remain radicalised, and hence everything she says is all part of the deal of radicalisation. As a child. And she was, as I understand it, rendered stateless by the Home Secretary which is the basis of the challenge.
Is it any clearer now? Please don't hesitate to ask if so. You know the only stupid question is an unasked one.
Hitler likely became a monster because of his brutal father, who beat him mercilessly. Hitler was a child at the time, and had no choice in the matter.
Yet we still held, and would hold, Hitler responsible for the crimes he committed as an adult.
Why is Begum different? We are all formed by positive or negative influences in childhood.
We hold children responsible for the crimes they commit in proportion to the expectation we have of awareness that these things are crimes & the responsibility the child has for enacting them. Hence Begum should be tried in the UK for the crimes she committed as an adult.
Sure, she makes for a difficult case, but she is a UK citizen who was radicalised in the UK. Where else should she be treated or tried (as appropriate) ? Syria would probably hang her from the rafters, which we rightly find objectionable. She is our responsibility: we have to deal with her, somehow.
Sometimes doing the right thing is hard & the person having the right thing done to them is objectionable. Neither of those change the judgement as to the rightness of the actions.
Spot on.
She is/was a British citizen. As a society that looks after its individuals, she is our responsibility. We cocked up, we should lock up for life (if that's the fair punishment), here, for her to live out her crimes.
"Was there a point when you started to have second thoughts about your life under Islamic State? Only at the end, after my son died. I realised I had to get out for the sake of my children - for the sake of my daughter and my baby. Yeah.
Only at the end? Yeah.
You didn't have any regrets up until that point? No.
What was it about Islamic State that attracted you? What did you like about it? The way they showed that you can go [to Syria] and they'll take care of you. You can have your own family, do anything. You're living under Islamic law.
Did you know what Islamic State were doing when you left for Syria? Because they had beheaded people. There were executions. Yeah, I knew about those things and I was okay with it. Because, you know, I started becoming religious just before I left. From what I heard, Islamically that is all allowed. So I was okay with it.
You didn't question that? No, not at all."
"The head of the intelligence services in the UK says people like you are potentially very dangerous. What would you say to him? They don't have any evidence against me doing anything dangerous."
"Do you feel that you have made a mistake? When you look back at what you've been through over the last four years, do you feel like you've made a mistake? A mistake in going to al-Dawla?
Yes, a mistake in coming here, living under Islamic State. In a way, yes, but I don't regret it because it's changed me as a person. It's made me stronger, tougher. I married my husband. I wouldn't have found someone like him back in the UK. I had my kids. I did have a good time there, it's just that at the end things got harder and I couldn't take it anymore. I had to leave."
Please for god's sake keep this to yourself, but a deradicalisation programme is designed for people who have been radicalised.
See how that works? The child was radicalised, and, from your post, may remain radicalised, and hence everything she says is all part of the deal of radicalisation. As a child. And she was, as I understand it, rendered stateless by the Home Secretary which is the basis of the challenge.
Is it any clearer now? Please don't hesitate to ask if so. You know the only stupid question is an unasked one.
Hitler likely became a monster because of his brutal father, who beat him mercilessly. Hitler was a child at the time, and had no choice in the matter.
Yet we still held, and would hold, Hitler responsible for the crimes he committed as an adult.
Why is Begum different? We are all formed by positive or negative influences in childhood.
We hold children responsible for the crimes they commit in proportion to the expectation we have of awareness that these things are crimes & the responsibility the child has for enacting them. Hence Begum should be tried in the UK for the crimes she committed as an adult.
Sure, she makes for a difficult case, but she is a UK citizen who was radicalised in the UK. Where else should she be treated or tried (as appropriate) ? Syria would probably hang her from the rafters, which we rightly find objectionable. She is our responsibility: we have to deal with her, somehow.
Sometimes doing the right thing is hard & the person having the right thing done to them is objectionable. Neither of those change the judgement as to the rightness of the actions.
Spot on.
She is/was a British citizen. As a society that looks after its individuals, she is our responsibility. We cocked up, we should lock up for life (if that's the fair punishment), here, for her to live out her crimes.
We cocked up? What are you talking about.
As a society, that cares about our citizens, something has gone wrong with this girl and it is our responsibility to resolve it. If a court determines that is life imprisonment then so be it. But making somebody stateless is not something a responsible and caring country does.
For what it's worth, everything I've seen suggests she thoroughly deserves life imprisonment.
Looking at yesterday and today's polling in the US, Trump's only chance now is for a vaccine to hit in time to impact voter's perception of what is the most important issue - the economy or the virus.
So, while on a personal and humanitarian level, I am hoping for an effective and safe vaccine to be available as soon as possible, there is part of me hoping that it won't arrive in time to impact health perceptions until after 4 November.
How quickly would "health perception" be impacted? How long will it take to vaccinate the willing, a week, a month, or longer than that? How many overall are willing to be vaccinated? How many among Trump's voter base?
Trump's base is unimportant, as it is insufficient. How long it takes to vaccinate is not the issue - it is whether sufficient people for whom the economy would normally be an overriding concern but who currently believe COVID to be the top priority perceive COVID to have been sorted, even if implementation will take a while. What is important is if people believe that there are the means and a realistic plan to make COVID a non-problem so that they can have afford to turn their priorities back to the economy.
So none of your questions apart from the first are relevant. And I believe health perceptions can be impacted very quickly if people truly believe the problem has a solution which is in the process of being implemented.
The question whether many "people truly believe that the problem has a solution which is in the process of being implemented" does relate, in my view, quite heavily to the last two questions I asked.
If there is a viable vaccine in time Trump would be well advised to make a big song and dance of getting vaccinated.
In a way yes, but how will this play with the heavily anti-vax Trump voter base?
He can hint that it might not have been the vaccine that he got injected with.
Looking at yesterday and today's polling in the US, Trump's only chance now is for a vaccine to hit in time to impact voter's perception of what is the most important issue - the economy or the virus.
So, while on a personal and humanitarian level, I am hoping for an effective and safe vaccine to be available as soon as possible, there is part of me hoping that it won't arrive in time to impact health perceptions until after 4 November.
How quickly would "health perception" be impacted? How long will it take to vaccinate the willing, a week, a month, or longer than that? How many overall are willing to be vaccinated? How many among Trump's voter base?
Trump's base is unimportant, as it is insufficient. How long it takes to vaccinate is not the issue - it is whether sufficient people for whom the economy would normally be an overriding concern but who currently believe COVID to be the top priority perceive COVID to have been sorted, even if implementation will take a while. What is important is if people believe that there are the means and a realistic plan to make COVID a non-problem so that they can have afford to turn their priorities back to the economy.
So none of your questions apart from the first are relevant. And I believe health perceptions can be impacted very quickly if people truly believe the problem has a solution which is in the process of being implemented.
I think you are wrong there - I suspect once you get past the vaccine question - the next one will be the economy.
And because people won't be confident of it returning to normal, that would also hit Trump.....
The polling data shows that the economy is the only issue on which Trump stands a fighting chance. Back to my original comment - his only chance is if COVID is sorted enough for the economy to become the dominant issue in the election. For that to happen, COVID needs to have been sorted.
Yes, but will "Covid have been sorted" by the announcement that Billy Gates is now ready to inject his nano-robots into American patriots' veins?
Looking at yesterday and today's polling in the US, Trump's only chance now is for a vaccine to hit in time to impact voter's perception of what is the most important issue - the economy or the virus.
So, while on a personal and humanitarian level, I am hoping for an effective and safe vaccine to be available as soon as possible, there is part of me hoping that it won't arrive in time to impact health perceptions until after 4 November.
How quickly would "health perception" be impacted? How long will it take to vaccinate the willing, a week, a month, or longer than that? How many overall are willing to be vaccinated? How many among Trump's voter base?
Trump's base is unimportant, as it is insufficient. How long it takes to vaccinate is not the issue - it is whether sufficient people for whom the economy would normally be an overriding concern but who currently believe COVID to be the top priority perceive COVID to have been sorted, even if implementation will take a while. What is important is if people believe that there are the means and a realistic plan to make COVID a non-problem so that they can have afford to turn their priorities back to the economy.
So none of your questions apart from the first are relevant. And I believe health perceptions can be impacted very quickly if people truly believe the problem has a solution which is in the process of being implemented.
The question whether many "people truly believe that the problem has a solution which is in the process of being implemented" does relate, in my view, quite heavily to the last two questions I asked.
If there is a viable vaccine in time Trump would be well advised to make a big song and dance of getting vaccinated.
In a way yes, but how will this play with the heavily anti-vax Trump voter base?
Where are they going to go?
I guess people can stay at home, but Trump does have the lunatic vote sewn up well enough that he's probably got room to offend them on this and that.
And, notwithstanding a worrying rise in the level of anti-vac sentiment in the US, it does need to be put into perspective as it's a fairly small minority - it's still 85% or thereabouts saying it's very or extremely important for people to get kids vaccinated.
Looking at yesterday and today's polling in the US, Trump's only chance now is for a vaccine to hit in time to impact voter's perception of what is the most important issue - the economy or the virus.
So, while on a personal and humanitarian level, I am hoping for an effective and safe vaccine to be available as soon as possible, there is part of me hoping that it won't arrive in time to impact health perceptions until after 4 November.
How quickly would "health perception" be impacted? How long will it take to vaccinate the willing, a week, a month, or longer than that? How many overall are willing to be vaccinated? How many among Trump's voter base?
Trump's base is unimportant, as it is insufficient. How long it takes to vaccinate is not the issue - it is whether sufficient people for whom the economy would normally be an overriding concern but who currently believe COVID to be the top priority perceive COVID to have been sorted, even if implementation will take a while. What is important is if people believe that there are the means and a realistic plan to make COVID a non-problem so that they can have afford to turn their priorities back to the economy.
So none of your questions apart from the first are relevant. And I believe health perceptions can be impacted very quickly if people truly believe the problem has a solution which is in the process of being implemented.
The question whether many "people truly believe that the problem has a solution which is in the process of being implemented" does relate, in my view, quite strongly to the last two questions I asked.
We simply disagree, then. Those who are unwilling to be vaccinated and Trump's voter base probably have a 90%+ overlap, and their views are effectively unimportant to the outcome of this election - it is the independents who will decide it, and most of them view COVID as the top issue and, I suspect, would very willingly be vaccinated.
I do believe Americans are more forward-looking and optimistic than Europeans, and for this reason, I think a significant proportion of independents would quickly shift from worrying primarily about COVID to worrying about the economy if they see a credible path out of lockdown - more quickly than would most Europeans.
Those who hate Trump, like SSI and myself, will not change our views on whom to vote for. But the data shows (at least to my satisfaction) that a chunk of Independents might be susceptible to Trump's economic arguments IF they were convinced COVID was sorted. That is my worry. It may be me just being overly worried about the chance of a second Trump term, but it is at least something to watch.
And I am not even saying that it will be enough for Trump to win. I am just saying it is his only possible route to victory.
If my post was 'she deserves to face justice, preferably the noose', then yes, the fact that her actions happened when she was 15 would be pertinent. But my point was about the safety of the public. Unless someone radicalised when young is less of an ongoing threat than someone radicalised when an adult, her age has no bearing at all.
My viewpoint is that she was born in the UK and radicalised in the UK so it's our own screw up that we need to take responsibility for and fix..
Trying to throw the problem at Bangladesh was neither fair or moral..
My viewpoint is she chose to leave the country to fight for ISIS so f**k her she can take her chances out in the wide world without us.
Even if that breaks the law? I know we are regrettably in the age of one rule for some and another for others, but it is a dangerous path. This woman deserves no sympathy, but the law is there to protect everyone, however odious they might be.
If this breaks the law no. But if this can be done, even with a technicality because she is eligible to Bangladeshi citizenship then she's made her bed and she can lie in it.
She wasn't but don't let facts get away with excusing the Government from breaking international law.
So far the appeals have held that the Government acted legally. She can appeal that further but as it stands there's been no ruling that they acted illegally whatsoever.
I don't think that's quite right. The CA ruled that the refusal of leave to enter in order to contest the deprivation of citizenship order was unlawful. Sadly I think they were right to do so. This isn't a case which has a choice of good outcomes.
I suspect that the government know that ultimately they will lose on the main issue, but that they can either spin it out for years, all the time giving pretty clear dog whistles, or rely on Begum's inability to get back to the UK and decline to give any assistance to do so. I must say I have sympathy with the view that she should be allowed in if she can get here, but can find no reason for the government to do much about enabling it.
But I expect it will reach the SC at least once and perhaps more times. The government will lose every time.
Looking at yesterday and today's polling in the US, Trump's only chance now is for a vaccine to hit in time to impact voter's perception of what is the most important issue - the economy or the virus.
So, while on a personal and humanitarian level, I am hoping for an effective and safe vaccine to be available as soon as possible, there is part of me hoping that it won't arrive in time to impact health perceptions until after 4 November.
How quickly would "health perception" be impacted? How long will it take to vaccinate the willing, a week, a month, or longer than that? How many overall are willing to be vaccinated? How many among Trump's voter base?
Trump's base is unimportant, as it is insufficient. How long it takes to vaccinate is not the issue - it is whether sufficient people for whom the economy would normally be an overriding concern but who currently believe COVID to be the top priority perceive COVID to have been sorted, even if implementation will take a while. What is important is if people believe that there are the means and a realistic plan to make COVID a non-problem so that they can have afford to turn their priorities back to the economy.
So none of your questions apart from the first are relevant. And I believe health perceptions can be impacted very quickly if people truly believe the problem has a solution which is in the process of being implemented.
I think you are wrong there - I suspect once you get past the vaccine question - the next one will be the economy.
And because people won't be confident of it returning to normal, that would also hit Trump.....
The polling data shows that the economy is the only issue on which Trump stands a fighting chance. Back to my original comment - his only chance is if COVID is sorted enough for the economy to become the dominant issue in the election. For that to happen, COVID needs to have been sorted.
Yes, but will "Covid have been sorted" by the announcement that Billy Gates is now ready to inject his nano-robots into American patriots' veins?
Again, your comment is focussing on the wrong demographic.
Looking at yesterday and today's polling in the US, Trump's only chance now is for a vaccine to hit in time to impact voter's perception of what is the most important issue - the economy or the virus.
So, while on a personal and humanitarian level, I am hoping for an effective and safe vaccine to be available as soon as possible, there is part of me hoping that it won't arrive in time to impact health perceptions until after 4 November.
How quickly would "health perception" be impacted? How long will it take to vaccinate the willing, a week, a month, or longer than that? How many overall are willing to be vaccinated? How many among Trump's voter base?
Trump's base is unimportant, as it is insufficient. How long it takes to vaccinate is not the issue - it is whether sufficient people for whom the economy would normally be an overriding concern but who currently believe COVID to be the top priority perceive COVID to have been sorted, even if implementation will take a while. What is important is if people believe that there are the means and a realistic plan to make COVID a non-problem so that they can have afford to turn their priorities back to the economy.
So none of your questions apart from the first are relevant. And I believe health perceptions can be impacted very quickly if people truly believe the problem has a solution which is in the process of being implemented.
The question whether many "people truly believe that the problem has a solution which is in the process of being implemented" does relate, in my view, quite heavily to the last two questions I asked.
If there is a viable vaccine in time Trump would be well advised to make a big song and dance of getting vaccinated.
In a way yes, but how will this play with the heavily anti-vax Trump voter base?
He can hint that it might not have been the vaccine that he got injected with.
He can hint that there's one vaccine for the Emperor and a different one for the minions? And then the minions will run for that other one?
That’s at least two doublings of the number of infections.... SAGE advised government to impose lockdown on 16 or 18 March
Vallance told the committee that SAGE advised the government to impose lockdown measures “as soon as possible” on the 16 or 18 March.
He said this happened as soon as data showed further restrictions were needed. “Looking back, you can see the data may have preceded that but the data was not available before that.”...
It is sobering to think how much impact decisions made in that week had. In a sense, being a week late is a small mistake with gargantuan and horrible consequences.
Macron announced lockdown on March 16, starting on March 17. That's what we needed.
That's what exponential growth does. And it may be unfair on the politicians. But if you're a politician who doesn't like being judged unfairly, you shouldn't have joined the ******* circus.
Looking at yesterday and today's polling in the US, Trump's only chance now is for a vaccine to hit in time to impact voter's perception of what is the most important issue - the economy or the virus.
So, while on a personal and humanitarian level, I am hoping for an effective and safe vaccine to be available as soon as possible, there is part of me hoping that it won't arrive in time to impact health perceptions until after 4 November.
How quickly would "health perception" be impacted? How long will it take to vaccinate the willing, a week, a month, or longer than that? How many overall are willing to be vaccinated? How many among Trump's voter base?
Trump's base is unimportant, as it is insufficient. How long it takes to vaccinate is not the issue - it is whether sufficient people for whom the economy would normally be an overriding concern but who currently believe COVID to be the top priority perceive COVID to have been sorted, even if implementation will take a while. What is important is if people believe that there are the means and a realistic plan to make COVID a non-problem so that they can have afford to turn their priorities back to the economy.
So none of your questions apart from the first are relevant. And I believe health perceptions can be impacted very quickly if people truly believe the problem has a solution which is in the process of being implemented.
With USA lighting up like a Christmas Tree, fat chance of shift in public opinion quick enough to save Trumpsky from himself.
July 1944 - "Home By Christmas"
July 2020 - "Cured By Christmas"
I believe that is right, but I am worried about the prospect of opinion shifting rapidly to prioritize the economy if independents believe an effective vaccine is/will be available shortly. Put me in the category of worrywart if that helps.
Looking at yesterday and today's polling in the US, Trump's only chance now is for a vaccine to hit in time to impact voter's perception of what is the most important issue - the economy or the virus.
So, while on a personal and humanitarian level, I am hoping for an effective and safe vaccine to be available as soon as possible, there is part of me hoping that it won't arrive in time to impact health perceptions until after 4 November.
How quickly would "health perception" be impacted? How long will it take to vaccinate the willing, a week, a month, or longer than that? How many overall are willing to be vaccinated? How many among Trump's voter base?
Trump's base is unimportant, as it is insufficient. How long it takes to vaccinate is not the issue - it is whether sufficient people for whom the economy would normally be an overriding concern but who currently believe COVID to be the top priority perceive COVID to have been sorted, even if implementation will take a while. What is important is if people believe that there are the means and a realistic plan to make COVID a non-problem so that they can have afford to turn their priorities back to the economy.
So none of your questions apart from the first are relevant. And I believe health perceptions can be impacted very quickly if people truly believe the problem has a solution which is in the process of being implemented.
The question whether many "people truly believe that the problem has a solution which is in the process of being implemented" does relate, in my view, quite strongly to the last two questions I asked.
We simply disagree, then. Those who are unwilling to be vaccinated and Trump's voter base probably have a 90%+ overlap, and their views are effectively unimportant to the outcome of this election - it is the independents who will decide it, and most of them view COVID as the top issue and, I suspect, would very willingly be vaccinated.
I do believe Americans are more forward-looking and optimistic than Europeans, and for this reason, I think a significant proportion of independents would quickly shift from worrying primarily about COVID to worrying about the economy if they see a credible path out of lockdown - more quickly than would most Europeans.
Those who hate Trump, like SSI and myself, will not change our views on whom to vote for. But the data shows (at least to my satisfaction) that a chunk of Independents might be susceptible to Trump's economic arguments IF they were convinced COVID was sorted. That is my worry. It may be me just being overly worried about the chance of a second Trump term, but it is at least something to watch.
And I am not even saying that it will be enough for Trump to win. I am just saying it is his only possible route to victory.
I was basically asking the question whether a strategy to win over Independents with the lure of a vaccination scheme might risk losing a substantial share of his core voter base. How many of them are prepared to overlook that sort of betrayal of their beliefs?
Looking at yesterday and today's polling in the US, Trump's only chance now is for a vaccine to hit in time to impact voter's perception of what is the most important issue - the economy or the virus.
So, while on a personal and humanitarian level, I am hoping for an effective and safe vaccine to be available as soon as possible, there is part of me hoping that it won't arrive in time to impact health perceptions until after 4 November.
How quickly would "health perception" be impacted? How long will it take to vaccinate the willing, a week, a month, or longer than that? How many overall are willing to be vaccinated? How many among Trump's voter base?
Trump's base is unimportant, as it is insufficient. How long it takes to vaccinate is not the issue - it is whether sufficient people for whom the economy would normally be an overriding concern but who currently believe COVID to be the top priority perceive COVID to have been sorted, even if implementation will take a while. What is important is if people believe that there are the means and a realistic plan to make COVID a non-problem so that they can have afford to turn their priorities back to the economy.
So none of your questions apart from the first are relevant. And I believe health perceptions can be impacted very quickly if people truly believe the problem has a solution which is in the process of being implemented.
The question whether many "people truly believe that the problem has a solution which is in the process of being implemented" does relate, in my view, quite heavily to the last two questions I asked.
If there is a viable vaccine in time Trump would be well advised to make a big song and dance of getting vaccinated.
In a way yes, but how will this play with the heavily anti-vax Trump voter base?
He can hint that it might not have been the vaccine that he got injected with.
He can hint that there's one vaccine for the Emperor and a different one for the minions? And then the minions will run for that other one?
He can allow people to speculate, so that anti-vaxxers think he didn't really have it, and vaxxers think he did.
Looking at yesterday and today's polling in the US, Trump's only chance now is for a vaccine to hit in time to impact voter's perception of what is the most important issue - the economy or the virus.
So, while on a personal and humanitarian level, I am hoping for an effective and safe vaccine to be available as soon as possible, there is part of me hoping that it won't arrive in time to impact health perceptions until after 4 November.
How quickly would "health perception" be impacted? How long will it take to vaccinate the willing, a week, a month, or longer than that? How many overall are willing to be vaccinated? How many among Trump's voter base?
Trump's base is unimportant, as it is insufficient. How long it takes to vaccinate is not the issue - it is whether sufficient people for whom the economy would normally be an overriding concern but who currently believe COVID to be the top priority perceive COVID to have been sorted, even if implementation will take a while. What is important is if people believe that there are the means and a realistic plan to make COVID a non-problem so that they can have afford to turn their priorities back to the economy.
So none of your questions apart from the first are relevant. And I believe health perceptions can be impacted very quickly if people truly believe the problem has a solution which is in the process of being implemented.
I think you are wrong there - I suspect once you get past the vaccine question - the next one will be the economy.
And because people won't be confident of it returning to normal, that would also hit Trump.....
The polling data shows that the economy is the only issue on which Trump stands a fighting chance. Back to my original comment - his only chance is if COVID is sorted enough for the economy to become the dominant issue in the election. For that to happen, COVID needs to have been sorted.
Yes, but will "Covid have been sorted" by the announcement that Billy Gates is now ready to inject his nano-robots into American patriots' veins?
He's kind of already committed to that strategy though, hasn't he?
I mean, he flirted with anti-vaccination stuff on MMR a while ago, but he reneged on that and he's been pro-coronavirus vaccine, touting stockpiling of doses etc.
So for the small numbers of hardcore anti-vaccination nutcases who see it as a big issue, he's already disappointed them.
Looking at yesterday and today's polling in the US, Trump's only chance now is for a vaccine to hit in time to impact voter's perception of what is the most important issue - the economy or the virus.
So, while on a personal and humanitarian level, I am hoping for an effective and safe vaccine to be available as soon as possible, there is part of me hoping that it won't arrive in time to impact health perceptions until after 4 November.
How quickly would "health perception" be impacted? How long will it take to vaccinate the willing, a week, a month, or longer than that? How many overall are willing to be vaccinated? How many among Trump's voter base?
Trump's base is unimportant, as it is insufficient. How long it takes to vaccinate is not the issue - it is whether sufficient people for whom the economy would normally be an overriding concern but who currently believe COVID to be the top priority perceive COVID to have been sorted, even if implementation will take a while. What is important is if people believe that there are the means and a realistic plan to make COVID a non-problem so that they can have afford to turn their priorities back to the economy.
So none of your questions apart from the first are relevant. And I believe health perceptions can be impacted very quickly if people truly believe the problem has a solution which is in the process of being implemented.
The question whether many "people truly believe that the problem has a solution which is in the process of being implemented" does relate, in my view, quite strongly to the last two questions I asked.
We simply disagree, then. Those who are unwilling to be vaccinated and Trump's voter base probably have a 90%+ overlap, and their views are effectively unimportant to the outcome of this election - it is the independents who will decide it, and most of them view COVID as the top issue and, I suspect, would very willingly be vaccinated.
I do believe Americans are more forward-looking and optimistic than Europeans, and for this reason, I think a significant proportion of independents would quickly shift from worrying primarily about COVID to worrying about the economy if they see a credible path out of lockdown - more quickly than would most Europeans.
Those who hate Trump, like SSI and myself, will not change our views on whom to vote for. But the data shows (at least to my satisfaction) that a chunk of Independents might be susceptible to Trump's economic arguments IF they were convinced COVID was sorted. That is my worry. It may be me just being overly worried about the chance of a second Trump term, but it is at least something to watch.
And I am not even saying that it will be enough for Trump to win. I am just saying it is his only possible route to victory.
I was basically asking the question whether a strategy to win over Independents with the lure of a vaccination scheme might risk losing a substantial share of his core voter base. How many of them are prepared to overlook that sort of betrayal of their beliefs?
It's not a strategy I'm describing. It's what impact the fact of a credible vaccination program would have on perceptions of the independent demographic (and hence the irrelevance of the reaction of Trump's base, or even whether or not Trump says a single word about it).
Looking at yesterday and today's polling in the US, Trump's only chance now is for a vaccine to hit in time to impact voter's perception of what is the most important issue - the economy or the virus.
So, while on a personal and humanitarian level, I am hoping for an effective and safe vaccine to be available as soon as possible, there is part of me hoping that it won't arrive in time to impact health perceptions until after 4 November.
How quickly would "health perception" be impacted? How long will it take to vaccinate the willing, a week, a month, or longer than that? How many overall are willing to be vaccinated? How many among Trump's voter base?
Trump's base is unimportant, as it is insufficient. How long it takes to vaccinate is not the issue - it is whether sufficient people for whom the economy would normally be an overriding concern but who currently believe COVID to be the top priority perceive COVID to have been sorted, even if implementation will take a while. What is important is if people believe that there are the means and a realistic plan to make COVID a non-problem so that they can have afford to turn their priorities back to the economy.
So none of your questions apart from the first are relevant. And I believe health perceptions can be impacted very quickly if people truly believe the problem has a solution which is in the process of being implemented.
The question whether many "people truly believe that the problem has a solution which is in the process of being implemented" does relate, in my view, quite heavily to the last two questions I asked.
If there is a viable vaccine in time Trump would be well advised to make a big song and dance of getting vaccinated.
In a way yes, but how will this play with the heavily anti-vax Trump voter base?
Where are they going to go?
I guess people can stay at home, but Trump does have the lunatic vote sewn up well enough that he's probably got room to offend them on this and that.
And, notwithstanding a worrying rise in the level of anti-vac sentiment in the US, it does need to be put into perspective as it's a fairly small minority - it's still 85% or thereabouts saying it's very or extremely important for people to get kids vaccinated.
If it's really 85%, he is - more or less - safe on that point, but I thought I had seen other numbers, in the low sixties. Is there reliable data on that?
"Was there a point when you started to have second thoughts about your life under Islamic State? Only at the end, after my son died. I realised I had to get out for the sake of my children - for the sake of my daughter and my baby. Yeah.
Only at the end? Yeah.
You didn't have any regrets up until that point? No.
What was it about Islamic State that attracted you? What did you like about it? The way they showed that you can go [to Syria] and they'll take care of you. You can have your own family, do anything. You're living under Islamic law.
Did you know what Islamic State were doing when you left for Syria? Because they had beheaded people. There were executions. Yeah, I knew about those things and I was okay with it. Because, you know, I started becoming religious just before I left. From what I heard, Islamically that is all allowed. So I was okay with it.
You didn't question that? No, not at all."
"The head of the intelligence services in the UK says people like you are potentially very dangerous. What would you say to him? They don't have any evidence against me doing anything dangerous."
"Do you feel that you have made a mistake? When you look back at what you've been through over the last four years, do you feel like you've made a mistake? A mistake in going to al-Dawla?
Yes, a mistake in coming here, living under Islamic State. In a way, yes, but I don't regret it because it's changed me as a person. It's made me stronger, tougher. I married my husband. I wouldn't have found someone like him back in the UK. I had my kids. I did have a good time there, it's just that at the end things got harder and I couldn't take it anymore. I had to leave."
Please for god's sake keep this to yourself, but a deradicalisation programme is designed for people who have been radicalised.
See how that works? The child was radicalised, and, from your post, may remain radicalised, and hence everything she says is all part of the deal of radicalisation. As a child. And she was, as I understand it, rendered stateless by the Home Secretary which is the basis of the challenge.
Is it any clearer now? Please don't hesitate to ask if so. You know the only stupid question is an unasked one.
Hitler likely became a monster because of his brutal father, who beat him mercilessly. Hitler was a child at the time, and had no choice in the matter.
Yet we still held, and would hold, Hitler responsible for the crimes he committed as an adult.
Why is Begum different? We are all formed by positive or negative influences in childhood.
We hold children responsible for the crimes they commit in proportion to the expectation we have of awareness that these things are crimes & the responsibility the child has for enacting them. Hence Begum should be tried in the UK for the crimes she committed as an adult.
Sure, she makes for a difficult case, but she is a UK citizen who was radicalised in the UK. Where else should she be treated or tried (as appropriate) ? Syria would probably hang her from the rafters, which we rightly find objectionable. She is our responsibility: we have to deal with her, somehow.
Sometimes doing the right thing is hard & the person having the right thing done to them is objectionable. Neither of those change the judgement as to the rightness of the actions.
Spot on.
She is/was a British citizen. As a society that looks after its individuals, she is our responsibility. We cocked up, we should lock up for life (if that's the fair punishment), here, for her to live out her crimes.
We cocked up? What are you talking about.
As a society, that cares about our citizens, something has gone wrong with this girl and it is our responsibility to resolve it. If a court determines that is life imprisonment then so be it. But making somebody stateless is not something a responsible and caring country does.
For what it's worth, everything I've seen suggests she thoroughly deserves life imprisonment.
For some reason your comment reminds me of the very ancient lady who taught me to ride.
One day, arrived at the stables, where an ancient horse, in the field where the retired horses lived, had collapsed. The vet was there, plainly out of his depth, and not happy with the rather punny gun he had.
The old lady marched out of the cottage, where she had disappeared off to. And shot the horse herself, with a Webley that must have been from the war.
She announced that she always took care of her own.
Looking at yesterday and today's polling in the US, Trump's only chance now is for a vaccine to hit in time to impact voter's perception of what is the most important issue - the economy or the virus.
So, while on a personal and humanitarian level, I am hoping for an effective and safe vaccine to be available as soon as possible, there is part of me hoping that it won't arrive in time to impact health perceptions until after 4 November.
This is a perfectly valid dilemma. And if you were to say that the "part of you" hoping the vaccine comes too late for Trump is the largest part, I would not one iota condemn you for it. The end of him as POTUS is an event with enormous utility.
I can't see how a vaccine can arrive in time for November 4th in such a way that it will help Trump.
The vaccine may be available but I doubt your typical american voter will have received it in time for the economy to have returned to anything like normal.
"The vaccine may be available but I doubt your typical american voter will have received it in time for the economy to have returned to anything like normal."
That is not what I was saying. I was saying that perceptions of what was the most important - the economy or the virus - going forward is the key.
Even if the virus is still rampant, if American voters think that a vaccine is available and will available to most Americans who want it within months, then that will be enough to persuade a chunk of them to conclude that the virus issue, while still with us, is solved, and that getting the economy back to full health is the top priority.
To have a hope of re-election, Trump needs to get the schools to open in September. The economy will not recover sufficiently if that doesn't happen. The schools won't reopen unless there's a vaccine. There won't be a vaccine by September.
Looking at yesterday and today's polling in the US, Trump's only chance now is for a vaccine to hit in time to impact voter's perception of what is the most important issue - the economy or the virus.
So, while on a personal and humanitarian level, I am hoping for an effective and safe vaccine to be available as soon as possible, there is part of me hoping that it won't arrive in time to impact health perceptions until after 4 November.
How quickly would "health perception" be impacted? How long will it take to vaccinate the willing, a week, a month, or longer than that? How many overall are willing to be vaccinated? How many among Trump's voter base?
Trump's base is unimportant, as it is insufficient. How long it takes to vaccinate is not the issue - it is whether sufficient people for whom the economy would normally be an overriding concern but who currently believe COVID to be the top priority perceive COVID to have been sorted, even if implementation will take a while. What is important is if people believe that there are the means and a realistic plan to make COVID a non-problem so that they can have afford to turn their priorities back to the economy.
So none of your questions apart from the first are relevant. And I believe health perceptions can be impacted very quickly if people truly believe the problem has a solution which is in the process of being implemented.
The question whether many "people truly believe that the problem has a solution which is in the process of being implemented" does relate, in my view, quite heavily to the last two questions I asked.
If there is a viable vaccine in time Trump would be well advised to make a big song and dance of getting vaccinated.
In a way yes, but how will this play with the heavily anti-vax Trump voter base?
He can hint that it might not have been the vaccine that he got injected with.
He can hint that there's one vaccine for the Emperor and a different one for the minions? And then the minions will run for that other one?
He can allow people to speculate, so that anti-vaxxers think he didn't really have it, and vaxxers think he did.
Isn't the point that this is actually worse for anti-vac people than him just taking the thing, because he'd be encouraging others to have it while hinting he might not have done it himself? I don't see how that can work for him.
Looking at yesterday and today's polling in the US, Trump's only chance now is for a vaccine to hit in time to impact voter's perception of what is the most important issue - the economy or the virus.
So, while on a personal and humanitarian level, I am hoping for an effective and safe vaccine to be available as soon as possible, there is part of me hoping that it won't arrive in time to impact health perceptions until after 4 November.
How quickly would "health perception" be impacted? How long will it take to vaccinate the willing, a week, a month, or longer than that? How many overall are willing to be vaccinated? How many among Trump's voter base?
Trump's base is unimportant, as it is insufficient. How long it takes to vaccinate is not the issue - it is whether sufficient people for whom the economy would normally be an overriding concern but who currently believe COVID to be the top priority perceive COVID to have been sorted, even if implementation will take a while. What is important is if people believe that there are the means and a realistic plan to make COVID a non-problem so that they can have afford to turn their priorities back to the economy.
So none of your questions apart from the first are relevant. And I believe health perceptions can be impacted very quickly if people truly believe the problem has a solution which is in the process of being implemented.
The question whether many "people truly believe that the problem has a solution which is in the process of being implemented" does relate, in my view, quite heavily to the last two questions I asked.
If there is a viable vaccine in time Trump would be well advised to make a big song and dance of getting vaccinated.
In a way yes, but how will this play with the heavily anti-vax Trump voter base?
He can hint that it might not have been the vaccine that he got injected with.
He can hint that there's one vaccine for the Emperor and a different one for the minions? And then the minions will run for that other one?
He can allow people to speculate, so that anti-vaxxers think he didn't really have it, and vaxxers think he did.
Sounds a bit Barney Castle to me, but why not, we live in interesting times.
Looking at yesterday and today's polling in the US, Trump's only chance now is for a vaccine to hit in time to impact voter's perception of what is the most important issue - the economy or the virus.
So, while on a personal and humanitarian level, I am hoping for an effective and safe vaccine to be available as soon as possible, there is part of me hoping that it won't arrive in time to impact health perceptions until after 4 November.
This is a perfectly valid dilemma. And if you were to say that the "part of you" hoping the vaccine comes too late for Trump is the largest part, I would not one iota condemn you for it. The end of him as POTUS is an event with enormous utility.
I can't see how a vaccine can arrive in time for November 4th in such a way that it will help Trump.
The vaccine may be available but I doubt your typical american voter will have received it in time for the economy to have returned to anything like normal.
"The vaccine may be available but I doubt your typical american voter will have received it in time for the economy to have returned to anything like normal."
That is not what I was saying. I was saying that perceptions of what was the most important - the economy or the virus - going forward is the key.
Even if the virus is still rampant, if American voters think that a vaccine is available and will available to most Americans who want it within months, then that will be enough to persuade a chunk of them to conclude that the virus issue, while still with us, is solved, and that getting the economy back to full health is the top priority.
To have a hope of re-election, Trump needs to get the schools to open in September. The economy will not recover sufficiently if that doesn't happen. The schools won't reopen unless there's a vaccine. There won't be a vaccine by September.
Again, my worry in relation to Trump's re-election prospects is not about the economy recovering by September, but about a shift in perception of the key independent demographic that the economy going forward has overtaken COVID as the top priority. That is very much more a leading indicator than actual economic recovery, and does not per se require either that COVID is fully back in the bottle, or that there has been any economic uptick.
Its shows how most of the country is now effectively covid free - something which might bring relief to the house cowerers.
Even in infection hotspots the contrast between areas only a mile apart is striking.
The problem with that map is that it doesn't show history and the day-to-day changes
What the following shows is that, yes, COVID is at very, very low levels in most of the country. But it isn't gone. Look at those 1 and 2s popping up at random. It's still there.....
If my post was 'she deserves to face justice, preferably the noose', then yes, the fact that her actions happened when she was 15 would be pertinent. But my point was about the safety of the public. Unless someone radicalised when young is less of an ongoing threat than someone radicalised when an adult, her age has no bearing at all.
My viewpoint is that she was born in the UK and radicalised in the UK so it's our own screw up that we need to take responsibility for and fix..
Trying to throw the problem at Bangladesh was neither fair or moral..
My viewpoint is she chose to leave the country to fight for ISIS so f**k her she can take her chances out in the wide world without us.
Even if that breaks the law? I know we are regrettably in the age of one rule for some and another for others, but it is a dangerous path. This woman deserves no sympathy, but the law is there to protect everyone, however odious they might be.
If this breaks the law no. But if this can be done, even with a technicality because she is eligible to Bangladeshi citizenship then she's made her bed and she can lie in it.
She wasn't but don't let facts get away with excusing the Government from breaking international law.
So far the appeals have held that the Government acted legally. She can appeal that further but as it stands there's been no ruling that they acted illegally whatsoever.
I don't think that's quite right. The CA ruled that the refusal of leave to enter in order to contest the deprivation of citizenship order was unlawful. Sadly I think they were right to do so. This isn't a case which has a choice of good outcomes.
I suspect that the government know that ultimately they will lose on the main issue, but that they can either spin it out for years, all the time giving pretty clear dog whistles, or rely on Begum's inability to get back to the UK and decline to give any assistance to do so. I must say I have sympathy with the view that she should be allowed in if she can get here, but can find no reason for the government to do much about enabling it.
But I expect it will reach the SC at least once and perhaps more times. The government will lose every time.
For the historians here, is the virtue signalling of governments (not just our own) by deliberately losing court cases and expressing outrage a recent phenomenon, or has it always gone on without me being cynical enough to notice it?
Looking at yesterday and today's polling in the US, Trump's only chance now is for a vaccine to hit in time to impact voter's perception of what is the most important issue - the economy or the virus.
So, while on a personal and humanitarian level, I am hoping for an effective and safe vaccine to be available as soon as possible, there is part of me hoping that it won't arrive in time to impact health perceptions until after 4 November.
How quickly would "health perception" be impacted? How long will it take to vaccinate the willing, a week, a month, or longer than that? How many overall are willing to be vaccinated? How many among Trump's voter base?
Trump's base is unimportant, as it is insufficient. How long it takes to vaccinate is not the issue - it is whether sufficient people for whom the economy would normally be an overriding concern but who currently believe COVID to be the top priority perceive COVID to have been sorted, even if implementation will take a while. What is important is if people believe that there are the means and a realistic plan to make COVID a non-problem so that they can have afford to turn their priorities back to the economy.
So none of your questions apart from the first are relevant. And I believe health perceptions can be impacted very quickly if people truly believe the problem has a solution which is in the process of being implemented.
With USA lighting up like a Christmas Tree, fat chance of shift in public opinion quick enough to save Trumpsky from himself.
July 1944 - "Home By Christmas"
July 2020 - "Cured By Christmas"
I believe that is right, but I am worried about the prospect of opinion shifting rapidly to prioritize the economy if independents believe an effective vaccine is/will be available shortly. Put me in the category of worrywart if that helps.
Well, reckon that 78 years ago in July 1932 just after Dem National Convention, Louis Howe & Jim Farley were worried about the outlook for the general.
As they say, many a slip between the cup and the lip!
Back of the envelope calc is about 5 a day. But because some of them are foreigners people will care more about those than the far more prevalent causes.
I wonder if that would survive a challenge under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. I suspect the federal Electoral College would probably fall foul of that if it wasn't for the entrenched equal representation of states in the US Senate provision.
Georgia's County level version was ruled unconstitutional in '63 and Mississipi's similar scheme has all but been ruled unconstitutional - a Republican appointed judge has told legislators to change it voluntarily before he does it with force.
So no chance of it surviving challenge but the GOP will try any old shit.
Its shows how most of the country is now effectively covid free - something which might bring relief to the house cowerers.
Even in infection hotspots the contrast between areas only a mile apart is striking.
The problem with that map is that it doesn't show history and the day-to-day changes
What the following shows is that, yes, COVID is at very, very low levels in most of the country. But it isn't gone. Look at those 1 and 2s popping up at random. It's still there.....
But the 1s and 2s aren't turning into 10s and 20s - which suggests low levels of transmission when someone does have it.
As long as they suit the purpose, ie bad for SNP /Scotland
The award for Chippy Post of the Day once again goes to the Baldrick-like lover of turnips, and purveyor of fake grievances, the uber-inarticulate (even by Nationalists' standards), Mr Malcolmg! Well done sir, you've done it again. Give yourself a nice big turnip!
As long as they suit the purpose, ie bad for SNP /Scotland
The award for Chippy Post of the Day once again goes to the Baldrick-like lover of turnips, and purveyor of fake grievances, the uber-inarticulate (even by Nationalists' standards), Mr Malcolmg! Well done sir, you've done it again. Give yourself a nice big turnip!
Resident Bellend has crawled out from under his rock I see.
It all seems a bit too much like home counties Tory gloating. There are some people who are just not comfortable in a cosmopolitan urban environment and have always resented having to come here to work. Now they don't have to come here anymore, bully for them. They can sit at home in their garden drinking Pimm's and reading the Telegraph. But many other people live in London not because they have to, but because they want to. London faces huge challenges, but "extinction level event" seems like a bit of an exaggeration. Cheaper property creates all kinds of opportunities for activities that have been priced out of London to return.
Comments
There have been studies - many, many people said "No, not for me". Most were quietly transferred. Not even a rude word in their file.
It was a popular excuse. But genocide was optional under the Third Reich.
The vaccine may be available but I doubt your typical american voter will have received it in time for the economy to have returned to anything like normal.
That is not what I was saying. I was saying that perceptions of what was the most important - the economy or the virus - going forward is the key.
Even if the virus is still rampant, if American voters think that a vaccine is available and will available to most Americans who want it within months, then that will be enough to persuade a chunk of them to conclude that the virus issue, while still with us, is solved, and that getting the economy back to full health is the top priority.
https://tech.slashdot.org/story/20/07/16/1528227/hackers-convinced-twitter-employee-to-help-them-hijack-accounts
(And despite the best efforts of enemies the recent GEs, the EU Ref and the Scottish Referendum all resulted in outcomes which were in all the circumstances entirely rational and within quite narrow 'Overton Windows' even if you don't agree with them all.)
And from the same Select Committee hearing:
Sir Patrick Vallance has just been asked if there were any instances in which the government had gone against scientific advice on Covid-19.
“In general, what I can be absolutely clear about is that those making policy decisions have heard and understood the scientific advice,” Vallance said.
Up there with "Have you read the report?" / "I am aware of the report."
How long will it take to vaccinate the willing, a week, a month, or longer than that?
How many overall are willing to be vaccinated? How many among Trump's voter base?
The capital is bankrupt, its business model destroyed by shifts in behaviour that may never now be reversed
Allister Heath" (£)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/15/death-commuter-extinction-level-event-london/
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/04/coronavirus-san-francisco-london-breed/609808/
...Breed ordered businesses closed and issued a citywide shelter-in-place policy effective on March 17, at a point when San Francisco had fewer than 50 confirmed coronavirus cases. (California Governor Gavin Newsom followed with a similar statewide order a few days later.) On that date, New York City already had more than 2,000 positive cases. But New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, reluctant either to shutter schools or issue a stay-at-home directive for the nation’s largest city, didn’t take similar action for several days. By the time New York City fully shut down on March 22, more than 10,000 cases were reported across its five boroughs.
Breed’s aggressiveness was not initially popular. As she ratcheted up the city’s social-distancing mandates, prominent San Franciscans began calling one of the mayor’s political mentors, Senator Kamala Harris. “London Breed’s about to shut down the city,” they complained, Harris told me. She told them to trust Breed…
What's the solution to that problem?
Excluding the numbers of belatedly identified Covid fatalities from the official count, and not reporting them?
Or reporting them and adding the information when in fact these fatalities happened? I thought that was what they are doing. What's your proposal?
It seems clear to me the government immediately began closing things down, though it take a week to get to the point of the final stay at home speech . . . but we were effectively advised to stay at home by 20 March already and the whole discussion that weekend was about the people flouting that advice.
Actually I think it is quite well known to the Oxford scientists.
It's the journalists that have problems with it.
You have to admire their brazeness.
I've seen instances of some journalists reporting ambiguously or misleadingly, but these seem to be a minority. Most media reports do point out that the "daily death count" is compiled of fatalities over a longer period.
So, do all the journalists have a problem there?
Macron announced lockdown on March 16, starting on March 17.
That's what we needed.
Which strongly suggests you have taste and intelligence.....
So none of your questions apart from the first are relevant. And I believe health perceptions can be impacted very quickly if people truly believe the problem has a solution which is in the process of being implemented.
Glad to see Mike called you out.
And because people won't be confident of it returning to normal, that would also hit Trump.....
July 1944 - "Home By Christmas"
July 2020 - "Cured By Christmas"
She is/was a British citizen. As a society that looks after its individuals, she is our responsibility. We cocked up, we should lock up for life (if that's the fair punishment), here, for her to live out her crimes.
For what it's worth, everything I've seen suggests she thoroughly deserves life imprisonment.
I guess people can stay at home, but Trump does have the lunatic vote sewn up well enough that he's probably got room to offend them on this and that.
And, notwithstanding a worrying rise in the level of anti-vac sentiment in the US, it does need to be put into perspective as it's a fairly small minority - it's still 85% or thereabouts saying it's very or extremely important for people to get kids vaccinated.
We simply disagree, then. Those who are unwilling to be vaccinated and Trump's voter base probably have a 90%+ overlap, and their views are effectively unimportant to the outcome of this election - it is the independents who will decide it, and most of them view COVID as the top issue and, I suspect, would very willingly be vaccinated.
I do believe Americans are more forward-looking and optimistic than Europeans, and for this reason, I think a significant proportion of independents would quickly shift from worrying primarily about COVID to worrying about the economy if they see a credible path out of lockdown - more quickly than would most Europeans.
Those who hate Trump, like SSI and myself, will not change our views on whom to vote for. But the data shows (at least to my satisfaction) that a chunk of Independents might be susceptible to Trump's economic arguments IF they were convinced COVID was sorted. That is my worry. It may be me just being overly worried about the chance of a second Trump term, but it is at least something to watch.
And I am not even saying that it will be enough for Trump to win. I am just saying it is his only possible route to victory.
I suspect that the government know that ultimately they will lose on the main issue, but that they can either spin it out for years, all the time giving pretty clear dog whistles, or rely on Begum's inability to get back to the UK and decline to give any assistance to do so. I must say I have sympathy with the view that she should be allowed in if she can get here, but can find no reason for the government to do much about enabling it.
But I expect it will reach the SC at least once and perhaps more times. The government will lose every time.
https://phe.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=47574f7a6e454dc6a42c5f6912ed7076
Its shows how most of the country is now effectively covid free - something which might bring relief to the house cowerers.
Even in infection hotspots the contrast between areas only a mile apart is striking.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8530449/Wales-BANS-public-transport-users-talking-mobile-phones-new-coronavirus-rules.html
I mean, he flirted with anti-vaccination stuff on MMR a while ago, but he reneged on that and he's been pro-coronavirus vaccine, touting stockpiling of doses etc.
So for the small numbers of hardcore anti-vaccination nutcases who see it as a big issue, he's already disappointed them.
One day, arrived at the stables, where an ancient horse, in the field where the retired horses lived, had collapsed. The vet was there, plainly out of his depth, and not happy with the rather punny gun he had.
The old lady marched out of the cottage, where she had disappeared off to. And shot the horse herself, with a Webley that must have been from the war.
She announced that she always took care of her own.
The look on the vets face was brilliant.
What the following shows is that, yes, COVID is at very, very low levels in most of the country. But it isn't gone. Look at those 1 and 2s popping up at random. It's still there.....
As they say, many a slip between the cup and the lip!
So no chance of it surviving challenge but the GOP will try any old shit.
NEW THREAD
But many other people live in London not because they have to, but because they want to. London faces huge challenges, but "extinction level event" seems like a bit of an exaggeration. Cheaper property creates all kinds of opportunities for activities that have been priced out of London to return.