How many Tory shire local councillors are going to be happy with this?
I won't be. Given that East Hampshire District Council is extremely good but Hampshire County Council a one-party fiefdom, and decidedly average (and not particularly conservative either).
There's plenty of unhappiness with the results of the last re-organisation. At least in the four Districts of which I have reasonable knowledge. For example, Castle Point was created by forcing together Canvey Island UDC and Benfleet UDC; the residents of both have a deep dislike of the other. Canvey, the (slightly) smaller of the two now has a Town Council controlled by the Canvey Independence party.
I don't think it's just dishonesty when it comes to Johnson and numbers. I think he just has no real conception that numbers refer to real things because he is completely innumerate.
Thats probably fair. Other politicians are highly intelligent and manipulative. Johnson is neither of these. In other news Mrs RP tells me from her school governors meeting yesterday that the DfE "spend money to make your school Corona-safe and we'll give it you back" guidance has been replaced with "we aren't giving you a penny"...
That is both depressing and entirely predictable. The strategy for schools is just to pretend that Covid doesn't exist. If there's a second wave in the Autumn term it's going to get incredibly messy. Anyone with kids, and teachers, should just assume they are going to get it.
Surely better to get in autumn than winter?
And there we have it: Tory Covid19 strategy in all its glory.
I’m not a Tory...
... and in other news:
- pineapple is the most popular pizza topping - Die Hard is a Christmas movie - Justin is not a Labourite - the Pope has joined the Orange Order - Scots are loved and respected members of the community of nations making up the cherished United Queendom
I don't think it's just dishonesty when it comes to Johnson and numbers. I think he just has no real conception that numbers refer to real things because he is completely innumerate.
Thats probably fair. Other politicians are highly intelligent and manipulative. Johnson is neither of these. In other news Mrs RP tells me from her school governors meeting yesterday that the DfE "spend money to make your school Corona-safe and we'll give it you back" guidance has been replaced with "we aren't giving you a penny"...
That is both depressing and entirely predictable. The strategy for schools is just to pretend that Covid doesn't exist. If there's a second wave in the Autumn term it's going to get incredibly messy. Anyone with kids, and teachers, should just assume they are going to get it.
Surely better to get in autumn than winter?
And there we have it: Tory Covid19 strategy in all its glory.
I’m not a Tory and I have nothing to do with the government’s “strategy” such as it is.
I was making a personal observation. I’m in the group @OnlyLivingBoy was referring to so I have a personal interest
If Sunak is so popular, it rather blunts the "Starmer is boring" meme, because you don't get much more boring than Sunak. He has to be one of the dullest men ever to have held high office, or have I missed something?
You've missed something.
Sunak is smooth and charming. He's a different kind of popular to Boris. Its more of a Bill Clinton style of popular.
I’d be careful with comments like that. I think it’s very close to the sort of thing that could get OGH a few very firm letters
Owen Paterson earns £8,333 a month for 16 hours a week as a consultant for Randox (Register of Members' Interests). That's £100k a year for c. 4 hours a week. He has other paid work as well. Oh, and he's paid to be an MP.
Do you not see any potential conflict of interest here? Presumably not.
Apologies - I meant 16 hours a month.
Everything may be completely above board, and to be absolutely clear for the benefit of Charles I have no evidence to the contrary and am certainly not suggesting that, but the government needs to be careful to avoid even the impression of impropriety if the public is to have confidence that its money is being well spent. I think at a minimum any company that has made contributions to any political party in say the last five years should not be awarded public money in an uncontested procurement exercise. I don't see why that should be controversial.
No. It is new money for those projects, there has been underspending elsewhere . . . as there has been in much of the economy as projects up and down the country are suspended . . . so its being funded via underspending elsewhere but that doesn't stop it being new to those projects.
To be honest I'd be quite reassured if it wasn't.
It would reassure me that there were still some real fiscal conservatives in the party - those who take the public finances seriously and recognise money doesn't grow on trees.
I think funding needed new projects via underspending elsewhere rather than via new money is a real fiscal conservative thing to do?
The problem is the muppets in the media and here who think all spending should be "new" money - so if there's underspending elsewhere it shouldn't be banked and should have still be spent.
I think we're saying the same thing.
I don't think spending more and more money (particularly money you don't have) is a virtuous act in and of itself.
There's a time and place for it but it always has to be paid back at some point.
I vote Conservative because sensibility with the public finances and public administration is its USP (or should be).
We are rapidly approaching the point where the past tense may be more appropriate.
In Houston there is mixed news. Covid hospital occupancy increase has slowed right down and they aren't at risk of running out of beds for the foreseeable future but the overall hospitalisation death rate is going up. At the start of the month it was 6.5%, now it is 6.9% and it has been steadily ticking up through July.
Given improvements in treatment you'd expect that to be going down not up.
Apologies if point already made, but that suggests they are adjusting their hospitalization criteria and so a person has to be more severely ill to be admitted.
That would appear to be a necessary reaction but with the risk that when you get it wrong people are more likely to die at home without treatment - as may have happened in the UK.
Sunak's problem is that the most likely scenario that would create a vacancy at the top - a collapse in Tory support thanks to the economy tanking as government support is withdrawn - is also a scenario that would trash his personal brand. The fiscal reckoning will be very tough too, his window to take the top job before he starts making himself very unpopular is narrowing. He is clearly the Tories' top political talent, but I am far from convinced he will get the job.
The “top political talent” almost never does.
William Hague Iain Duncan Smith Michael Howard David Cameron Theresa May The Great Charlatan
I can't allow you Cameron, when the alternative was David Davis.
Or are you suggesting by implication David Davis is indeed "top political talent"!
Nope. Did it not cross your mind that the top political talent might not make the top two? Or the top three? Or even the top ten? Lots and lots of talent is lost along the way. Churchill eventually made his way out of the Wilderness, but it was a near thing, and only due to highly unusual and specific circumstances. Most talents in the Wilderness never have their moment.
The voting in the first round of the 2005 contest was:
David Davis - 62 David Cameron - 56 Liam Fox - 42 Kenneth Clarke - 38
If Sunak is so popular, it rather blunts the "Starmer is boring" meme, because you don't get much more boring than Sunak. He has to be one of the dullest men ever to have held high office, or have I missed something?
I think it is the way he seems eager & engaged, without being a nerd. He comes across as the "Bloke who knows his stuff" without being a robot.
Starmer comes across in a different way - I suspect it was drilled into him as a lawyer that public presentation has to be dispassionate. Or perhaps passionate, but in a strangely dispassionate way - yes, I know.
I've met a number of lawyers who come across like Starmer - when they switch into "Lawyer mode".
Basically, some people were saying that the methodology used for counting deaths was thus -
1) If you are tested for COVID and get a positive, you go on a list 2) If you die at any time in the future, PHE says you died of COVID.
So in the extreme case, you get the sniffles. Get a test. Positive. Recover. 6 months later you die in a car crash. COVID victim.....
The reason they seem to be doing this, is to be extremely aggressive in counting cases *in*. Avoiding under counting.
Consider the following case - COVID, recovers, long terms effects. These long term effects include massively reduced lung function. Dies of a heart attack 6 months later - probably caused by the stress on the cardiovascular system from the reduced lung function. What do you call that?
Yes, until we really understand the disease I'd much rather we overestimate the deaths, we keep finding new symptoms so there's a lot more to understand. I even read an article that suggested that COVID-19 should not be considered a respiratory disease, as the effects are much broader than that term implies, and people are dying from injury to, or suffering serious harm to, all sorts of body organs.
How many Tory shire local councillors are going to be happy with this?
Do rural And small urban communities Want elected mayors?
It has been discussed many times before. In the past, despite the logic of it, it has been kicked into the long grass, mainly as a result of Tory activists not being happy. A lot of them genuinely see getting nominated for a safe district council seat as reward for years of loyal service. I can't see how this will be any less the case now that the swivel-eyed have largely taken over the party. They will put pressure on it being dropped.
A flurry of holiday bookings. Mrs RP and the kids off to see her mum in Essicks for 5 days next week. Mrs RP and the kids off to see her dad in Spain for 5 days at the beginning of August. Me? I'll (mostly) be working. As I'm part time at the moment me not going anywhere saves cash (they can stay with her dad without me, with me we'd need to rent somewhere so probably quadruple the very little cost they've paid for red eye flights). Frankly I need to work (when they'll let me) - we have a lot to do in little time and most of us are bloody part time which makes for long days.
Entertainingly my local airport is now owned by the people having been nationalised by our pinko-commie Tory mayor. The airport largely closed in the old days because comparable flights from Teesside were double the price as from Newcastle. And now that Alicante flights have restarted? Yes, almost double the price as from Newcastle...
Sunak's problem is that the most likely scenario that would create a vacancy at the top - a collapse in Tory support thanks to the economy tanking as government support is withdrawn - is also a scenario that would trash his personal brand. The fiscal reckoning will be very tough too, his window to take the top job before he starts making himself very unpopular is narrowing. He is clearly the Tories' top political talent, but I am far from convinced he will get the job.
The “top political talent” almost never does.
William Hague Iain Duncan Smith Michael Howard David Cameron Theresa May The Great Charlatan
I can't allow you Cameron, when the alternative was David Davis.
Or are you suggesting by implication David Davis is indeed "top political talent"!
Nope. Did it not cross your mind that the top political talent might not make the top two? Or the top three? Or even the top ten? Lots and lots of talent is lost along the way. Churchill eventually made his way out of the Wilderness, but it was a near thing, and only due to highly unusual and specific circumstances. Most talents in the Wilderness never have their moment.
The voting in the first round of the 2005 contest was:
David Davis - 62 David Cameron - 56 Liam Fox - 42 Kenneth Clarke - 38
Not hard to spot the top political talent in that list of otherwise complete duffers.
We should be very grateful for @MrEd on this site.
The only regular poster putting the facts of Trump's re-election case on here, and sometimes resisting a bit of snide chipping for it accordingly.
Amen to that
I think it is eminently sensible to make the case for why Trump might get reelected. I don't think it's over by any means and it will depend on how things develop between now and November on the virus front and its economic impact.
My guess is that he will claim one of his big-para mates have found a successful vaccine a couple of weeks before polling day. It will probably be another Trump lie of course but could be enough to swing it around.
I can understand making the case for why Trump might yet win, what I can't understand is why anyone would actually want that to happen
The US added 73,000 confirmed cases yesterday, of which roughly 14,000 were in Florida, 10,000 in Texas and 9,000 in Cali. Overall the highest daily increase so far. At least 39 states are showing increases; four states are close to running out of hospital beds.
One of the guys in the Moderna vaccine trial appears to have developed some significant side effects.
It’s only a few days back that Fauci was ridiculed by the the administration for suggesting there was a real danger of over 100k cases a day.
Hard to describe that as scaremongering now.
Word of caution - both Florida and Texas have said that several health districts may be inflating their CV cases eg San Antonio is including "probable" cases in its tally.
Those probables are non-PCR tested positives, using lesser tests like the Abbott 15 minute one. They probably still are positive though, which is why they are labelled as such.
I'm not a scientist so I am probably wrong but my impression was the Abbott test could come back with a fair few false positives. It looks like the biggest counties population wise in Texas are using their own definition (at least according to that article).
No, it comes back with a lot of false negatives, what's happening is that people who get a negative from the lesser tests but show symptoms are put into the probables column and wait for a PCR test. I'm not sure if it's a good way of doing things, it's definitely not what I would do.
Thanks for that, told you I wasn't a scientist
Max are you sure?
A test that comes back with false negatives is worse than useless - it’s positively dangerous.
False positives are less bad: you get them to self isolate while you run a more accurate PCR test.
Actually there’s been quite a lot of work done to demonstrate that rapid tests which are somewhat inaccurate are if for more utility in tackling virus spread than extremely accurate tests if the results aren’t available for three or four days. Which is currently the case in the US.
False positives are ok.
But if you incorrectly tell someone they are clear that’s problematic
Except that you don't, if you're aware the test isn't 100% accurate. And, as I pointed out, even a 100% accurate test can come back with a false negative.
It's notable that both China and S. Korea got on top of their outbreaks partly thanks to getting large scale rapid testing regimes up and running very quickly. Neither had particularly accurate tests (China especially) - but getting results back quickly is essential for track/trace/quarantine/isolation. An accuracy rate as low as 70% is very effective for trace and trace if it gives results within a day, even more so if within an hour - whereas 100% accuracy is useless if it takes three days or more for a result.
If you're looking at pandemic control, overall results are more important than individual results, however tough that might be on the individuals who are missed by the testing.
They won't be in the ONS figures though, so should be easy to run a query on.
We are seeing a fair amount of vascular disease in the recovery phase due to coronavirus endotheliopathy, so be careful. A stroke or heart attack a month after covid may well be related rather than incidental.
George Floyd's death would have been counted in the Covid deaths in the UK. Which kinda makes you think "huh?".
If Sunak is so popular, it rather blunts the "Starmer is boring" meme, because you don't get much more boring than Sunak. He has to be one of the dullest men ever to have held high office, or have I missed something?
I think it is the way he seems eager & engaged, without being a nerd. He comes across as the "Bloke who knows his stuff" without being a robot.
Starmer comes across in a different way - I suspect it was drilled into him as a lawyer that public presentation has to be dispassionate. Or perhaps passionate, but in a strangely dispassionate way - yes, I know.
I've met a number of lawyers who come across like Starmer - when they switch into "Lawyer mode".
I have been a conservative all my life, but I would rather choose a lawyer to be PM than a polemic writer/game show host. It is odd the ignorance of those who think it is an insult to call someone who is a politician a lawyer. Politicians need to be lawyers, or at least need a good understanding, as they are not simply interpreting law, they are making it. Attention to detail is something we should be looking for in politicians. In that sense Sunak has something going for him. Interesting you don't think he is a nerd, I guess you are one of the fans!
If Sunak is so popular, it rather blunts the "Starmer is boring" meme, because you don't get much more boring than Sunak. He has to be one of the dullest men ever to have held high office, or have I missed something?
You've missed something.
Sunak is smooth and charming. He's a different kind of popular to Boris. Its more of a Bill Clinton style of popular.
I think Sunak is clearly the smartest person in the Cabinet but I don't think you can really compare him to Bill Clinton - a comparison which in some respects is overly flattering and in others perhaps the opposite. Clinton really had an ability to connect with people, especially the kind of voters that the Democrats don't do a great job with these days. Much as I respect Sunak's intellect and charm, I really don't see him in those terms. Clinton would never have been seen with a $200 coffee mug, for instance.
In Houston there is mixed news. Covid hospital occupancy increase has slowed right down and they aren't at risk of running out of beds for the foreseeable future but the overall hospitalisation death rate is going up. At the start of the month it was 6.5%, now it is 6.9% and it has been steadily ticking up through July.
Given improvements in treatment you'd expect that to be going down not up.
From what I understand the treatment improvements are not what they are made out to be by the headlines. I've heard the word "marginal" used a lot wrt to remdesivir at least.
There is bound to be some politics involved here. Trump's many enemies have a vested interest in preventing a return to 'normal'
So you're suggesting a conspiracy by doctors in Texas to allow patients to die so that Trump looks bad? Think about what you're saying before you blurt out more rubbish.
That is really not so very different from what I hear from my Trump-supporting friend in Florida. I kid you not.
Be the same sort that claim that masks are evil because they interfere with God's breathing apparatus.
If Sunak is so popular, it rather blunts the "Starmer is boring" meme, because you don't get much more boring than Sunak. He has to be one of the dullest men ever to have held high office, or have I missed something?
You've missed something.
Sunak is smooth and charming. He's a different kind of popular to Boris. Its more of a Bill Clinton style of popular.
I think Sunak is clearly the smartest person in the Cabinet but I don't think you can really compare him to Bill Clinton - a comparison which in some respects is overly flattering and in others perhaps the opposite. Clinton really had an ability to connect with people, especially the kind of voters that the Democrats don't do a great job with these days. Much as I respect Sunak's intellect and charm, I really don't see him in those terms. Clinton would never have been seen with a $200 coffee mug, for instance.
Basically, some people were saying that the methodology used for counting deaths was thus -
1) If you are tested for COVID and get a positive, you go on a list 2) If you die at any time in the future, PHE says you died of COVID.
So in the extreme case, you get the sniffles. Get a test. Positive. Recover. 6 months later you die in a car crash. COVID victim.....
The reason they seem to be doing this, is to be extremely aggressive in counting cases *in*. Avoiding under counting.
Consider the following case - COVID, recovers, long terms effects. These long term effects include massively reduced lung function. Dies of a heart attack 6 months later - probably caused by the stress on the cardiovascular system from the reduced lung function. What do you call that?
Yes, until we really understand the disease I'd much rather we overestimate the deaths, we keep finding new symptoms so there's a lot more to understand. I even read an article that suggested that COVID-19 should not be considered a respiratory disease, as the effects are much broader than that term implies, and people are dying from injury to, or suffering serious harm to, all sorts of body organs.
Yes - one thing that contrasts with the US, has been the UK state (permeant and political) policy of not using the smallest possible numbers and massaging them down.
The early emphasis on the excess deaths number is a case in point.
As to the issue above - the correct action, now that numbers are low, is to use the causes on the death certificate. Which should take into account lasting effects from COVID.
No. It is new money for those projects, there has been underspending elsewhere . . . as there has been in much of the economy as projects up and down the country are suspended . . . so its being funded via underspending elsewhere but that doesn't stop it being new to those projects.
To be honest I'd be quite reassured if it wasn't.
It would reassure me that there were still some real fiscal conservatives in the party - those who take the public finances seriously and recognise money doesn't grow on trees.
I think funding needed new projects via underspending elsewhere rather than via new money is a real fiscal conservative thing to do?
The problem is the muppets in the media and here who think all spending should be "new" money - so if there's underspending elsewhere it shouldn't be banked and should have still be spent.
I think we're saying the same thing.
I don't think spending more and more money (particularly money you don't have) is a virtuous act in and of itself.
There's a time and place for it but it always has to be paid back at some point.
I vote Conservative because sensibility with the public finances and public administration is its USP (or should be).
We are rapidly approaching the point where the past tense may be more appropriate.
Not a judgement that can be made until we see how the finances are managed after the once in a century pandemic is over. By the next election we should see if the deficit is coming back down again.
Thankfully we went into this recession with a deficit greatly reduced and debt to GDP coming down. In the last full financial year before the recession the deficit was down to just 1.2%
If Sunak is so popular, it rather blunts the "Starmer is boring" meme, because you don't get much more boring than Sunak. He has to be one of the dullest men ever to have held high office, or have I missed something?
You've missed something.
Sunak is smooth and charming. He's a different kind of popular to Boris. Its more of a Bill Clinton style of popular.
I think Sunak is clearly the smartest person in the Cabinet but I don't think you can really compare him to Bill Clinton - a comparison which in some respects is overly flattering and in others perhaps the opposite. Clinton really had an ability to connect with people, especially the kind of voters that the Democrats don't do a great job with these days. Much as I respect Sunak's intellect and charm, I really don't see him in those terms. Clinton would never have been seen with a $200 coffee mug, for instance.
A flurry of holiday bookings. Mrs RP and the kids off to see her mum in Essicks for 5 days next week. Mrs RP and the kids off to see her dad in Spain for 5 days at the beginning of August. Me? I'll (mostly) be working. As I'm part time at the moment me not going anywhere saves cash (they can stay with her dad without me, with me we'd need to rent somewhere so probably quadruple the very little cost they've paid for red eye flights). Frankly I need to work (when they'll let me) - we have a lot to do in little time and most of us are bloody part time which makes for long days.
Entertainingly my local airport is now owned by the people having been nationalised by our pinko-commie Tory mayor. The airport largely closed in the old days because comparable flights from Teesside were double the price as from Newcastle. And now that Alicante flights have restarted? Yes, almost double the price as from Newcastle...
Very pleasant in my part of Essex at the moment, although not really warm enough for me.
If Sunak is so popular, it rather blunts the "Starmer is boring" meme, because you don't get much more boring than Sunak. He has to be one of the dullest men ever to have held high office, or have I missed something?
You've missed something.
Sunak is smooth and charming. He's a different kind of popular to Boris. Its more of a Bill Clinton style of popular.
I think Sunak is clearly the smartest person in the Cabinet but I don't think you can really compare him to Bill Clinton - a comparison which in some respects is overly flattering and in others perhaps the opposite. Clinton really had an ability to connect with people, especially the kind of voters that the Democrats don't do a great job with these days. Much as I respect Sunak's intellect and charm, I really don't see him in those terms. Clinton would never have been seen with a $200 coffee mug, for instance.
Despite being well off, which Clinton was too and did have his own things that showed that eg where he holidayed etc, Sunak is quickly developing a reputation for finding ways to connect with ordinary people and getting people to talk about him in ordinary terms . . . whether it be him shopping in a sandwich shop, or drinking Yorkshire Tea etc
If Sunak is so popular, it rather blunts the "Starmer is boring" meme, because you don't get much more boring than Sunak. He has to be one of the dullest men ever to have held high office, or have I missed something?
I think it is the way he seems eager & engaged, without being a nerd. He comes across as the "Bloke who knows his stuff" without being a robot.
Starmer comes across in a different way - I suspect it was drilled into him as a lawyer that public presentation has to be dispassionate. Or perhaps passionate, but in a strangely dispassionate way - yes, I know.
I've met a number of lawyers who come across like Starmer - when they switch into "Lawyer mode".
I have been a conservative all my life, but I would rather choose a lawyer to be PM than a polemic writer/game show host. It is odd the ignorance of those who think it is an insult to call someone who is a politician a lawyer. Politicians need to be lawyers, or at least need a good understanding, as they are not simply interpreting law, they are making it. Attention to detail is something we should be looking for in politicians. In that sense Sunak has something going for him. Interesting you don't think he is a nerd, I guess you are one of the fans!
Attlee, Blair and Thatcher were all lawyers of course
If Sunak is so popular, it rather blunts the "Starmer is boring" meme, because you don't get much more boring than Sunak. He has to be one of the dullest men ever to have held high office, or have I missed something?
You've missed something.
Sunak is smooth and charming. He's a different kind of popular to Boris. Its more of a Bill Clinton style of popular.
I think Sunak is clearly the smartest person in the Cabinet but I don't think you can really compare him to Bill Clinton - a comparison which in some respects is overly flattering and in others perhaps the opposite. Clinton really had an ability to connect with people, especially the kind of voters that the Democrats don't do a great job with these days. Much as I respect Sunak's intellect and charm, I really don't see him in those terms. Clinton would never have been seen with a $200 coffee mug, for instance.
No, it's definitely not Clinton.
I've heard it commented: "He's the kind of man I would want my daughter to marry" - from a woman.
A flurry of holiday bookings. Mrs RP and the kids off to see her mum in Essicks for 5 days next week. Mrs RP and the kids off to see her dad in Spain for 5 days at the beginning of August. Me? I'll (mostly) be working. As I'm part time at the moment me not going anywhere saves cash (they can stay with her dad without me, with me we'd need to rent somewhere so probably quadruple the very little cost they've paid for red eye flights). Frankly I need to work (when they'll let me) - we have a lot to do in little time and most of us are bloody part time which makes for long days.
Entertainingly my local airport is now owned by the people having been nationalised by our pinko-commie Tory mayor. The airport largely closed in the old days because comparable flights from Teesside were double the price as from Newcastle. And now that Alicante flights have restarted? Yes, almost double the price as from Newcastle...
Keep your eye on the published outbreak spots in Alicante currently only Santa Pola and Benidorm, only small 3/4 cases but many more in Valencia province. Details on RTVE
If Sunak is so popular, it rather blunts the "Starmer is boring" meme, because you don't get much more boring than Sunak. He has to be one of the dullest men ever to have held high office, or have I missed something?
You've missed something.
Sunak is smooth and charming. He's a different kind of popular to Boris. Its more of a Bill Clinton style of popular.
I think Sunak is clearly the smartest person in the Cabinet but I don't think you can really compare him to Bill Clinton - a comparison which in some respects is overly flattering and in others perhaps the opposite. Clinton really had an ability to connect with people, especially the kind of voters that the Democrats don't do a great job with these days. Much as I respect Sunak's intellect and charm, I really don't see him in those terms. Clinton would never have been seen with a $200 coffee mug, for instance.
No, it's definitely not Clinton.
I've heard it commented: "He's the kind of man I would want my daughter to marry" - from a woman.
Basically, some people were saying that the methodology used for counting deaths was thus -
1) If you are tested for COVID and get a positive, you go on a list 2) If you die at any time in the future, PHE says you died of COVID.
So in the extreme case, you get the sniffles. Get a test. Positive. Recover. 6 months later you die in a car crash. COVID victim.....
The reason they seem to be doing this, is to be extremely aggressive in counting cases *in*. Avoiding under counting.
Consider the following case - COVID, recovers, long terms effects. These long term effects include massively reduced lung function. Dies of a heart attack 6 months later - probably caused by the stress on the cardiovascular system from the reduced lung function. What do you call that?
Yes, until we really understand the disease I'd much rather we overestimate the deaths, we keep finding new symptoms so there's a lot more to understand. I even read an article that suggested that COVID-19 should not be considered a respiratory disease, as the effects are much broader than that term implies, and people are dying from injury to, or suffering serious harm to, all sorts of body organs.
It's a systemic disease with respiratory transmission.
CSEW reports a fall in crime to a historic low, and nobody notices. Although the drop in violent crime is smaller and we know homicide higher than its all time lows a few years ago.
Does anyone know what notice an employer must give to a worker under flexible furlough to come into work i.e if someone is on flexible furlough on 2 days a week could an employer phone them on a day that they are not working and demand that they come in for a hour on that day. i.e does the furloughed person have to be available at a moments notice to return to work for an hour or two?
CSEW reports a fall in crime to a historic low, and nobody notices. Although the drop in violent crime is smaller and we know homicide higher than its all time lows a few years ago.
Well mugging someone whilst maintaining social distancing guidelines must be quite tricky in fairness.
If Sunak is so popular, it rather blunts the "Starmer is boring" meme, because you don't get much more boring than Sunak. He has to be one of the dullest men ever to have held high office, or have I missed something?
You've missed something.
Sunak is smooth and charming. He's a different kind of popular to Boris. Its more of a Bill Clinton style of popular.
I think Sunak is clearly the smartest person in the Cabinet but I don't think you can really compare him to Bill Clinton - a comparison which in some respects is overly flattering and in others perhaps the opposite. Clinton really had an ability to connect with people, especially the kind of voters that the Democrats don't do a great job with these days. Much as I respect Sunak's intellect and charm, I really don't see him in those terms. Clinton would never have been seen with a $200 coffee mug, for instance.
Despite being well off, which Clinton was too and did have his own things that showed that eg where he holidayed etc, Sunak is quickly developing a reputation for finding ways to connect with ordinary people and getting people to talk about him in ordinary terms . . . whether it be him shopping in a sandwich shop, or drinking Yorkshire Tea etc
It's all a bit painfully manufactured in Sunak's case though. The whole Yorkshire Tea thing is cringeworthy. Clinton only became well of after he was President, for a US politician he was not rich at all, and he really came from nothing in a way that would probably be next to impossible in this country (off the top of my head only Alan Johnson is maybe comparable). Sunak's bio (head boy at Winchester, married to the daughter of a billionaire) isn't really comparable. He has the competent and human side covered, personally I think he should leave the man of the people schtick alone, it just makes him look daft.
6 per day if that is occurring could approximate to 42 per week which could potentially be the majority of all deaths now being recorded. It also means they'll never get down to saying 0 deaths unless this is fixed even if the virus were eliminated.
Though as we have not had a year since Covid-19 appeared, 3 months or 25% of the figure would be a better ballpark, so maybe a dozen per week. Obviously needs fixing, but it has not yet had time to skew the figures much.
(And would need to age standardise the mortality figure, adjust for season etc etc)
If Sunak is so popular, it rather blunts the "Starmer is boring" meme, because you don't get much more boring than Sunak. He has to be one of the dullest men ever to have held high office, or have I missed something?
You've missed something.
Sunak is smooth and charming. He's a different kind of popular to Boris. Its more of a Bill Clinton style of popular.
I think Sunak is clearly the smartest person in the Cabinet but I don't think you can really compare him to Bill Clinton - a comparison which in some respects is overly flattering and in others perhaps the opposite. Clinton really had an ability to connect with people, especially the kind of voters that the Democrats don't do a great job with these days. Much as I respect Sunak's intellect and charm, I really don't see him in those terms. Clinton would never have been seen with a $200 coffee mug, for instance.
No, it's definitely not Clinton.
I've heard it commented: "He's the kind of man I would want my daughter to marry" - from a woman.
That's a million miles from Bill.
Yes, he's really not a natural political empath like Clinton (or indeed sleazy like Clinton), but his ability to smoothly fit into Hague's shoes in a rural northern constituency demonstrates considerable skills at retail politics.
If Sunak is so popular, it rather blunts the "Starmer is boring" meme, because you don't get much more boring than Sunak. He has to be one of the dullest men ever to have held high office, or have I missed something?
You've missed something.
Sunak is smooth and charming. He's a different kind of popular to Boris. Its more of a Bill Clinton style of popular.
I think Sunak is clearly the smartest person in the Cabinet but I don't think you can really compare him to Bill Clinton - a comparison which in some respects is overly flattering and in others perhaps the opposite. Clinton really had an ability to connect with people, especially the kind of voters that the Democrats don't do a great job with these days. Much as I respect Sunak's intellect and charm, I really don't see him in those terms. Clinton would never have been seen with a $200 coffee mug, for instance.
No, it's definitely not Clinton.
I've heard it commented: "He's the kind of man I would want my daughter to marry" - from a woman.
That's a million miles from Bill.
No its not. Its a million miles from Bill now post-Lewinsky, but the Bill of 1992/1996 when he was running for election was regarded in terms like that.
This is something that I've been grappling with. Not sure there's an easy way to work out the answer other than to wait for the ONS excess death stats to come out over the next six months or so:
If Sunak is so popular, it rather blunts the "Starmer is boring" meme, because you don't get much more boring than Sunak. He has to be one of the dullest men ever to have held high office, or have I missed something?
I think it is the way he seems eager & engaged, without being a nerd. He comes across as the "Bloke who knows his stuff" without being a robot.
Starmer comes across in a different way - I suspect it was drilled into him as a lawyer that public presentation has to be dispassionate. Or perhaps passionate, but in a strangely dispassionate way - yes, I know.
I've met a number of lawyers who come across like Starmer - when they switch into "Lawyer mode".
I have been a conservative all my life, but I would rather choose a lawyer to be PM than a polemic writer/game show host. It is odd the ignorance of those who think it is an insult to call someone who is a politician a lawyer. Politicians need to be lawyers, or at least need a good understanding, as they are not simply interpreting law, they are making it. Attention to detail is something we should be looking for in politicians. In that sense Sunak has something going for him. Interesting you don't think he is a nerd, I guess you are one of the fans!
Attlee, Blair and Thatcher were all lawyers of course
I wan't saying lawyers are bad - just that Starmer presents himself in a way that reminds me of how some lawyers have been trained to present in public. Sunak comes across very differently.
The LawyerPolitican issue is another thing. It is arguable that we have too many lawyers and accountants running things in the UK. It is quite common for technical experts to be told that they can't be promoted above a certain level because they aren't lawyers or accountants.
In one case, the head of dept. left. His deputy ran the dept. for a year. Very successfully. Then had someone bought in over his head - an accountant. He was specifically told that it was because he had the wrong background.
In one company I worked, someone tried to get rid of a policy, where oil/LNG tanker captains would 'retire ashore" in their early 50s as senior managers. The fool in question actually stated that, as they weren't lawyers or accountants - how could they know how to manage?
How many Tory shire local councillors are going to be happy with this?
Hope someone senior has asked the Lord Melbourne question on this.
All right, I'll bite. What was the Lord Melbourne question?
Whenever any minister proposed any policy his first question was "Why not leave it as it is?" As an antidote to appearing to be "achieving" something, it has its uses.
How many Tory shire local councillors are going to be happy with this?
Most market towns already have a Mayor and if Tory district and county councillors face losing their seats then their will be a huge revolt
I'm sure there will. And?
Describe a mechanism by which unhappy Conservative councillors can enforce their will on Boris. Then you're talking.
Otherwise, they are as powerless as the Supreme Court.
By refusing to campaign for the party at local and national elections, by raising hell at party conference in full view of the media and by electing a party board more in touch with the grassroots and that goes for members too who will have fewer council seats available to stand in.
They also re select MPs as the bulk of the local party associations and that will feedback to MPs on whom Boris relies for his majority.
The Supreme Court is hardly powerless either, it is the supreme interpreter of the law
6 per day if that is occurring could approximate to 42 per week which could potentially be the majority of all deaths now being recorded. It also means they'll never get down to saying 0 deaths unless this is fixed even if the virus were eliminated.
Though as we have not had a year since Covid-19 appeared, 3 months or 25% of the figure would be a better ballpark, so maybe a dozen per week. Obviously needs fixing, but it has not yet had time to skew the figures much.
(And would need to age standardise the mortality figure, adjust for season etc etc)
Err Mr Meeks has already adjusted for the daily figure which accounts for it only being 3 months.
9 per thousand per year 250,000 have it 9 * 250 = 2,250 per year 2,250 / 365 = 6.16 per day * 7 = 43 per week
We should be very grateful for @MrEd on this site.
The only regular poster putting the facts of Trump's re-election case on here, and sometimes resisting a bit of snide chipping for it accordingly.
Thank you Casino and Contrarian. It's a thankless task - you even get accused of being a Trumpton
That's absolutely what happens, which is unforgivable on a betting website.
Those that do it should be ashamed of themselves.
They might cost us (and them) a lot of money.
I'm more than open to theories on Trump winning in November, however, suggesting it will be done because virus statistics are being inflated by Trump haters is a stretch. Not that MrEd said that, tbf.
Thanks Max and Casino. On the betting side, my fear is that every negative for Trump is being ramped up because people dislike him (which is fair enough) and that other evidence gets drowned out. To be upfront, I have not bet on the election outcome because too many things can happen between now and then. I fear many people are rushing into bets now.
Max, I certainly am not suggesting deaths are being inflated that's for sure. What I am saying is the CV-19 virus has taken on a political angle and, being political and the US, people will use their own interpretations to push their point. Trump will say it is over and Biden will say BLM riots had nothing to do with the spikes.
You DO have a bet on the election - £50 with me!
As for your fear that the case for - and chances of - a Trump win are being underplayed due to intense dislike of him, yes there will be some of that. It's human nature.
But there is lots of the opposite too. People so fearing a Trump win that the natural pessimist in them OVER plays the chance of him winning. They desperately look for reasons that what they dread will come to pass. This is also human nature.
Looking at the betting, there is probably more of the 2nd type of bias. Based on the evidence in the public domain, and considering we are entering late July, Trump should be longer than the current 2.86. The reason he is so short is a mix of "fear" bias (as described) and - and I think this next one is the bigger factor - that many people are fighting the last war. The 2016 shock is fresh in the memory and it was SUCH a shock that its chances of recurring are being wildly overestimated. The same happened here with our GE. It meant that the likely outcome - Con landslide - remained an outstanding value bet right up to polling week.
Ditto WH2020. The value 'drained-of-emotion' bet is a Trump loss. There is even better value for the big loss. I've been recommending laying him since he was 1.9. He's much longer now but still too short. He will be 3.5 by Sept and 5 on eve of election - and then he will almost certainly lose - and probably struggle to reach 200 in the EC.
They do say "fools rush in" - and so often it is true - but as regards laying Trump at current prices it is the very opposite which applies.
They won't be in the ONS figures though, so should be easy to run a query on.
We are seeing a fair amount of vascular disease in the recovery phase due to coronavirus endotheliopathy, so be careful. A stroke or heart attack a month after covid may well be related rather than incidental.
George Floyd's death would have been counted in the Covid deaths in the UK. Which kinda makes you think "huh?".
I am left-wing and I don't believe the State should control most of the economy. Indeed I generally think the ability of any government, of any stripe, to direct the economy is vastly over stated. I don't hold authoritarian social values either.
If you do not believe the state should control most of the economy then you are by definition not leftwing, you might be centrist but you are not leftwing.
You sound far more of a centrist liberal than leftwing
I think the labels confuse more than they help. Personally I'm in favour of much higher income tax on higher tax bands plus a wealth tax plus high spending on health, social care and education and a minimal military budget and no royal family. But I'm not in favour of government control of most of industry and I'm thoroughly relaxed about social issues, if people pay their taxes I don't care about their luxuries, and I don't want to tell anyone how to live their lives. On youtr definition I'm a centrist, but that doesn't feel very centrist to me? Is it a useful label?
Generating lots of money by significantly raising higher tax bands doesn't work though - except as a feelgood measure.
The last estimate I saw was that a 1p increase in the additional rate (45% - 46% for incomes over £150k) was that would bring in £105m per year. Which - even in you whacked 5p or 10p on the rate - is peanuts. https://www.ft.com/content/7a01b73b-d1ec-4b6e-a7b1-2d1a0060de91
We need a worked through set of proposals, including pensions as National Insurance is a supplemntary income tax, including the employer elements.
There is also that even by European standards our tax rates are not *that* low.
6 per day if that is occurring could approximate to 42 per week which could potentially be the majority of all deaths now being recorded. It also means they'll never get down to saying 0 deaths unless this is fixed even if the virus were eliminated.
Though as we have not had a year since Covid-19 appeared, 3 months or 25% of the figure would be a better ballpark, so maybe a dozen per week. Obviously needs fixing, but it has not yet had time to skew the figures much.
(And would need to age standardise the mortality figure, adjust for season etc etc)
We've already had to reduce our deaths by over 1,000 because they were double counting those who had tested positive in the community (mainly in care homes) and then again when they went to hospital and died there. This is going to be several hundred more.
The quality of our statistics is so poor. The first thing these fabled data scientists that Cummings wants to employ are going to have to do is a root and branch revision of what the system actually produces so that they get information that is (a) accurate (b) timely and (c) relevant.
6 per day if that is occurring could approximate to 42 per week which could potentially be the majority of all deaths now being recorded. It also means they'll never get down to saying 0 deaths unless this is fixed even if the virus were eliminated.
Though as we have not had a year since Covid-19 appeared, 3 months or 25% of the figure would be a better ballpark, so maybe a dozen per week. Obviously needs fixing, but it has not yet had time to skew the figures much.
(And would need to age standardise the mortality figure, adjust for season etc etc)
Err Mr Meeks has already adjusted for the daily figure which accounts for it only being 3 months.
9 per thousand per year 250,000 have it 9 * 250 = 2,250 per year 2,250 / 365 = 6.16 per day * 7 = 43 per week
I missed that, should know that a pension lawyer is good at the actuarial stuff!
How many Tory shire local councillors are going to be happy with this?
Hope someone senior has asked the Lord Melbourne question on this.
All right, I'll bite. What was the Lord Melbourne question?
Whenever any minister proposed any policy his first question was "Why not leave it as it is?" As an antidote to appearing to be "achieving" something, it has its uses.
Lord Salisbury often talked about doing the greatest and most heroic thing any government ever could - nothing.
If Sunak is so popular, it rather blunts the "Starmer is boring" meme, because you don't get much more boring than Sunak. He has to be one of the dullest men ever to have held high office, or have I missed something?
You've missed something.
Sunak is smooth and charming. He's a different kind of popular to Boris. Its more of a Bill Clinton style of popular.
I think Sunak is clearly the smartest person in the Cabinet but I don't think you can really compare him to Bill Clinton - a comparison which in some respects is overly flattering and in others perhaps the opposite. Clinton really had an ability to connect with people, especially the kind of voters that the Democrats don't do a great job with these days. Much as I respect Sunak's intellect and charm, I really don't see him in those terms. Clinton would never have been seen with a $200 coffee mug, for instance.
No, it's definitely not Clinton.
I've heard it commented: "He's the kind of man I would want my daughter to marry" - from a woman.
That's a million miles from Bill.
No its not. Its a million miles from Bill now post-Lewinsky, but the Bill of 1992/1996 when he was running for election was regarded in terms like that.
From my American relatives - very long time Democrats, big Bill fans.
Bill was (apparently) the slightly dangerous guy who could get ladies day dreaming about straying. The one they are talking about in groups at smart parties.....
6 per day if that is occurring could approximate to 42 per week which could potentially be the majority of all deaths now being recorded. It also means they'll never get down to saying 0 deaths unless this is fixed even if the virus were eliminated.
Though as we have not had a year since Covid-19 appeared, 3 months or 25% of the figure would be a better ballpark, so maybe a dozen per week. Obviously needs fixing, but it has not yet had time to skew the figures much.
(And would need to age standardise the mortality figure, adjust for season etc etc)
Err Mr Meeks has already adjusted for the daily figure which accounts for it only being 3 months.
9 per thousand per year 250,000 have it 9 * 250 = 2,250 per year 2,250 / 365 = 6.16 per day * 7 = 43 per week
And its actually more like 5 months now since significant numbers started to die in March. The revisal looks like its going to be over 800 to me.
A flurry of holiday bookings. Mrs RP and the kids off to see her mum in Essicks for 5 days next week. Mrs RP and the kids off to see her dad in Spain for 5 days at the beginning of August. Me? I'll (mostly) be working. As I'm part time at the moment me not going anywhere saves cash (they can stay with her dad without me, with me we'd need to rent somewhere so probably quadruple the very little cost they've paid for red eye flights). Frankly I need to work (when they'll let me) - we have a lot to do in little time and most of us are bloody part time which makes for long days.
Entertainingly my local airport is now owned by the people having been nationalised by our pinko-commie Tory mayor. The airport largely closed in the old days because comparable flights from Teesside were double the price as from Newcastle. And now that Alicante flights have restarted? Yes, almost double the price as from Newcastle...
Houchen is very much a mini Boris in terms of his shiny yet hollow infrastructure plans.
6 per day if that is occurring could approximate to 42 per week which could potentially be the majority of all deaths now being recorded. It also means they'll never get down to saying 0 deaths unless this is fixed even if the virus were eliminated.
Though as we have not had a year since Covid-19 appeared, 3 months or 25% of the figure would be a better ballpark, so maybe a dozen per week. Obviously needs fixing, but it has not yet had time to skew the figures much.
(And would need to age standardise the mortality figure, adjust for season etc etc)
Err Mr Meeks has already adjusted for the daily figure which accounts for it only being 3 months.
9 per thousand per year 250,000 have it 9 * 250 = 2,250 per year 2,250 / 365 = 6.16 per day * 7 = 43 per week
And its actually more like 5 months now since significant numbers started to die in March. The revisal looks like its going to be over 800 to me.
OTOH THere are always backdated deaths being added to previously 'solved' days.
My friend who does this as part of his job (and also his hobby!) believes the effect is 16/day from the expected age adjusted daily mortality rate of the C19 test positive cohort (22/day).
This is something that I've been grappling with. Not sure there's an easy way to work out the answer other than to wait for the ONS excess death stats to come out over the next six months or so:
The problem is, we don't know how many people have had it!
Though if they weren't tested, then they wouldn't be in the PHE stats, even if they died of a delayed vascular complication. As we only tested about 10% of cases these would be a large number.
If Sunak is so popular, it rather blunts the "Starmer is boring" meme, because you don't get much more boring than Sunak. He has to be one of the dullest men ever to have held high office, or have I missed something?
You've missed something.
Sunak is smooth and charming. He's a different kind of popular to Boris. Its more of a Bill Clinton style of popular.
I think Sunak is clearly the smartest person in the Cabinet but I don't think you can really compare him to Bill Clinton - a comparison which in some respects is overly flattering and in others perhaps the opposite. Clinton really had an ability to connect with people, especially the kind of voters that the Democrats don't do a great job with these days. Much as I respect Sunak's intellect and charm, I really don't see him in those terms. Clinton would never have been seen with a $200 coffee mug, for instance.
No, it's definitely not Clinton.
I've heard it commented: "He's the kind of man I would want my daughter to marry" - from a woman.
6 per day if that is occurring could approximate to 42 per week which could potentially be the majority of all deaths now being recorded. It also means they'll never get down to saying 0 deaths unless this is fixed even if the virus were eliminated.
Though as we have not had a year since Covid-19 appeared, 3 months or 25% of the figure would be a better ballpark, so maybe a dozen per week. Obviously needs fixing, but it has not yet had time to skew the figures much.
(And would need to age standardise the mortality figure, adjust for season etc etc)
Err Mr Meeks has already adjusted for the daily figure which accounts for it only being 3 months.
9 per thousand per year 250,000 have it 9 * 250 = 2,250 per year 2,250 / 365 = 6.16 per day * 7 = 43 per week
And its actually more like 5 months now since significant numbers started to die in March. The revisal looks like its going to be over 800 to me.
Its not going to be that significant to the year to date figures but in the 7 day figures now it is a massive factor.
How many Tory shire local councillors are going to be happy with this?
Hope someone senior has asked the Lord Melbourne question on this.
All right, I'll bite. What was the Lord Melbourne question?
Whenever any minister proposed any policy his first question was "Why not leave it as it is?" As an antidote to appearing to be "achieving" something, it has its uses.
I’d be careful with comments like that. I think it’s very close to the sort of thing that could get OGH a few very firm letters
Countries can't sue for libel. What can reasonably be said is that governance under the Cummings-Johnson regime is extremely lax. In fact, they actively undermine it , as we have seen on several occasions. These are the conditions that encourage endemic corruption of the type that exists in countries we probably wouldn't want to be compared with.
If Sunak is so popular, it rather blunts the "Starmer is boring" meme, because you don't get much more boring than Sunak. He has to be one of the dullest men ever to have held high office, or have I missed something?
I think it is the way he seems eager & engaged, without being a nerd. He comes across as the "Bloke who knows his stuff" without being a robot.
Starmer comes across in a different way - I suspect it was drilled into him as a lawyer that public presentation has to be dispassionate. Or perhaps passionate, but in a strangely dispassionate way - yes, I know.
I've met a number of lawyers who come across like Starmer - when they switch into "Lawyer mode".
I have been a conservative all my life, but I would rather choose a lawyer to be PM than a polemic writer/game show host. It is odd the ignorance of those who think it is an insult to call someone who is a politician a lawyer. Politicians need to be lawyers, or at least need a good understanding, as they are not simply interpreting law, they are making it. Attention to detail is something we should be looking for in politicians. In that sense Sunak has something going for him. Interesting you don't think he is a nerd, I guess you are one of the fans!
Attlee, Blair and Thatcher were all lawyers of course
I wan't saying lawyers are bad - just that Starmer presents himself in a way that reminds me of how some lawyers have been trained to present in public. Sunak comes across very differently.
The LawyerPolitican issue is another thing. It is arguable that we have too many lawyers and accountants running things in the UK. It is quite common for technical experts to be told that they can't be promoted above a certain level because they aren't lawyers or accountants.
In one case, the head of dept. left. His deputy ran the dept. for a year. Very successfully. Then had someone bought in over his head - an accountant. He was specifically told that it was because he had the wrong background.
In one company I worked, someone tried to get rid of a policy, where oil/LNG tanker captains would 'retire ashore" in their early 50s as senior managers. The fool in question actually stated that, as they weren't lawyers or accountants - how could they know how to manage?
May I suggest that perhaps the reason you don't like Starmer is not because he is bad, but because he is good? It is simply a partisan dislike. He is a much much better man than Corbyn, and (in spite of my Conservative heritage) I would say a far better man than Mr. Johnson (not difficult IMO). The boring meme is the best you can think of. It may work for you, but I don't think it is going to get traction with those that are on the fence.
I’d be careful with comments like that. I think it’s very close to the sort of thing that could get OGH a few very firm letters
But it's fine to post freely that Jeremy Corbyn and anyone supporting him is a raging antisemite.
Yes just like its fine to say that Jimmy Saville abused children.
Truth is an absolute defence.
On this topic I'm afraid you ARE a troll.
No, you're blinded by faux loyalty.
I have no reason to troll Corbyn, he's history and helped give us a massive majority. Why would I want to troll him? And doing so now only makes Starmer look better in context, so what possible reason would I have to do that?
I attack Corbyn for being an antisemite not to score partisan points, but because he is an antisemite. So are Rebecca Long Bailey, Chris Williamson etc . . . none of them now on the Labour Front Bench so what partisan reason would I have to troll that?
You mean that an unsourced, unattributed rumour by a journalist tuns out to be untrue?
Hmmmmm...
Does anyone else remember how a journalist confidently told the world that the Chancellor was going to do nothing. A couple of hours before he announced the furlough scheme?
If Sunak is so popular, it rather blunts the "Starmer is boring" meme, because you don't get much more boring than Sunak. He has to be one of the dullest men ever to have held high office, or have I missed something?
You've missed something.
Sunak is smooth and charming. He's a different kind of popular to Boris. Its more of a Bill Clinton style of popular.
I think Sunak is clearly the smartest person in the Cabinet but I don't think you can really compare him to Bill Clinton - a comparison which in some respects is overly flattering and in others perhaps the opposite. Clinton really had an ability to connect with people, especially the kind of voters that the Democrats don't do a great job with these days. Much as I respect Sunak's intellect and charm, I really don't see him in those terms. Clinton would never have been seen with a $200 coffee mug, for instance.
No, it's definitely not Clinton.
I've heard it commented: "He's the kind of man I would want my daughter to marry" - from a woman.
That's a million miles from Bill.
Boris is more Bill Clinton than Rishi Sunak
He is more Bill Sikes than Bill Clinton.
If we are sticking to Bill and its derivations, can I go for Billy Bunter?
Unless there has been a sudden and massive risk of dying in car accidents etc., I don't see how the PHE reporting changes much. The ONS excess death figures suggest a huge increase in the number of deaths relative to a "normal" year, even after the massive decrease in activity which would actually reduce the occurrence of car accidents etc.
6 per day if that is occurring could approximate to 42 per week which could potentially be the majority of all deaths now being recorded. It also means they'll never get down to saying 0 deaths unless this is fixed even if the virus were eliminated.
Though as we have not had a year since Covid-19 appeared, 3 months or 25% of the figure would be a better ballpark, so maybe a dozen per week. Obviously needs fixing, but it has not yet had time to skew the figures much.
(And would need to age standardise the mortality figure, adjust for season etc etc)
Err Mr Meeks has already adjusted for the daily figure which accounts for it only being 3 months.
9 per thousand per year 250,000 have it 9 * 250 = 2,250 per year 2,250 / 365 = 6.16 per day * 7 = 43 per week
And its actually more like 5 months now since significant numbers started to die in March. The revisal looks like its going to be over 800 to me.
OTOH THere are always backdated deaths being added to previously 'solved' days.
If this has been their policy we may well find that a lot of these backdated deaths shouldn't have been included either. So, someone dies from injuries from a RTA and it is discovered during the autopsy that he had or once had Covid. He now gets included.
I can see more complicated cases given the frightening range of sequelae from this disease. Anyone who died of a heart attack, for example, just might have had that coronary induced by the clotting and damage the virus can do. It will be hard to say that is wrong.
You mean that an unsourced, unattributed rumour by a journalist tuns out to be untrue?
Hmmmmm...
Does anyone else remember how a journalist confidently told the world that the Chancellor was going to do nothing. A couple of hours before he announced the furlough scheme?
Seeing as the current PM is a pseudo-journalist then anything could be true.
I’d be careful with comments like that. I think it’s very close to the sort of thing that could get OGH a few very firm letters
Countries can't sue for libel. What can reasonably be said is that governance under the Cummings-Johnson regime is extremely lax. In fact, they actively undermine it , as we have seen on several occasions. These are the conditions that encourage endemic corruption of the type that exists in countries we probably wouldn't want to be compared with.
Comparisons with other countries are now only made when data looks favourable. The moment it is not, it is conveniently forgotten. We don't have much left that works like this and Dominic Cummings is doing his best to reduce that further.
If Sunak is so popular, it rather blunts the "Starmer is boring" meme, because you don't get much more boring than Sunak. He has to be one of the dullest men ever to have held high office, or have I missed something?
I think it is the way he seems eager & engaged, without being a nerd. He comes across as the "Bloke who knows his stuff" without being a robot.
Starmer comes across in a different way - I suspect it was drilled into him as a lawyer that public presentation has to be dispassionate. Or perhaps passionate, but in a strangely dispassionate way - yes, I know.
I've met a number of lawyers who come across like Starmer - when they switch into "Lawyer mode".
I have been a conservative all my life, but I would rather choose a lawyer to be PM than a polemic writer/game show host. It is odd the ignorance of those who think it is an insult to call someone who is a politician a lawyer. Politicians need to be lawyers, or at least need a good understanding, as they are not simply interpreting law, they are making it. Attention to detail is something we should be looking for in politicians. In that sense Sunak has something going for him. Interesting you don't think he is a nerd, I guess you are one of the fans!
Attlee, Blair and Thatcher were all lawyers of course
I wan't saying lawyers are bad - just that Starmer presents himself in a way that reminds me of how some lawyers have been trained to present in public. Sunak comes across very differently.
The LawyerPolitican issue is another thing. It is arguable that we have too many lawyers and accountants running things in the UK. It is quite common for technical experts to be told that they can't be promoted above a certain level because they aren't lawyers or accountants.
In one case, the head of dept. left. His deputy ran the dept. for a year. Very successfully. Then had someone bought in over his head - an accountant. He was specifically told that it was because he had the wrong background.
In one company I worked, someone tried to get rid of a policy, where oil/LNG tanker captains would 'retire ashore" in their early 50s as senior managers. The fool in question actually stated that, as they weren't lawyers or accountants - how could they know how to manage?
May I suggest that perhaps the reason you don't like Starmer is not because he is bad, but because he is good? It is simply a partisan dislike. He is a much much better man than Corbyn, and (in spite of my Conservative heritage) I would say a far better man than Mr. Johnson (not difficult IMO). The boring meme is the best you can think of. It may work for you, but I don't think it is going to get traction with those that are on the fence.
I don't dislike Starmer. I might even vote for him.
I was trying to analyse the reasons why he is seen the way he is. Charismatic is not his thing. I think "solid" and "reliable" are his thing.
The lawyer issue is separate. The religion that lawyers/accountants should run everything is a failing in this country. How many engineers in Parliament?
Incidentally, I think Starmer doesn't come across to the average person as YetAnotherLawyer.
I am actually of the opinion that the whole charisma/public presentation thing is a distraction from the real skills politicians need.
How many times have we had people who can give a wonderful speech, work the room well but were useless at *doing* anything?
6 per day if that is occurring could approximate to 42 per week which could potentially be the majority of all deaths now being recorded. It also means they'll never get down to saying 0 deaths unless this is fixed even if the virus were eliminated.
Though as we have not had a year since Covid-19 appeared, 3 months or 25% of the figure would be a better ballpark, so maybe a dozen per week. Obviously needs fixing, but it has not yet had time to skew the figures much.
(And would need to age standardise the mortality figure, adjust for season etc etc)
Err Mr Meeks has already adjusted for the daily figure which accounts for it only being 3 months.
9 per thousand per year 250,000 have it 9 * 250 = 2,250 per year 2,250 / 365 = 6.16 per day * 7 = 43 per week
And its actually more like 5 months now since significant numbers started to die in March. The revisal looks like its going to be over 800 to me.
OTOH THere are always backdated deaths being added to previously 'solved' days.
If this has been their policy we may well find that a lot of these backdated deaths shouldn't have been included either. So, someone dies from injuries from a RTA and it is discovered during the autopsy that he had or once had Covid. He now gets included.
I can see more complicated cases given the frightening range of sequelae from this disease. Anyone who died of a heart attack, for example, just might have had that coronary induced by the clotting and damage the virus can do. It will be hard to say that is wrong.
I think the UK is trying its best to find COVID figures and erring on the side of safety.
I expect by the end of the year when all is said and done if you do a ratio of the officially recorded COVID death total over the annual excess death total then our ratio will be very high compared to many other nations . . . especially considering how we started off struggling to do enough tests.
Unless there has been a sudden and massive risk of dying in car accidents etc., I don't see how the PHE reporting changes much. The ONS excess death figures suggest a huge increase in the number of deaths relative to a "normal" year, even after the massive decrease in activity which would actually reduce the occurrence of car accidents etc.
Yes, the excess death stats matter most in terms of looking at the overall impact of COVID-19.
But they need to start thinking about the PHE methodology as the proportion of people dying with COVID-19 rather than because of COVID-19 will be going up as the virus is suppressed. It might explain partly why the deaths have started to level off.
If Sunak is so popular, it rather blunts the "Starmer is boring" meme, because you don't get much more boring than Sunak. He has to be one of the dullest men ever to have held high office, or have I missed something?
You've missed something.
Sunak is smooth and charming. He's a different kind of popular to Boris. Its more of a Bill Clinton style of popular.
I think Sunak is clearly the smartest person in the Cabinet but I don't think you can really compare him to Bill Clinton - a comparison which in some respects is overly flattering and in others perhaps the opposite. Clinton really had an ability to connect with people, especially the kind of voters that the Democrats don't do a great job with these days. Much as I respect Sunak's intellect and charm, I really don't see him in those terms. Clinton would never have been seen with a $200 coffee mug, for instance.
Despite being well off, which Clinton was too and did have his own things that showed that eg where he holidayed etc, Sunak is quickly developing a reputation for finding ways to connect with ordinary people and getting people to talk about him in ordinary terms . . . whether it be him shopping in a sandwich shop, or drinking Yorkshire Tea etc
It's all a bit painfully manufactured in Sunak's case though. The whole Yorkshire Tea thing is cringeworthy. Clinton only became well of after he was President, for a US politician he was not rich at all, and he really came from nothing in a way that would probably be next to impossible in this country (off the top of my head only Alan Johnson is maybe comparable). Sunak's bio (head boy at Winchester, married to the daughter of a billionaire) isn't really comparable. He has the competent and human side covered, personally I think he should leave the man of the people schtick alone, it just makes him look daft.
I'm not sure what is objectionable about a Yorkshire MP drinking Yorkshire tea.
Seemed to be a case of some twitter baboons doing some trolling just because they could.
I've never been a fan of my former MP Denis Skinner, but I certainly would have no objection to him taking PR opportunities with Thorntons Toffee or Denby Pottery.
How many Tory shire local councillors are going to be happy with this?
Most market towns already have a Mayor and if Tory district and county councillors face losing their seats then their will be a huge revolt
I'm sure there will. And?
Describe a mechanism by which unhappy Conservative councillors can enforce their will on Boris. Then you're talking.
Otherwise, they are as powerless as the Supreme Court.
By refusing to campaign for the party at local and national elections, by raising hell at party conference in full view of the media and by electing a party board more in touch with the grassroots and that goes for members too who will have fewer council seats available to stand in.
They also re select MPs as the bulk of the local party associations and that will feedback to MPs on whom Boris relies for his majority.
The Supreme Court is hardly powerless either, it is the supreme interpreter of the law
Sorry, but that's nowhere near enough.
The PM doesn't think he needs campaigners. 2016 and 2019 were both won with digital. Look at the Red Wall seats won from a minimal council base.
Conference is only of concern to the W1 bubble, and fairly easy to stage-manage anyway.
Deselecting MPs... because Boris is going to shower the area with cash? Really?
Boris is a populist. He has a direct line to The People. He doesn't need the party any more. At most, he needs to keep half the MPs on board, which ought to be a doddle. And when Boris doesn't need people, he has a track record of dumping on them from a great height.
And the Supreme Court? Yes, it's the supreme interpreter of the law. It told Johnson that his government had acted unlawfully. But it couldn't punish him, so whatevs.
Unless there has been a sudden and massive risk of dying in car accidents etc., I don't see how the PHE reporting changes much. The ONS excess death figures suggest a huge increase in the number of deaths relative to a "normal" year, even after the massive decrease in activity which would actually reduce the occurrence of car accidents etc.
Yes. If it's 6 deaths extra/day... the current level of deaths is closer to 80. So it's not that much of a change?
It might be a smaller effect than those who died due to COVID but weren't tested.
I suspect this is going to be much more relevant politically, as govt sees a way to throw doubt on figures showing lots of people have died. Anyway, we know excess mortality is the way to go.
Unless there has been a sudden and massive risk of dying in car accidents etc., I don't see how the PHE reporting changes much. The ONS excess death figures suggest a huge increase in the number of deaths relative to a "normal" year, even after the massive decrease in activity which would actually reduce the occurrence of car accidents etc.
Yes. If it's 6 deaths extra/day... the current level of deaths is closer to 80. So it's not that much of a change?
It might be a smaller effect than those who died due to COVID but weren't tested.
I suspect this is going to be much more relevant politically, as govt sees a way to throw doubt on figures showing lots of people have died. Anyway, we know excess mortality is the way to go.
Are current deaths close to 80? I thought they were lower than that now.
Unless there has been a sudden and massive risk of dying in car accidents etc., I don't see how the PHE reporting changes much. The ONS excess death figures suggest a huge increase in the number of deaths relative to a "normal" year, even after the massive decrease in activity which would actually reduce the occurrence of car accidents etc.
No one is arguing that there have not been excess deaths and quite a lot of them. What is being discussed is how many. This will be significant if there remains a much larger death toll in the UK than equivalent countries like France or Germany. Why did that happen? Are we more obese, less fit, more ethnic minorities, are our hospitals less competent, etc?
Spain has a smaller population than us but has had 305k cases to our 295k. Despite that we are recording 45k deaths compared to their 28k. This is a massive difference. We need to find out why, ideally before there is a second wave.
Unless there has been a sudden and massive risk of dying in car accidents etc., I don't see how the PHE reporting changes much. The ONS excess death figures suggest a huge increase in the number of deaths relative to a "normal" year, even after the massive decrease in activity which would actually reduce the occurrence of car accidents etc.
Yes. If it's 6 deaths extra/day... the current level of deaths is closer to 80. So it's not that much of a change?
It might be a smaller effect than those who died due to COVID but weren't tested.
I suspect this is going to be much more relevant politically, as govt sees a way to throw doubt on figures showing lots of people have died. Anyway, we know excess mortality is the way to go.
Are current deaths close to 80? I thought they were lower than that now.
We still only have day of death numbers for England, but this is a fair proxy. So these numbers include the deaths we are discussing.
If Sunak is so popular, it rather blunts the "Starmer is boring" meme, because you don't get much more boring than Sunak. He has to be one of the dullest men ever to have held high office, or have I missed something?
I think it is the way he seems eager & engaged, without being a nerd. He comes across as the "Bloke who knows his stuff" without being a robot.
Starmer comes across in a different way - I suspect it was drilled into him as a lawyer that public presentation has to be dispassionate. Or perhaps passionate, but in a strangely dispassionate way - yes, I know.
I've met a number of lawyers who come across like Starmer - when they switch into "Lawyer mode".
I have been a conservative all my life, but I would rather choose a lawyer to be PM than a polemic writer/game show host. It is odd the ignorance of those who think it is an insult to call someone who is a politician a lawyer. Politicians need to be lawyers, or at least need a good understanding, as they are not simply interpreting law, they are making it. Attention to detail is something we should be looking for in politicians. In that sense Sunak has something going for him. Interesting you don't think he is a nerd, I guess you are one of the fans!
Attlee, Blair and Thatcher were all lawyers of course
I wan't saying lawyers are bad - just that Starmer presents himself in a way that reminds me of how some lawyers have been trained to present in public. Sunak comes across very differently.
The LawyerPolitican issue is another thing. It is arguable that we have too many lawyers and accountants running things in the UK. It is quite common for technical experts to be told that they can't be promoted above a certain level because they aren't lawyers or accountants.
In one case, the head of dept. left. His deputy ran the dept. for a year. Very successfully. Then had someone bought in over his head - an accountant. He was specifically told that it was because he had the wrong background.
In one company I worked, someone tried to get rid of a policy, where oil/LNG tanker captains would 'retire ashore" in their early 50s as senior managers. The fool in question actually stated that, as they weren't lawyers or accountants - how could they know how to manage?
May I suggest that perhaps the reason you don't like Starmer is not because he is bad, but because he is good? It is simply a partisan dislike. He is a much much better man than Corbyn, and (in spite of my Conservative heritage) I would say a far better man than Mr. Johnson (not difficult IMO). The boring meme is the best you can think of. It may work for you, but I don't think it is going to get traction with those that are on the fence.
I don't dislike Starmer. I might even vote for him.
I was trying to analyse the reasons why he is seen the way he is. Charismatic is not his thing. I think "solid" and "reliable" are his thing.
The lawyer issue is separate. The religion that lawyers/accountants should run everything is a failing in this country. How many engineers in Parliament?
Incidentally, I think Starmer doesn't come across to the average person as YetAnotherLawyer.
I am actually of the opinion that the whole charisma/public presentation thing is a distraction from the real skills politicians need.
How many times have we had people who can give a wonderful speech, work the room well but were useless at *doing* anything?
Johnson is a case in point with regard to your final remark. Some of our finest parliamentarians have been lawyers, for the obvious reasons I mentioned before. I agree we need more people with actual experience of life outside politics though.
Unless there has been a sudden and massive risk of dying in car accidents etc., I don't see how the PHE reporting changes much. The ONS excess death figures suggest a huge increase in the number of deaths relative to a "normal" year, even after the massive decrease in activity which would actually reduce the occurrence of car accidents etc.
Yes. If it's 6 deaths extra/day... the current level of deaths is closer to 80. So it's not that much of a change?
It might be a smaller effect than those who died due to COVID but weren't tested.
I suspect this is going to be much more relevant politically, as govt sees a way to throw doubt on figures showing lots of people have died. Anyway, we know excess mortality is the way to go.
Are current deaths close to 80? I thought they were lower than that now.
We still only have day of death numbers for England, but this is a fair proxy. So these numbers include the deaths we are discussing.
Considerably lower than 80!
Approximately 50 or lower for the past week, so knocking six off those is a considerable change.
Unless there has been a sudden and massive risk of dying in car accidents etc., I don't see how the PHE reporting changes much. The ONS excess death figures suggest a huge increase in the number of deaths relative to a "normal" year, even after the massive decrease in activity which would actually reduce the occurrence of car accidents etc.
No one is arguing that there have not been excess deaths and quite a lot of them. What is being discussed is how many. This will be significant if there remains a much larger death toll in the UK than equivalent countries like France or Germany. Why did that happen? Are we more obese, less fit, more ethnic minorities, are our hospitals less competent, etc?
Spain has a smaller population than us but has had 305k cases to our 295k. Despite that we are recording 45k deaths compared to their 28k. This is a massive difference. We need to find out why, ideally before there is a second wave.
Of course I don't know for sure, but I really doubt that this correction is going to significantly move the UK in the death league table. Maybe a 5% reduction overall, at most? The UK looks bad relative to those countries using the ONS data alone.
Unless there has been a sudden and massive risk of dying in car accidents etc., I don't see how the PHE reporting changes much. The ONS excess death figures suggest a huge increase in the number of deaths relative to a "normal" year, even after the massive decrease in activity which would actually reduce the occurrence of car accidents etc.
Yes. If it's 6 deaths extra/day... the current level of deaths is closer to 80. So it's not that much of a change?
It might be a smaller effect than those who died due to COVID but weren't tested.
I suspect this is going to be much more relevant politically, as govt sees a way to throw doubt on figures showing lots of people have died. Anyway, we know excess mortality is the way to go.
Are current deaths close to 80? I thought they were lower than that now.
We still only have day of death numbers for England, but this is a fair proxy. So these numbers include the deaths we are discussing.
It's been under 80 for 2 weeks.
Hospital deaths - the series most often posted on here (and Cricket Wyvern's) is substantially less than 80 at the moment.
Unless there has been a sudden and massive risk of dying in car accidents etc., I don't see how the PHE reporting changes much. The ONS excess death figures suggest a huge increase in the number of deaths relative to a "normal" year, even after the massive decrease in activity which would actually reduce the occurrence of car accidents etc.
No one is arguing that there have not been excess deaths and quite a lot of them. What is being discussed is how many. This will be significant if there remains a much larger death toll in the UK than equivalent countries like France or Germany. Why did that happen? Are we more obese, less fit, more ethnic minorities, are our hospitals less competent, etc?
Spain has a smaller population than us but has had 305k cases to our 295k. Despite that we are recording 45k deaths compared to their 28k. This is a massive difference. We need to find out why, ideally before there is a second wave.
The European figures are far from accurate. In Italy the death toll is at least double that being reported.
Unless there has been a sudden and massive risk of dying in car accidents etc., I don't see how the PHE reporting changes much. The ONS excess death figures suggest a huge increase in the number of deaths relative to a "normal" year, even after the massive decrease in activity which would actually reduce the occurrence of car accidents etc.
Agreed. It will be the only clear way to see the impact of the policies that were or were not followed.
How many Tory shire local councillors are going to be happy with this?
Most market towns already have a Mayor and if Tory district and county councillors face losing their seats then their will be a huge revolt
I'm sure there will. And?
Describe a mechanism by which unhappy Conservative councillors can enforce their will on Boris. Then you're talking.
Otherwise, they are as powerless as the Supreme Court.
By refusing to campaign for the party at local and national elections, by raising hell at party conference in full view of the media and by electing a party board more in touch with the grassroots and that goes for members too who will have fewer council seats available to stand in.
They also re select MPs as the bulk of the local party associations and that will feedback to MPs on whom Boris relies for his majority.
The Supreme Court is hardly powerless either, it is the supreme interpreter of the law
Sorry, but that's nowhere near enough.
The PM doesn't think he needs campaigners. 2016 and 2019 were both won with digital. Look at the Red Wall seats won from a minimal council base.
Conference is only of concern to the W1 bubble, and fairly easy to stage-manage anyway.
Deselecting MPs... because Boris is going to shower the area with cash? Really?
Boris is a populist. He has a direct line to The People. He doesn't need the party any more. At most, he needs to keep half the MPs on board, which ought to be a doddle. And when Boris doesn't need people, he has a track record of dumping on them from a great height.
And the Supreme Court? Yes, it's the supreme interpreter of the law. It told Johnson that his government had acted unlawfully. But it couldn't punish him, so whatevs.
The marginals were certainly helped to win by canvassers eg Great Grimsby is one Red Wall seat I know was flooded with Tory activists.
Conference with angry scenes from the floor dominates the headlines as in the 1980s.
MPs are reselected by councillors and party activists, if they revolt to save their skins they will have to follow suit and vote down the scrapping of district councillors.
No party leader is beyond the party, even Thatcher and Blair found that out eventually, if you lose the party base then they will topple you.
Boris of course could not pass Brexit because of the Supreme Court until he got a majority but even with a majority the Supreme Court still interprets the law.
If Boris loses the party base and imposes regionalism on local districts and reduces the impact of local town Mayors there will be a revolt not seen from Tory grassroots and councillors for decades
Unless there has been a sudden and massive risk of dying in car accidents etc., I don't see how the PHE reporting changes much. The ONS excess death figures suggest a huge increase in the number of deaths relative to a "normal" year, even after the massive decrease in activity which would actually reduce the occurrence of car accidents etc.
Yes, the excess death stats matter most in terms of looking at the overall impact of COVID-19.
But they need to start thinking about the PHE methodology as the proportion of people dying with COVID-19 rather than because of COVID-19 will be going up as the virus is suppressed. It might explain partly why the deaths have started to level off.
Indeed that's why it matters now.
In March/April the ratio of people who'd recovered from COVID19 to those who were suffering from it is completely different to what it is now.
Unless there has been a sudden and massive risk of dying in car accidents etc., I don't see how the PHE reporting changes much. The ONS excess death figures suggest a huge increase in the number of deaths relative to a "normal" year, even after the massive decrease in activity which would actually reduce the occurrence of car accidents etc.
Yes. If it's 6 deaths extra/day... the current level of deaths is closer to 80. So it's not that much of a change?
It might be a smaller effect than those who died due to COVID but weren't tested.
I suspect this is going to be much more relevant politically, as govt sees a way to throw doubt on figures showing lots of people have died. Anyway, we know excess mortality is the way to go.
Are current deaths close to 80? I thought they were lower than that now.
We still only have day of death numbers for England, but this is a fair proxy. So these numbers include the deaths we are discussing.
It's been under 80 for 2 weeks.
Hospital deaths - the series most often posted on here (and Cricket Wyvern's) is substantially less than 80 at the moment.
The above (that I posted) is all England deaths)
The following is England hospital deaths, by day of death
I reckon our figures are 'about right', particularly those from the ONS (Excess net deaths if you want a true picture). Like @Neryshughes I'm sceptical about other nations. Belgium figures are perhaps slightly overstated.
Comments
For example, Castle Point was created by forcing together Canvey Island UDC and Benfleet UDC; the residents of both have a deep dislike of the other.
Canvey, the (slightly) smaller of the two now has a Town Council controlled by the Canvey Independence party.
- pineapple is the most popular pizza topping
- Die Hard is a Christmas movie
- Justin is not a Labourite
- the Pope has joined the Orange Order
- Scots are loved and respected members of the community of nations making up the cherished United Queendom
Sunak is smooth and charming. He's a different kind of popular to Boris. Its more of a Bill Clinton style of popular.
That would appear to be a necessary reaction but with the risk that when you get it wrong people are more likely to die at home without treatment - as may have happened in the UK.
David Davis - 62
David Cameron - 56
Liam Fox - 42
Kenneth Clarke - 38
Starmer comes across in a different way - I suspect it was drilled into him as a lawyer that public presentation has to be dispassionate. Or perhaps passionate, but in a strangely dispassionate way - yes, I know.
I've met a number of lawyers who come across like Starmer - when they switch into "Lawyer mode".
Truth is an absolute defence.
Entertainingly my local airport is now owned by the people having been nationalised by our pinko-commie Tory mayor. The airport largely closed in the old days because comparable flights from Teesside were double the price as from Newcastle. And now that Alicante flights have restarted? Yes, almost double the price as from Newcastle...
My guess is that he will claim one of his big-para mates have found a successful vaccine a couple of weeks before polling day. It will probably be another Trump lie of course but could be enough to swing it around.
I can understand making the case for why Trump might yet win, what I can't understand is why anyone would actually want that to happen
And, as I pointed out, even a 100% accurate test can come back with a false negative.
It's notable that both China and S. Korea got on top of their outbreaks partly thanks to getting large scale rapid testing regimes up and running very quickly. Neither had particularly accurate tests (China especially) - but getting results back quickly is essential for track/trace/quarantine/isolation.
An accuracy rate as low as 70% is very effective for trace and trace if it gives results within a day, even more so if within an hour - whereas 100% accuracy is useless if it takes three days or more for a result.
If you're looking at pandemic control, overall results are more important than individual results, however tough that might be on the individuals who are missed by the testing.
The early emphasis on the excess deaths number is a case in point.
As to the issue above - the correct action, now that numbers are low, is to use the causes on the death certificate. Which should take into account lasting effects from COVID.
Thankfully we went into this recession with a deficit greatly reduced and debt to GDP coming down. In the last full financial year before the recession the deficit was down to just 1.2%
I've heard it commented: "He's the kind of man I would want my daughter to marry" - from a woman.
That's a million miles from Bill.
Describe a mechanism by which unhappy Conservative councillors can enforce their will on Boris. Then you're talking.
Otherwise, they are as powerless as the Supreme Court.
Many thanks in advance
(And would need to age standardise the mortality figure, adjust for season etc etc)
See this article in the LA Times dated from 1996, it was Clinton's (for a Democrat) very high ratings with married people that helped him win the election: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-06-13-mn-14427-story.html
https://twitter.com/AlastairMeeks/status/1284043753267826688
The problem is, we don't know how many people have had it!
The LawyerPolitican issue is another thing. It is arguable that we have too many lawyers and accountants running things in the UK. It is quite common for technical experts to be told that they can't be promoted above a certain level because they aren't lawyers or accountants.
In one case, the head of dept. left. His deputy ran the dept. for a year. Very successfully. Then had someone bought in over his head - an accountant. He was specifically told that it was because he had the wrong background.
In one company I worked, someone tried to get rid of a policy, where oil/LNG tanker captains would 'retire ashore" in their early 50s as senior managers. The fool in question actually stated that, as they weren't lawyers or accountants - how could they know how to manage?
As an antidote to appearing to be "achieving" something, it has its uses.
They also re select MPs as the bulk of the local party associations and that will feedback to MPs on whom Boris relies for his majority.
The Supreme Court is hardly powerless either, it is the supreme interpreter of the law
9 per thousand per year
250,000 have it
9 * 250 = 2,250 per year
2,250 / 365 = 6.16 per day * 7 = 43 per week
As for your fear that the case for - and chances of - a Trump win are being underplayed due to intense dislike of him, yes there will be some of that. It's human nature.
But there is lots of the opposite too. People so fearing a Trump win that the natural pessimist in them OVER plays the chance of him winning. They desperately look for reasons that what they dread will come to pass. This is also human nature.
Looking at the betting, there is probably more of the 2nd type of bias. Based on the evidence in the public domain, and considering we are entering late July, Trump should be longer than the current 2.86. The reason he is so short is a mix of "fear" bias (as described) and - and I think this next one is the bigger factor - that many people are fighting the last war. The 2016 shock is fresh in the memory and it was SUCH a shock that its chances of recurring are being wildly overestimated. The same happened here with our GE. It meant that the likely outcome - Con landslide - remained an outstanding value bet right up to polling week.
Ditto WH2020. The value 'drained-of-emotion' bet is a Trump loss. There is even better value for the big loss. I've been recommending laying him since he was 1.9. He's much longer now but still too short. He will be 3.5 by Sept and 5 on eve of election - and then he will almost certainly lose - and probably struggle to reach 200 in the EC.
They do say "fools rush in" - and so often it is true - but as regards laying Trump at current prices it is the very opposite which applies.
The last estimate I saw was that a 1p increase in the additional rate (45% - 46% for incomes over £150k) was that would bring in £105m per year. Which - even in you whacked 5p or 10p on the rate - is peanuts.
https://www.ft.com/content/7a01b73b-d1ec-4b6e-a7b1-2d1a0060de91
We need a worked through set of proposals, including pensions as National Insurance is a supplemntary income tax, including the employer elements.
There is also that even by European standards our tax rates are not *that* low.
The quality of our statistics is so poor. The first thing these fabled data scientists that Cummings wants to employ are going to have to do is a root and branch revision of what the system actually produces so that they get information that is (a) accurate (b) timely and (c) relevant.
(Quote from memory)
Bill was (apparently) the slightly dangerous guy who could get ladies day dreaming about straying. The one they are talking about in groups at smart parties.....
My friend who does this as part of his job (and also his hobby!) believes the effect is 16/day from the expected age adjusted daily mortality rate of the C19 test positive cohort (22/day).
https://twitter.com/CatNeilan/status/1284008675967938561
I have no reason to troll Corbyn, he's history and helped give us a massive majority. Why would I want to troll him? And doing so now only makes Starmer look better in context, so what possible reason would I have to do that?
I attack Corbyn for being an antisemite not to score partisan points, but because he is an antisemite. So are Rebecca Long Bailey, Chris Williamson etc . . . none of them now on the Labour Front Bench so what partisan reason would I have to troll that?
Hmmmmm...
Does anyone else remember how a journalist confidently told the world that the Chancellor was going to do nothing. A couple of hours before he announced the furlough scheme?
I can see more complicated cases given the frightening range of sequelae from this disease. Anyone who died of a heart attack, for example, just might have had that coronary induced by the clotting and damage the virus can do. It will be hard to say that is wrong.
I was trying to analyse the reasons why he is seen the way he is. Charismatic is not his thing. I think "solid" and "reliable" are his thing.
The lawyer issue is separate. The religion that lawyers/accountants should run everything is a failing in this country. How many engineers in Parliament?
Incidentally, I think Starmer doesn't come across to the average person as YetAnotherLawyer.
I am actually of the opinion that the whole charisma/public presentation thing is a distraction from the real skills politicians need.
How many times have we had people who can give a wonderful speech, work the room well but were useless at *doing* anything?
I expect by the end of the year when all is said and done if you do a ratio of the officially recorded COVID death total over the annual excess death total then our ratio will be very high compared to many other nations . . . especially considering how we started off struggling to do enough tests.
But they need to start thinking about the PHE methodology as the proportion of people dying with COVID-19 rather than because of COVID-19 will be going up as the virus is suppressed. It might explain partly why the deaths have started to level off.
Seemed to be a case of some twitter baboons doing some trolling just because they could.
I've never been a fan of my former MP Denis Skinner, but I certainly would have no objection to him taking PR opportunities with Thorntons Toffee or Denby Pottery.
The PM doesn't think he needs campaigners. 2016 and 2019 were both won with digital. Look at the Red Wall seats won from a minimal council base.
Conference is only of concern to the W1 bubble, and fairly easy to stage-manage anyway.
Deselecting MPs... because Boris is going to shower the area with cash? Really?
Boris is a populist. He has a direct line to The People. He doesn't need the party any more. At most, he needs to keep half the MPs on board, which ought to be a doddle. And when Boris doesn't need people, he has a track record of dumping on them from a great height.
And the Supreme Court? Yes, it's the supreme interpreter of the law. It told Johnson that his government had acted unlawfully. But it couldn't punish him, so whatevs.
It might be a smaller effect than those who died due to COVID but weren't tested.
I suspect this is going to be much more relevant politically, as govt sees a way to throw doubt on figures showing lots of people have died. Anyway, we know excess mortality is the way to go.
Spain has a smaller population than us but has had 305k cases to our 295k. Despite that we are recording 45k deaths compared to their 28k. This is a massive difference. We need to find out why, ideally before there is a second wave.
It's been under 80 for 2 weeks.
Approximately 50 or lower for the past week, so knocking six off those is a considerable change.
Conference with angry scenes from the floor dominates the headlines as in the 1980s.
MPs are reselected by councillors and party activists, if they revolt to save their skins they will have to follow suit and vote down the scrapping of district councillors.
No party leader is beyond the party, even Thatcher and Blair found that out eventually, if you lose the party base then they will topple you.
Boris of course could not pass Brexit because of the Supreme Court until he got a majority but even with a majority the Supreme Court still interprets the law.
If Boris loses the party base and imposes regionalism on local districts and reduces the impact of local town Mayors there will be a revolt not seen from Tory grassroots and councillors for decades
In March/April the ratio of people who'd recovered from COVID19 to those who were suffering from it is completely different to what it is now.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-53436447
The following is England hospital deaths, by day of death
Belgium figures are perhaps slightly overstated.