Sounds a sensible discussion to have. I think Spain is on the verge of a serious second wave but there is a lot of denial from the government and atm a lack of a sense of direction. Understandable but worrying.
At least I have had good news this week. I've had about 11-12 hospital appointments since March, 3 or 4 of which have been made into phone or zoom, and I've gone through the whole cycle of final diagnosis and treatment of a very rare chronic form of Leukemia (200 cases a year) in the last 10 weeks, which I am told this week looks as though it is going into remission.
The local hospital has continued treatments cautiously throughout, and overall have been excellent.
I also hear from a friend who is about 18 months into recovery from major surgery that cancer type oprations are continuing at a local repurposed private hospital.
So not all bleak everywhere, though I expect capacity is reduced.
Finally, GCSE and A level classes will start with the assumption that exams will happen as usual (or a couple of weeks late), there is every chance that the approach this year will be repeated given that so many schools and pupils will again have their education disrupted. The one factor that might cause the Government to stick to the plan for exams as usual is if the grades awarded this summer prove to be highly controversial.
This is a rumour, so treat with usual caution.
At the moment, OFQUAL are kicking up a huge stink about the submitted grades and saying how they're having to savagely moderate everyone because their teachers have overpredicted by about 15 million percent (well, 10, but the principle holds).
There are those in the examination system who are saying off the record that this is all bollocks designed to make it sound as though OFQUAL are acting tough to avoid any future repercussions. That would in fact make sense given OFQUAL have nothing to do with grading.
It will be interesting to see whether the grades have indeed been changed. Given that I was pretty conservative with mine I will be bloody furious if my students are marked down for a bunch of failed pen pushers to try and show that their cushy jobs are relevant.
I share your concern. My daughter is in the GCSE cohort. The metric that concerns me is the one where teachers had to rank pupils - football league style. My understanding is there was no basis for this ranking other that each teacher`s gut feeling on how each child would have done if they had sat the exam compared to the other pupils in his/her class.
In the case of my daughter - who is not academically bright but works hard - she did well in her mocks and would have been aiming for a grade higher in each subject in the actual exams. In contrast some bright pupils were lazy and didn`t try in the mocks.
My hunch is that the teachers will rank a "lazy but bright" ahead of a "less bright but diligent" even though they have no evidence for such a ranking other than gut feeling (and, no doubt, the IQ-type cognitive tests that they all had to sit a few months ago which my daughter did poorly in).
The real problem is methodology and rigour are going to vary widely from school to school - which in itself makes any attempt to impose uniformity a total nonsense.
It's those doing A-levels I'm sorriest for. Guinea pigs for the GCSEs, which were messed up. Now their A-levels are, like it or not, going to be cheapened. And even if they resit in the autumn, that isn't going to help because 'A-level 2020' will say to potential employers 'estimated grades' for the next fifty years.
While I really do not see why A-levels could not have gone ahead, I'm not convinced it will matter much in the grand scheme of things. Most GCSE-holders will carry on into the sixth form regardless. A-levels might affect university entrance but, first, academics will know the score, and second, the whole 2020 cohort is competing for places amongst itself, and that is true for those looking for jobs as well. After a couple of years in employment, experience matters more than qualifications.
Finally, GCSE and A level classes will start with the assumption that exams will happen as usual (or a couple of weeks late), there is every chance that the approach this year will be repeated given that so many schools and pupils will again have their education disrupted. The one factor that might cause the Government to stick to the plan for exams as usual is if the grades awarded this summer prove to be highly controversial.
This is a rumour, so treat with usual caution.
At the moment, OFQUAL are kicking up a huge stink about the submitted grades and saying how they're having to savagely moderate everyone because their teachers have overpredicted by about 15 million percent (well, 10, but the principle holds).
There are those in the examination system who are saying off the record that this is all bollocks designed to make it sound as though OFQUAL are acting tough to avoid any future repercussions. That would in fact make sense given OFQUAL have nothing to do with grading.
It will be interesting to see whether the grades have indeed been changed. Given that I was pretty conservative with mine I will be bloody furious if my students are marked down for a bunch of failed pen pushers to try and show that their cushy jobs are relevant.
I share your concern. My daughter is in the GCSE cohort. The metric that concerns me is the one where teachers had to rank pupils - football league style. My understanding is there was no basis for this ranking other that each teacher`s gut feeling on how each child would have done if they had sat the exam compared to the other pupils in his/her class.
In the case of my daughter - who is not academically bright but works hard - she did well in her mocks and would have been aiming for a grade higher in each subject in the actual exams. In contrast some bright pupils were lazy and didn`t try in the mocks.
My hunch is that the teachers will rank a "lazy but bright" ahead of a "less bright but diligent" even though they have no evidence for such a ranking other than gut feeling (and, no doubt, the IQ-type cognitive tests that they all had to sit a few months ago which my daughter did poorly in).
The real problem is methodology and rigour are going to vary widely from school to school - which in itself makes any attempt to impose uniformity a total nonsense.
It's those doing A-levels I'm sorriest for. Guinea pigs for the GCSEs, which were messed up. Now their A-levels are, like it or not, going to be cheapened. And even if they resit in the autumn, that isn't going to help because 'A-level 2020' will say to potential employers 'estimated grades' for the next fifty years.
While I really do not see why A-levels could not have gone ahead, I'm not convinced it will matter much in the grand scheme of things. Most GCSE-holders will carry on into the sixth form regardless. A-levels might affect university entrance but, first, academics will know the score, and second, the whole 2020 cohort is competing for places amongst itself, and that is true for those looking for jobs as well. After a couple of years in employment, experience matters more than qualifications.
Getting into even degree level employment without A-levels is not easy.
Report in Spain says that 18 to 29 year olds have very low perception of the risk of the virus to themselves, want to enjoy their holidays and suffer accrue peer pressure to join in with the majority. Not surprising but maybe there should be more focus on publicizing the Long term risks at whatever age.
There is not a ton of evidence about "long-term" risks after less than a year. From Europe, however, there is evidence that manyyoung people can get the virus with very little impact on hospital admissions, let alone ICU.
Since last night, Susan Rice has retaken second favouritism from Karen Bass. In the last hour or so, Val Demings and Tammy Duckworth have shortened on Betfair. Joe Biden has said he will name his running mate in the first week in August; today, of course, is 1st August.
I'm still expecting Harris (and I'm OK with that) but if this were a feelgood blockbuster movie there's only one suitable ending. Michelle Obama.
Betting-wise, I'm neutral. From a political point of view, has Joe Biden overdone the teasing? His intention in naming the shortlist was to raise the profile of the women involved but the risk is building up expectations too high amongst supporters of the different candidates that Biden ends up disappointing too many.
And we are not now going to find out who has been chosen till the week before the convention.
There's a powerful piece in the Washington Post on why Biden should NOT choose Rice
In the past few hours, Tammy Duckworth has come screaming back into contention. One-time fancy Stacey Abrams is now even longer than Barack (that's Barack, not Michelle) Obama; did she run over Joe Biden's new puppy on her way to the interview?
Report in Spain says that 18 to 29 year olds have very low perception of the risk of the virus to themselves, want to enjoy their holidays and suffer accrue peer pressure to join in with the majority. Not surprising but maybe there should be more focus on publicizing the Long term risks at whatever age.
There is not a ton of evidence about "long-term" risks after less than a year. From Europe, however, there is evidence that manyyoung people can get the virus with very little impact on hospital admissions, let alone ICU.
In Almeria that was certainly true initially but is slowly changing no doubt as they pass it on to more vulnerable relatives and frineds.
Report in Spain says that 18 to 29 year olds have very low perception of the risk of the virus to themselves, want to enjoy their holidays and suffer accrue peer pressure to join in with the majority. Not surprising but maybe there should be more focus on publicizing the Long term risks at whatever age.
There is not a ton of evidence about "long-term" risks after less than a year. From Europe, however, there is evidence that manyyoung people can get the virus with very little impact on hospital admissions, let alone ICU.
In Almeria that was certainly true initially but is slowly changing no doubt as they pass it on to more vulnerable relatives and frineds.
Well, that's a different question: making big sacrifices on behalf of the older generation.
At least I have had good news this week. I've had about 11-12 hospital appointments since March, 3 or 4 of which have been made into phone or zoom, and I've gone through the whole cycle of final diagnosis and treatment of a very rare chronic form of Leukemia (200 cases a year) in the last 10 weeks, which I am told this week looks as though it is going into remission.
The local hospital has continued treatments cautiously throughout, and overall have been excellent.
I also hear from a friend who is about 18 months into recovery from major surgery that cancer type oprations are continuing at a local repurposed private hospital.
So not all bleak everywhere, though I expect capacity is reduced.
I am thoroughly depressed by everything. My brother has been made redundant. My son lost his job too. I am looking for work as my consultancy work has reduced significantly for the moment. I hope it can be from home but I may have to take the health risk of working in an office. Bills need to be paid. Family needs to be supported. Other son is working for daughter, who expects her business to be closed down again this autumn and - if there is no second support package at least as good as the first - it will be for good this time. So that will be all 3 children unemployed and with little chance of finding alternative employment.
All very well talking about the importance of education but what happens to the children of parents who lose their jobs and face losing their homes? Going to school does not insulate them from the mental, emotional, financial and other consequences.
I don’t know what the answer is. But the horizon looks very dark and bleak to me.
Sorry to hear this news Cyclefree.
"if there is no second support package at least as good as the first - it will be for good this time."
I really hope Rishi reads PB, because he needs to hear this message.
I am thoroughly depressed by everything. My brother has been made redundant. My son lost his job too. I am looking for work as my consultancy work has reduced significantly for the moment. I hope it can be from home but I may have to take the health risk of working in an office. Bills need to be paid. Family needs to be supported. Other son is working for daughter, who expects her business to be closed down again this autumn and - if there is no second support package at least as good as the first - it will be for good this time. So that will be all 3 children unemployed and with little chance of finding alternative employment.
All very well talking about the importance of education but what happens to the children of parents who lose their jobs and face losing their homes? Going to school does not insulate them from the mental, emotional, financial and other consequences.
I don’t know what the answer is. But the horizon looks very dark and bleak to me.
Sorry to hear this news Cyclefree.
"if there is no second support package at least as good as the first - it will be for good this time."
I really hope Rishi reads PB, because he needs to hear this message.
Unless the Government is able to keep on borrowing ad infinitum at near zero (or even negative) interest rates then it doesn't matter how loud people shout at the Chancellor - sooner or later, he'll run out of the funds with which to keep businesses on life support.
I'm just hoping that my pessimism about the schools isn't borne out - because it might not be. I know that there's been a fair amount of evidence produced to suggest that primary school kids may not be particularly good either at catching the virus or passing it on, and if the older ones are either similar, or enough of them have already passed it round amongst themselves in the Spring to largely interrupt transmission, then we could get away with it.
If not then the Government is placed in an impossible position. Either we have schools staying shut, large number of parents who can't work from home being forced to quit their jobs to keep babysitting, and the media replete with tales of demotivated kids getting further and further behind with their education; or the schools open and a load of businesses shut to compensate, and we end up with children who can spell "separate" correctly and have a passable knowledge of Anglo-Saxon history, but find themselves living with Mum in a council-funded B&B after Dad's restaurant business went to the wall, the family home got repossessed and he went for a one-way walk onto the nearest railway line.
The numbers of casualties from this disaster are going to be enormous, and I remain convinced that the lives lost to the disease will be far exceeded by those ultimately lost to the consequences of the measures used to control it. Indeed, given that Covid-19 mortality is so skewed towards the elderly, the total number of years of life lost to the consequences of the control measures will be many multiples of that lost to the virus itself.
At least I have had good news this week. I've had about 11-12 hospital appointments since March, 3 or 4 of which have been made into phone or zoom, and I've gone through the whole cycle of final diagnosis and treatment of a very rare chronic form of Leukemia (200 cases a year) in the last 10 weeks, which I am told this week looks as though it is going into remission.
The local hospital has continued treatments cautiously throughout, and overall have been excellent.
I also hear from a friend who is about 18 months into recovery from major surgery that cancer type oprations are continuing at a local repurposed private hospital.
So not all bleak everywhere, though I expect capacity is reduced.
Good to hear your positive news. Good luck going forward with the remission.
We are now down to levels of deaths from covid 19 that match road accidents . We seem to have built a weird groupthink that we must get it to zero by banning all risk . The equivalent with road deaths would be to ban cars or at least get a bloke with a red flag walking in front of any car- and we have all ridiculed that for over a century
The difference is that one has the potential to grow exponentially, and the other doesn't.
Lockdown got the death rate down from a thousand a day to a few tens a day, and the infection rate from probably 100 k a day to a few thousand a day. That was done at substantial cost in money and happiness.
And it's true that the treatment options are better now than in March, but if the controls are relaxed to the extent that R goes consistently above 1, the infection rate and death rate are likely to go up exponentially again.
Wrong.
Evidence?
Sweden.
Sweden is not the UK. The population density of Sweden is nothing like the UK.
My favourite remark about Sweden is that when people were told to stand 2 metres apart there, the response was "why do we need to be closer together than normal"?
But then you know that already. This point has been raised with you time and again already but you just wilfully ignore it. That makes me think you're trolling and not serious because nobody could be that silly as to ignore that.
Its not a relevant point given the nature of Corona.
Are you seriously arguing that a pub or theatre full of Swedes would jnfect each other less than a pub full of Britons because Sweden is more spaced out than Britain is??
Look at Japan. A hundred and thirty million people squashed into to a group of mountainous islands. Corona?
Your excuses are just as spurious now as they always have been.
Yes, yes I am seriously arguing that.
Population density matters intensely.
And yet if you look at the statistics within a single country like Germany all of the districts with the highest per capita numbers of Covid cases and deaths are not densely populated, which suggests it doesn't necessarily matter so intensely.
I'd like to see a citation for that please.
For any data I've seen unless the virus has been essentially contained completely the numbers within countries with out of control outbreaks all have seen hits vary by population density.
Usual nonsense from Gauke. He didn't want arrangements to end last year, he doesn't want them to end this year. He just doesn't want them to end full stop - no crocodile tears please about having multiple issues, we could have had a clean break last year with nothing else going on but he helped put a stop to that.
The old and vulnerable should be shielded, the young and fit allowed to get on with their lives while being vigilant on hand washing and good hygiene. It’s called risk segmentation, and it is the only way forward.
Sounds great`t but it is nowhere near that simple unfortunately
We are now down to levels of deaths from covid 19 that match road accidents . We seem to have built a weird groupthink that we must get it to zero by banning all risk . The equivalent with road deaths would be to ban cars or at least get a bloke with a red flag walking in front of any car- and we have all ridiculed that for over a century
The difference is that one has the potential to grow exponentially, and the other doesn't.
Lockdown got the death rate down from a thousand a day to a few tens a day, and the infection rate from probably 100 k a day to a few thousand a day. That was done at substantial cost in money and happiness.
And it's true that the treatment options are better now than in March, but if the controls are relaxed to the extent that R goes consistently above 1, the infection rate and death rate are likely to go up exponentially again.
Wrong.
Evidence?
Sweden.
Sweden is not the UK. The population density of Sweden is nothing like the UK.
My favourite remark about Sweden is that when people were told to stand 2 metres apart there, the response was "why do we need to be closer together than normal"?
But then you know that already. This point has been raised with you time and again already but you just wilfully ignore it. That makes me think you're trolling and not serious because nobody could be that silly as to ignore that.
Its not a relevant point given the nature of Corona.
Are you seriously arguing that a pub or theatre full of Swedes would jnfect each other less than a pub full of Britons because Sweden is more spaced out than Britain is??
Look at Japan. A hundred and thirty million people squashed into to a group of mountainous islands. Corona?
Your excuses are just as spurious now as they always have been.
Yes, yes I am seriously arguing that.
Population density matters intensely.
And yet if you look at the statistics within a single country like Germany all of the districts with the highest per capita numbers of Covid cases and deaths are not densely populated, which suggests it doesn't necessarily matter so intensely.
I'd like to see a citation for that please.
For any data I've seen unless the virus has been essentially contained completely the numbers within countries with out of control outbreaks all have seen hits vary by population density.
Report in Spain says that 18 to 29 year olds have very low perception of the risk of the virus to themselves, want to enjoy their holidays and suffer accrue peer pressure to join in with the majority. Not surprising but maybe there should be more focus on publicizing the Long term risks at whatever age.
There is not a ton of evidence about "long-term" risks after less than a year. From Europe, however, there is evidence that manyyoung people can get the virus with very little impact on hospital admissions, let alone ICU.
Indeed. The statistics are rather stark.
Quiz question: how many under 40s with no comorbidities have died from coronavirus in the UK?
We are now down to levels of deaths from covid 19 that match road accidents . We seem to have built a weird groupthink that we must get it to zero by banning all risk . The equivalent with road deaths would be to ban cars or at least get a bloke with a red flag walking in front of any car- and we have all ridiculed that for over a century
The difference is that one has the potential to grow exponentially, and the other doesn't.
Lockdown got the death rate down from a thousand a day to a few tens a day, and the infection rate from probably 100 k a day to a few thousand a day. That was done at substantial cost in money and happiness.
And it's true that the treatment options are better now than in March, but if the controls are relaxed to the extent that R goes consistently above 1, the infection rate and death rate are likely to go up exponentially again.
Wrong.
Evidence?
Sweden.
Sweden is not the UK. The population density of Sweden is nothing like the UK.
My favourite remark about Sweden is that when people were told to stand 2 metres apart there, the response was "why do we need to be closer together than normal"?
But then you know that already. This point has been raised with you time and again already but you just wilfully ignore it. That makes me think you're trolling and not serious because nobody could be that silly as to ignore that.
Its not a relevant point given the nature of Corona.
Are you seriously arguing that a pub or theatre full of Swedes would jnfect each other less than a pub full of Britons because Sweden is more spaced out than Britain is??
Look at Japan. A hundred and thirty million people squashed into to a group of mountainous islands. Corona?
Your excuses are just as spurious now as they always have been.
Yes, yes I am seriously arguing that.
Population density matters intensely.
And yet if you look at the statistics within a single country like Germany all of the districts with the highest per capita numbers of Covid cases and deaths are not densely populated, which suggests it doesn't necessarily matter so intensely.
I'd like to see a citation for that please.
For any data I've seen unless the virus has been essentially contained completely the numbers within countries with out of control outbreaks all have seen hits vary by population density.
That's just Germany, which didn't have an out of control outbreak like Sweden so not really relevant.
I did say Germany, you asked for a citation, I gave one THEN you say not relevant. Hmmm not sure that is very honest of you.
It was pretty much out of control, over 200,000 cases and over 9000 deaths, and might be again soon...It was certainly not "essentially contained completely" which was what you originally said.
Report in Spain says that 18 to 29 year olds have very low perception of the risk of the virus to themselves, want to enjoy their holidays and suffer accrue peer pressure to join in with the majority. Not surprising but maybe there should be more focus on publicizing the Long term risks at whatever age.
There is not a ton of evidence about "long-term" risks after less than a year. From Europe, however, there is evidence that manyyoung people can get the virus with very little impact on hospital admissions, let alone ICU.
In Almeria that was certainly true initially but is slowly changing no doubt as they pass it on to more vulnerable relatives and frineds.
Well, that's a different question: making big sacrifices on behalf of the older generation.
Yes, this gets conflated endlessly on PB, I have no idea why. Of course younger fitter people can pass it to the more vulnerable. This is where the conversation started: shield the vulnerable, let others get on with their lives. We go around in bloody circles on here.
I am thoroughly depressed by everything. My brother has been made redundant. My son lost his job too. I am looking for work as my consultancy work has reduced significantly for the moment. I hope it can be from home but I may have to take the health risk of working in an office. Bills need to be paid. Family needs to be supported. Other son is working for daughter, who expects her business to be closed down again this autumn and - if there is no second support package at least as good as the first - it will be for good this time. So that will be all 3 children unemployed and with little chance of finding alternative employment.
All very well talking about the importance of education but what happens to the children of parents who lose their jobs and face losing their homes? Going to school does not insulate them from the mental, emotional, financial and other consequences.
I don’t know what the answer is. But the horizon looks very dark and bleak to me.
Sorry to hear this news Cyclefree.
"if there is no second support package at least as good as the first - it will be for good this time."
I really hope Rishi reads PB, because he needs to hear this message.
At least I have had good news this week. I've had about 11-12 hospital appointments since March, 3 or 4 of which have been made into phone or zoom, and I've gone through the whole cycle of final diagnosis and treatment of a very rare chronic form of Leukemia (200 cases a year) in the last 10 weeks, which I am told this week looks as though it is going into remission.
The local hospital has continued treatments cautiously throughout, and overall have been excellent.
I also hear from a friend who is about 18 months into recovery from major surgery that cancer type oprations are continuing at a local repurposed private hospital.
So not all bleak everywhere, though I expect capacity is reduced.
Good to hear your positive news. Good luck going forward with the remission.
I am thoroughly depressed by everything. My brother has been made redundant. My son lost his job too. I am looking for work as my consultancy work has reduced significantly for the moment. I hope it can be from home but I may have to take the health risk of working in an office. Bills need to be paid. Family needs to be supported. Other son is working for daughter, who expects her business to be closed down again this autumn and - if there is no second support package at least as good as the first - it will be for good this time. So that will be all 3 children unemployed and with little chance of finding alternative employment.
All very well talking about the importance of education but what happens to the children of parents who lose their jobs and face losing their homes? Going to school does not insulate them from the mental, emotional, financial and other consequences.
I don’t know what the answer is. But the horizon looks very dark and bleak to me.
Sorry to hear this news Cyclefree.
"if there is no second support package at least as good as the first - it will be for good this time."
I really hope Rishi reads PB, because he needs to hear this message.
Unless the Government is able to keep on borrowing ad infinitum at near zero (or even negative) interest rates then it doesn't matter how loud people shout at the Chancellor - sooner or later, he'll run out of the funds with which to keep businesses on life support.
I'm just hoping that my pessimism about the schools isn't borne out - because it might not be. I know that there's been a fair amount of evidence produced to suggest that primary school kids may not be particularly good either at catching the virus or passing it on, and if the older ones are either similar, or enough of them have already passed it round amongst themselves in the Spring to largely interrupt transmission, then we could get away with it.
If not then the Government is placed in an impossible position. Either we have schools staying shut, large number of parents who can't work from home being forced to quit their jobs to keep babysitting, and the media replete with tales of demotivated kids getting further and further behind with their education; or the schools open and a load of businesses shut to compensate, and we end up with children who can spell "separate" correctly and have a passable knowledge of Anglo-Saxon history, but find themselves living with Mum in a council-funded B&B after Dad's restaurant business went to the wall, the family home got repossessed and he went for a one-way walk onto the nearest railway line.
The numbers of casualties from this disaster are going to be enormous, and I remain convinced that the lives lost to the disease will be far exceeded by those ultimately lost to the consequences of the measures used to control it. Indeed, given that Covid-19 mortality is so skewed towards the elderly, the total number of years of life lost to the consequences of the control measures will be many multiples of that lost to the virus itself.
This has become the equation. It is clear that a risk segmentation approach is the only sensible way forward but it requires grown up government. We are unlikely to get that from Bumbling Boris and The Quarterwits.
Report in Spain says that 18 to 29 year olds have very low perception of the risk of the virus to themselves, want to enjoy their holidays and suffer accrue peer pressure to join in with the majority. Not surprising but maybe there should be more focus on publicizing the Long term risks at whatever age.
There is not a ton of evidence about "long-term" risks after less than a year. From Europe, however, there is evidence that manyyoung people can get the virus with very little impact on hospital admissions, let alone ICU.
In Almeria that was certainly true initially but is slowly changing no doubt as they pass it on to more vulnerable relatives and frineds.
Well, that's a different question: making big sacrifices on behalf of the older generation.
Yes, this gets conflated endlessly on PB, I have no idea why. Of course younger fitter people can pass it to the more vulnerable. This is where the conversation started: shield the vulnerable, let others get on with their lives. We go around in bloody circles on here.
And if you are a younger, fitter person whose teacher is one of the more vulnerable?
The old and vulnerable should be shielded, the young and fit allowed to get on with their lives while being vigilant on hand washing and good hygiene. It’s called risk segmentation, and it is the only way forward.
Sounds great`t but it is nowhere near that simple unfortunately
Of course it’s not.
Requires a competent government and clear messaging and explanation/understanding of risk from Joe Public.
If @Carnyx is around, I’m giving the mutton stew a go, though I had to settle for lamb in the end.
Not easy to get hold of mutton, is it? I was trying to to make a mutton lasagne, as I think the stronger flavour will work well. But it doesn’t seem to be available in Staffs.
We are now down to levels of deaths from covid 19 that match road accidents . We seem to have built a weird groupthink that we must get it to zero by banning all risk . The equivalent with road deaths would be to ban cars or at least get a bloke with a red flag walking in front of any car- and we have all ridiculed that for over a century
The difference is that one has the potential to grow exponentially, and the other doesn't.
Lockdown got the death rate down from a thousand a day to a few tens a day, and the infection rate from probably 100 k a day to a few thousand a day. That was done at substantial cost in money and happiness.
And it's true that the treatment options are better now than in March, but if the controls are relaxed to the extent that R goes consistently above 1, the infection rate and death rate are likely to go up exponentially again.
Wrong.
Evidence?
Sweden.
Sweden is not the UK. The population density of Sweden is nothing like the UK.
My favourite remark about Sweden is that when people were told to stand 2 metres apart there, the response was "why do we need to be closer together than normal"?
But then you know that already. This point has been raised with you time and again already but you just wilfully ignore it. That makes me think you're trolling and not serious because nobody could be that silly as to ignore that.
Its not a relevant point given the nature of Corona.
Are you seriously arguing that a pub or theatre full of Swedes would jnfect each other less than a pub full of Britons because Sweden is more spaced out than Britain is??
Look at Japan. A hundred and thirty million people squashed into to a group of mountainous islands. Corona?
Your excuses are just as spurious now as they always have been.
Yes, yes I am seriously arguing that.
Population density matters intensely.
And yet if you look at the statistics within a single country like Germany all of the districts with the highest per capita numbers of Covid cases and deaths are not densely populated, which suggests it doesn't necessarily matter so intensely.
I'd like to see a citation for that please.
For any data I've seen unless the virus has been essentially contained completely the numbers within countries with out of control outbreaks all have seen hits vary by population density.
That's just Germany, which didn't have an out of control outbreak like Sweden so not really relevant.
I did say Germany, you asked for a citation, I gave one THEN you say not relevant. Hmmm not sure that is very honest of you.
It was pretty much out of control, over 200,000 cases and over 9000 deaths, and might be again soon...It was certainly not "essentially contained completely" which was what you originally said.
I think for the size of the country Germany did a very good job of keeping it contained. Much better than any other major Western nation that has economic and social pressures. I think Merkel has managed the crisis well partly because she has underlying knowledge of it and can sit in a room of scientists and understand what they are talking about. None of our politicians have that capability or they would have asked "why are we sending potentially infected people back to care homes without testing them?".
I don't think the mistake is as bad as people make out, however, the government made it one of the key measures so we should judge them by it.
Report in Spain says that 18 to 29 year olds have very low perception of the risk of the virus to themselves, want to enjoy their holidays and suffer accrue peer pressure to join in with the majority. Not surprising but maybe there should be more focus on publicizing the Long term risks at whatever age.
There is not a ton of evidence about "long-term" risks after less than a year. From Europe, however, there is evidence that manyyoung people can get the virus with very little impact on hospital admissions, let alone ICU.
In Almeria that was certainly true initially but is slowly changing no doubt as they pass it on to more vulnerable relatives and frineds.
Well, that's a different question: making big sacrifices on behalf of the older generation.
Yes, this gets conflated endlessly on PB, I have no idea why. Of course younger fitter people can pass it to the more vulnerable. This is where the conversation started: shield the vulnerable, let others get on with their lives. We go around in bloody circles on here.
And if you are a younger, fitter person whose teacher is one of the more vulnerable?
Those teachers should be shielded and understudied. This is not easy; but it is possible - and better than closing the whole bloody country down.
At least I have had good news this week. I've had about 11-12 hospital appointments since March, 3 or 4 of which have been made into phone or zoom, and I've gone through the whole cycle of final diagnosis and treatment of a very rare chronic form of Leukemia (200 cases a year) in the last 10 weeks, which I am told this week looks as though it is going into remission.
The local hospital has continued treatments cautiously throughout, and overall have been excellent.
I also hear from a friend who is about 18 months into recovery from major surgery that cancer type oprations are continuing at a local repurposed private hospital.
So not all bleak everywhere, though I expect capacity is reduced.
That's excellent - congratulations, Matt.
It is a thing called Hairy Cell ('cos the cells look hairy) and my entire county gets about 3-4 cases a year. I'm glad I haven't had to have chemo, and it is a well established monoclonal antibody treatment that is debilitating and takes a few months for recovery to normal, but your hair stays on.
It usually goes into remission for anything from 5 years to 20 years, then treatment can usually repeat.
TBH what is the point of this? Is it that Trump should not be playing golf? What is wrong with exercising in this way if it is? Is it that 900 people die with covid 19 in a day in the US? If it is it would be better matched to the population than comparing it to a golf round
Report in Spain says that 18 to 29 year olds have very low perception of the risk of the virus to themselves, want to enjoy their holidays and suffer accrue peer pressure to join in with the majority. Not surprising but maybe there should be more focus on publicizing the Long term risks at whatever age.
There is not a ton of evidence about "long-term" risks after less than a year. From Europe, however, there is evidence that manyyoung people can get the virus with very little impact on hospital admissions, let alone ICU.
In Almeria that was certainly true initially but is slowly changing no doubt as they pass it on to more vulnerable relatives and frineds.
Well, that's a different question: making big sacrifices on behalf of the older generation.
Yes, this gets conflated endlessly on PB, I have no idea why. Of course younger fitter people can pass it to the more vulnerable. This is where the conversation started: shield the vulnerable, let others get on with their lives. We go around in bloody circles on here.
And if you are a younger, fitter person whose teacher is one of the more vulnerable?
Those teachers should be shielded and understudied. This is not easy; but it is possible - and better than closing the whole bloody country down.
15% of teachers are aged over 50.
If they cannot come back, we cannot reopen schools.
Finally, GCSE and A level classes will start with the assumption that exams will happen as usual (or a couple of weeks late), there is every chance that the approach this year will be repeated given that so many schools and pupils will again have their education disrupted. The one factor that might cause the Government to stick to the plan for exams as usual is if the grades awarded this summer prove to be highly controversial.
This is a rumour, so treat with usual caution.
At the moment, OFQUAL are kicking up a huge stink about the submitted grades and saying how they're having to savagely moderate everyone because their teachers have overpredicted by about 15 million percent (well, 10, but the principle holds).
There are those in the examination system who are saying off the record that this is all bollocks designed to make it sound as though OFQUAL are acting tough to avoid any future repercussions. That would in fact make sense given OFQUAL have nothing to do with grading.
It will be interesting to see whether the grades have indeed been changed. Given that I was pretty conservative with mine I will be bloody furious if my students are marked down for a bunch of failed pen pushers to try and show that their cushy jobs are relevant.
I share your concern. My daughter is in the GCSE cohort. The metric that concerns me is the one where teachers had to rank pupils - football league style. My understanding is there was no basis for this ranking other that each teacher`s gut feeling on how each child would have done if they had sat the exam compared to the other pupils in his/her class.
In the case of my daughter - who is not academically bright but works hard - she did well in her mocks and would have been aiming for a grade higher in each subject in the actual exams. In contrast some bright pupils were lazy and didn`t try in the mocks.
My hunch is that the teachers will rank a "lazy but bright" ahead of a "less bright but diligent" even though they have no evidence for such a ranking other than gut feeling (and, no doubt, the IQ-type cognitive tests that they all had to sit a few months ago which my daughter did poorly in).
The real problem is methodology and rigour are going to vary widely from school to school - which in itself makes any attempt to impose uniformity a total nonsense.
It's those doing A-levels I'm sorriest for. Guinea pigs for the GCSEs, which were messed up. Now their A-levels are, like it or not, going to be cheapened. And even if they resit in the autumn, that isn't going to help because 'A-level 2020' will say to potential employers 'estimated grades' for the next fifty years.
While I really do not see why A-levels could not have gone ahead, I'm not convinced it will matter much in the grand scheme of things. Most GCSE-holders will carry on into the sixth form regardless. A-levels might affect university entrance but, first, academics will know the score, and second, the whole 2020 cohort is competing for places amongst itself, and that is true for those looking for jobs as well. After a couple of years in employment, experience matters more than qualifications.
Getting into even degree level employment without A-levels is not easy.
But they will have A-levels. On average, the 2020 A-levels will be as good as the 2019 and 2021 A-levels. The only question is whether they are less reliable than usual because they rely on estimates rather than exams, so maybe Joe got lucky at Jo's expense. But this happens every year, some candidates will be disadvantaged by lack of air conditioning on a day like yesterday, or hay fever, while other candidates will have the unfair advantage of outstanding teachers like the pb chalk zoom mob.
If @Carnyx is around, I’m giving the mutton stew a go, though I had to settle for lamb in the end.
Not easy to get hold of mutton, is it? I was trying to to make a mutton lasagne, as I think the stronger flavour will work well. But it doesn’t seem to be available in Staffs.
I can't remember if I mentioned that we get it from the specialist butcher/farmer who supplies the local community foodstore. Very lucky to be able to get it. But lanb will work very nicely. Indeed we have a couple of large lamb chops downstairs for cooking with veg tonight.
Report in Spain says that 18 to 29 year olds have very low perception of the risk of the virus to themselves, want to enjoy their holidays and suffer accrue peer pressure to join in with the majority. Not surprising but maybe there should be more focus on publicizing the Long term risks at whatever age.
There is not a ton of evidence about "long-term" risks after less than a year. From Europe, however, there is evidence that manyyoung people can get the virus with very little impact on hospital admissions, let alone ICU.
In Almeria that was certainly true initially but is slowly changing no doubt as they pass it on to more vulnerable relatives and frineds.
Well, that's a different question: making big sacrifices on behalf of the older generation.
Yes, this gets conflated endlessly on PB, I have no idea why. Of course younger fitter people can pass it to the more vulnerable. This is where the conversation started: shield the vulnerable, let others get on with their lives. We go around in bloody circles on here.
And if you are a younger, fitter person whose teacher is one of the more vulnerable?
Those teachers should be shielded and understudied. This is not easy; but it is possible - and better than closing the whole bloody country down.
15% of teachers are aged over 50.
If they cannot come back, we cannot reopen schools.
Find a way. There will be a way.
Better than closing down the whole country AGAIN so schools can open.
TBH what is the point of this? Is it that Trump should not be playing golf? What is wrong with exercising in this way if it is? Is it that 900 people die with covid 19 in a day in the US? If it is it would be better matched to the population than comparing it to a golf round
I'm curious. Does he only play with people who let him win?
We are now down to levels of deaths from covid 19 that match road accidents . We seem to have built a weird groupthink that we must get it to zero by banning all risk . The equivalent with road deaths would be to ban cars or at least get a bloke with a red flag walking in front of any car- and we have all ridiculed that for over a century
The difference is that one has the potential to grow exponentially, and the other doesn't.
Lockdown got the death rate down from a thousand a day to a few tens a day, and the infection rate from probably 100 k a day to a few thousand a day. That was done at substantial cost in money and happiness.
And it's true that the treatment options are better now than in March, but if the controls are relaxed to the extent that R goes consistently above 1, the infection rate and death rate are likely to go up exponentially again.
Wrong.
Evidence?
Sweden.
Sweden is not the UK. The population density of Sweden is nothing like the UK.
My favourite remark about Sweden is that when people were told to stand 2 metres apart there, the response was "why do we need to be closer together than normal"?
But then you know that already. This point has been raised with you time and again already but you just wilfully ignore it. That makes me think you're trolling and not serious because nobody could be that silly as to ignore that.
Its not a relevant point given the nature of Corona.
Are you seriously arguing that a pub or theatre full of Swedes would jnfect each other less than a pub full of Britons because Sweden is more spaced out than Britain is??
Look at Japan. A hundred and thirty million people squashed into to a group of mountainous islands. Corona?
Your excuses are just as spurious now as they always have been.
Yes, yes I am seriously arguing that.
Population density matters intensely.
And yet if you look at the statistics within a single country like Germany all of the districts with the highest per capita numbers of Covid cases and deaths are not densely populated, which suggests it doesn't necessarily matter so intensely.
I'd like to see a citation for that please.
For any data I've seen unless the virus has been essentially contained completely the numbers within countries with out of control outbreaks all have seen hits vary by population density.
That's just Germany, which didn't have an out of control outbreak like Sweden so not really relevant.
I did say Germany, you asked for a citation, I gave one THEN you say not relevant. Hmmm not sure that is very honest of you.
It was pretty much out of control, over 200,000 cases and over 9000 deaths, and might be again soon...It was certainly not "essentially contained completely" which was what you originally said.
We were talking about comparing the UK with Sweden and I said population density matters, you replied and yes mentioned Germany but the implicit assumption seemed to be that it was meant to be applied to more than just Germany since it was a discussion about the UK and Sweden. I replied saying countries (plural) and then you replied with just Germany again, so I think there's been some confusion.
Finally, GCSE and A level classes will start with the assumption that exams will happen as usual (or a couple of weeks late), there is every chance that the approach this year will be repeated given that so many schools and pupils will again have their education disrupted. The one factor that might cause the Government to stick to the plan for exams as usual is if the grades awarded this summer prove to be highly controversial.
This is a rumour, so treat with usual caution.
At the moment, OFQUAL are kicking up a huge stink about the submitted grades and saying how they're having to savagely moderate everyone because their teachers have overpredicted by about 15 million percent (well, 10, but the principle holds).
There are those in the examination system who are saying off the record that this is all bollocks designed to make it sound as though OFQUAL are acting tough to avoid any future repercussions. That would in fact make sense given OFQUAL have nothing to do with grading.
It will be interesting to see whether the grades have indeed been changed. Given that I was pretty conservative with mine I will be bloody furious if my students are marked down for a bunch of failed pen pushers to try and show that their cushy jobs are relevant.
I share your concern. My daughter is in the GCSE cohort. The metric that concerns me is the one where teachers had to rank pupils - football league style. My understanding is there was no basis for this ranking other that each teacher`s gut feeling on how each child would have done if they had sat the exam compared to the other pupils in his/her class.
In the case of my daughter - who is not academically bright but works hard - she did well in her mocks and would have been aiming for a grade higher in each subject in the actual exams. In contrast some bright pupils were lazy and didn`t try in the mocks.
My hunch is that the teachers will rank a "lazy but bright" ahead of a "less bright but diligent" even though they have no evidence for such a ranking other than gut feeling (and, no doubt, the IQ-type cognitive tests that they all had to sit a few months ago which my daughter did poorly in).
The real problem is methodology and rigour are going to vary widely from school to school - which in itself makes any attempt to impose uniformity a total nonsense.
It's those doing A-levels I'm sorriest for. Guinea pigs for the GCSEs, which were messed up. Now their A-levels are, like it or not, going to be cheapened. And even if they resit in the autumn, that isn't going to help because 'A-level 2020' will say to potential employers 'estimated grades' for the next fifty years.
While I really do not see why A-levels could not have gone ahead, I'm not convinced it will matter much in the grand scheme of things. Most GCSE-holders will carry on into the sixth form regardless. A-levels might affect university entrance but, first, academics will know the score, and second, the whole 2020 cohort is competing for places amongst itself, and that is true for those looking for jobs as well. After a couple of years in employment, experience matters more than qualifications.
Getting into even degree level employment without A-levels is not easy.
But they will have A-levels. On average, the 2020 A-levels will be as good as the 2019 and 2021 A-levels. The only question is whether they are less reliable than usual because they rely on estimates rather than exams, so maybe Joe got lucky at Jo's expense. But this happens every year, some candidates will be disadvantaged by lack of air conditioning on a day like yesterday, or hay fever, while other candidates will have the unfair advantage of outstanding teachers like the pb chalk zoom mob.
They will have grades. Whether they will be held to have A-levels is another question.
Report in Spain says that 18 to 29 year olds have very low perception of the risk of the virus to themselves, want to enjoy their holidays and suffer accrue peer pressure to join in with the majority. Not surprising but maybe there should be more focus on publicizing the Long term risks at whatever age.
There is not a ton of evidence about "long-term" risks after less than a year. From Europe, however, there is evidence that manyyoung people can get the virus with very little impact on hospital admissions, let alone ICU.
Indeed. The statistics are rather stark.
Quiz question: how many under 40s with no comorbidities have died from coronavirus in the UK?
I cheated and looked up the total for hospitals in England, which is 37. That would imply a value for the whole UK of something like 45, or somewhat less than 0.1 per 100,000 people. It's possible that a small handful of people may have fallen victim to it without ever having gone to hospital for treatment, but given that the large bulk of deaths have been registered either in hospitals or elderly care homes it seems unlikely that this would contribute a further significant amount to the total.
For comparison, the most recent statistics published by the ONS for suicide in the UK (for 2018) are that it was the cause of death in 6,507 cases, which is described as representing an age-standardised rate of 11.2 deaths per 100,000 population. I think we can safely assume that the numbers for 2020, and especially 2021, will be a fair bit higher than that.
Report in Spain says that 18 to 29 year olds have very low perception of the risk of the virus to themselves, want to enjoy their holidays and suffer accrue peer pressure to join in with the majority. Not surprising but maybe there should be more focus on publicizing the Long term risks at whatever age.
There is not a ton of evidence about "long-term" risks after less than a year. From Europe, however, there is evidence that manyyoung people can get the virus with very little impact on hospital admissions, let alone ICU.
In Almeria that was certainly true initially but is slowly changing no doubt as they pass it on to more vulnerable relatives and frineds.
Well, that's a different question: making big sacrifices on behalf of the older generation.
Yes, this gets conflated endlessly on PB, I have no idea why. Of course younger fitter people can pass it to the more vulnerable. This is where the conversation started: shield the vulnerable, let others get on with their lives. We go around in bloody circles on here.
And if you are a younger, fitter person whose teacher is one of the more vulnerable?
Those teachers should be shielded and understudied. This is not easy; but it is possible - and better than closing the whole bloody country down.
15% of teachers are aged over 50.
If they cannot come back, we cannot reopen schools.
Find a way. There will be a way.
Better than closing down the whole country AGAIN so schools can open.
How?
There isn’t necessarily a way - with a society so intertwined and interdependent. To segment all this would need to segregate our population to an incredible extent. Parents and children, grandparents, shopkeepers, bus drivers, teachers, police, service personnel... and a lot of people don’t have a spare house to use so that those over whatever-age-you-choose can be sequestrated.
By the way - in which category do you consider that you fall?
Bonkers. One of my excellent local shops has been encouraging contactless payments in recent months but last week had a sign saying 'cash only' as the electronics had failed them. It ought to be illegal to refuse to accept cash below a certain amount (like say £200). It is at the least indirect discrimination against older people who prefer it, are less likely to be conned with it, understand it and can be helped with it by patient shop assistants.
TBH what is the point of this? Is it that Trump should not be playing golf? What is wrong with exercising in this way if it is? Is it that 900 people die with covid 19 in a day in the US? If it is it would be better matched to the population than comparing it to a golf round
I'm curious. Does he only play with people who let him win?
I am thoroughly depressed by everything. My brother has been made redundant. My son lost his job too. I am looking for work as my consultancy work has reduced significantly for the moment. I hope it can be from home but I may have to take the health risk of working in an office. Bills need to be paid. Family needs to be supported. Other son is working for daughter, who expects her business to be closed down again this autumn and - if there is no second support package at least as good as the first - it will be for good this time. So that will be all 3 children unemployed and with little chance of finding alternative employment.
All very well talking about the importance of education but what happens to the children of parents who lose their jobs and face losing their homes? Going to school does not insulate them from the mental, emotional, financial and other consequences.
I don’t know what the answer is. But the horizon looks very dark and bleak to me.
Sorry to hear this news Cyclefree.
"if there is no second support package at least as good as the first - it will be for good this time."
I really hope Rishi reads PB, because he needs to hear this message.
Unless the Government is able to keep on borrowing ad infinitum at near zero (or even negative) interest rates then it doesn't matter how loud people shout at the Chancellor - sooner or later, he'll run out of the funds with which to keep businesses on life support.
I'm just hoping that my pessimism about the schools isn't borne out - because it might not be. I know that there's been a fair amount of evidence produced to suggest that primary school kids may not be particularly good either at catching the virus or passing it on, and if the older ones are either similar, or enough of them have already passed it round amongst themselves in the Spring to largely interrupt transmission, then we could get away with it.
If not then the Government is placed in an impossible position. Either we have schools staying shut, large number of parents who can't work from home being forced to quit their jobs to keep babysitting, and the media replete with tales of demotivated kids getting further and further behind with their education; or the schools open and a load of businesses shut to compensate, and we end up with children who can spell "separate" correctly and have a passable knowledge of Anglo-Saxon history, but find themselves living with Mum in a council-funded B&B after Dad's restaurant business went to the wall, the family home got repossessed and he went for a one-way walk onto the nearest railway line.
The numbers of casualties from this disaster are going to be enormous, and I remain convinced that the lives lost to the disease will be far exceeded by those ultimately lost to the consequences of the measures used to control it. Indeed, given that Covid-19 mortality is so skewed towards the elderly, the total number of years of life lost to the consequences of the control measures will be many multiples of that lost to the virus itself.
There were some alternative strategies but they would have totally depended on close to 100% of us behaving responsibly and non-selfishly. A day does not go without ample evidence presents itself that thousands, if not millions of us, cannot be relied upon to act responsibly. We've all seen the photos, crowded beaches, crowded pubs, raves, demos etc etc.
I think it was Stodge who commented a couple of days ago that if we end up back in lockdown and further damaging the economy then the great British public much shoulder most of the blame. I think that is spot on. Inept though this government's handling of the pandemic undoubtedly has been, it doesn't matter what the government does if a significant number of our fellow citizens don't give a sh1t.
Turning from Boswell's 'Life of Johnson' (not that one!) to the Radio Times looking for some amusing diversion I begin to fear coded messages in the scheduled programmes: Spike Island (BBC1) Apocalalypse Now: Final Cut (BBC2) The Masked Singer (ITV) The Last Wave (BBC4) End of Days (ITV4) Not Going Out Live (Dave)
Finally, GCSE and A level classes will start with the assumption that exams will happen as usual (or a couple of weeks late), there is every chance that the approach this year will be repeated given that so many schools and pupils will again have their education disrupted. The one factor that might cause the Government to stick to the plan for exams as usual is if the grades awarded this summer prove to be highly controversial.
This is a rumour, so treat with usual caution.
At the moment, OFQUAL are kicking up a huge stink about the submitted grades and saying how they're having to savagely moderate everyone because their teachers have overpredicted by about 15 million percent (well, 10, but the principle holds).
There are those in the examination system who are saying off the record that this is all bollocks designed to make it sound as though OFQUAL are acting tough to avoid any future repercussions. That would in fact make sense given OFQUAL have nothing to do with grading.
It will be interesting to see whether the grades have indeed been changed. Given that I was pretty conservative with mine I will be bloody furious if my students are marked down for a bunch of failed pen pushers to try and show that their cushy jobs are relevant.
I share your concern. My daughter is in the GCSE cohort. The metric that concerns me is the one where teachers had to rank pupils - football league style. My understanding is there was no basis for this ranking other that each teacher`s gut feeling on how each child would have done if they had sat the exam compared to the other pupils in his/her class.
In the case of my daughter - who is not academically bright but works hard - she did well in her mocks and would have been aiming for a grade higher in each subject in the actual exams. In contrast some bright pupils were lazy and didn`t try in the mocks.
My hunch is that the teachers will rank a "lazy but bright" ahead of a "less bright but diligent" even though they have no evidence for such a ranking other than gut feeling (and, no doubt, the IQ-type cognitive tests that they all had to sit a few months ago which my daughter did poorly in).
The real problem is methodology and rigour are going to vary widely from school to school - which in itself makes any attempt to impose uniformity a total nonsense.
It's those doing A-levels I'm sorriest for. Guinea pigs for the GCSEs, which were messed up. Now their A-levels are, like it or not, going to be cheapened. And even if they resit in the autumn, that isn't going to help because 'A-level 2020' will say to potential employers 'estimated grades' for the next fifty years.
While I really do not see why A-levels could not have gone ahead, I'm not convinced it will matter much in the grand scheme of things. Most GCSE-holders will carry on into the sixth form regardless. A-levels might affect university entrance but, first, academics will know the score, and second, the whole 2020 cohort is competing for places amongst itself, and that is true for those looking for jobs as well. After a couple of years in employment, experience matters more than qualifications.
Getting into even degree level employment without A-levels is not easy.
But they will have A-levels. On average, the 2020 A-levels will be as good as the 2019 and 2021 A-levels. The only question is whether they are less reliable than usual because they rely on estimates rather than exams, so maybe Joe got lucky at Jo's expense. But this happens every year, some candidates will be disadvantaged by lack of air conditioning on a day like yesterday, or hay fever, while other candidates will have the unfair advantage of outstanding teachers like the pb chalk zoom mob.
They will have grades. Whether they will be held to have A-levels is another question.
Before Keir became leader, Opinium lead: 23 points
Today: 3 points. This has to be one of the fastest/best polling improvements in modern political history
One of. Its what happens when parties get a new leader, they get a bounce.
It was similar for example when Gordon Brown became Labour leader in 2007. When Ed Milliband became leader he also got a bounce though not as big. Theresa May, Boris both got bounces too.
Corbyn not getting any meaningful bounce was the exception not the rule and plays into exaggerating the appearing significance of Starmers.
At least I have had good news this week. I've had about 11-12 hospital appointments since March, 3 or 4 of which have been made into phone or zoom, and I've gone through the whole cycle of final diagnosis and treatment of a very rare chronic form of Leukemia (200 cases a year) in the last 10 weeks, which I am told this week looks as though it is going into remission.
The local hospital has continued treatments cautiously throughout, and overall have been excellent.
I also hear from a friend who is about 18 months into recovery from major surgery that cancer type oprations are continuing at a local repurposed private hospital.
So not all bleak everywhere, though I expect capacity is reduced.
That's excellent - congratulations, Matt.
It is a thing called Hairy Cell ('cos the cells look hairy) and my entire county gets about 3-4 cases a year. I'm glad I haven't had to have chemo, and it is a well established monoclonal antibody treatment that is debilitating and takes a few months for recovery to normal, but your hair stays on.
It usually goes into remission for anything from 5 years to 20 years, then treatment can usually repeat.
Good luck, sounds hopeful. A neighbour of ours got that about 15 years ago and, aged about 65, decided to cycle the pilgrim route to Santiago de Compostella. Saw him recently looking well.
Before Keir became leader, Opinium lead: 23 points
Today: 3 points. This has to be one of the fastest/best polling improvements in modern political history
My boy Dave (pbuh) turned a Labour lead of 13% into a Tory lead of 7% in a fortnight back in 2007.
In 2005 he turned a Labour lead of 10% into a Tory lead of 9% in a little over a fortnight.
Boris turned a 6 point poll deficit (Survation, 10-11 July) to a double-digit poll lead that was maintained until and achieved at the General Election.
We are now down to levels of deaths from covid 19 that match road accidents . We seem to have built a weird groupthink that we must get it to zero by banning all risk . The equivalent with road deaths would be to ban cars or at least get a bloke with a red flag walking in front of any car- and we have all ridiculed that for over a century
The difference is that one has the potential to grow exponentially, and the other doesn't.
Lockdown got the death rate down from a thousand a day to a few tens a day, and the infection rate from probably 100 k a day to a few thousand a day. That was done at substantial cost in money and happiness.
And it's true that the treatment options are better now than in March, but if the controls are relaxed to the extent that R goes consistently above 1, the infection rate and death rate are likely to go up exponentially again.
Wrong.
Evidence?
Sweden.
Sweden is not the UK. The population density of Sweden is nothing like the UK.
My favourite remark about Sweden is that when people were told to stand 2 metres apart there, the response was "why do we need to be closer together than normal"?
But then you know that already. This point has been raised with you time and again already but you just wilfully ignore it. That makes me think you're trolling and not serious because nobody could be that silly as to ignore that.
Its not a relevant point given the nature of Corona.
Are you seriously arguing that a pub or theatre full of Swedes would jnfect each other less than a pub full of Britons because Sweden is more spaced out than Britain is??
Look at Japan. A hundred and thirty million people squashed into to a group of mountainous islands. Corona?
Your excuses are just as spurious now as they always have been.
Yes, yes I am seriously arguing that.
Population density matters intensely.
And yet if you look at the statistics within a single country like Germany all of the districts with the highest per capita numbers of Covid cases and deaths are not densely populated, which suggests it doesn't necessarily matter so intensely.
I'd like to see a citation for that please.
For any data I've seen unless the virus has been essentially contained completely the numbers within countries with out of control outbreaks all have seen hits vary by population density.
That's just Germany, which didn't have an out of control outbreak like Sweden so not really relevant.
I did say Germany, you asked for a citation, I gave one THEN you say not relevant. Hmmm not sure that is very honest of you.
It was pretty much out of control, over 200,000 cases and over 9000 deaths, and might be again soon...It was certainly not "essentially contained completely" which was what you originally said.
We were talking about comparing the UK with Sweden and I said population density matters, you replied and yes mentioned Germany but the implicit assumption seemed to be that it was meant to be applied to more than just Germany since it was a discussion about the UK and Sweden. I replied saying countries (plural) and then you replied with just Germany again, so I think there's been some confusion.
OK, I doubt that population density *as such* is the overriding factor, and the German data is evidence that supports that. I used Germany because it's where I live, and it's the only country I've looked at. I doubt it's unique.
We are now down to levels of deaths from covid 19 that match road accidents . We seem to have built a weird groupthink that we must get it to zero by banning all risk . The equivalent with road deaths would be to ban cars or at least get a bloke with a red flag walking in front of any car- and we have all ridiculed that for over a century
The difference is that one has the potential to grow exponentially, and the other doesn't.
Lockdown got the death rate down from a thousand a day to a few tens a day, and the infection rate from probably 100 k a day to a few thousand a day. That was done at substantial cost in money and happiness.
And it's true that the treatment options are better now than in March, but if the controls are relaxed to the extent that R goes consistently above 1, the infection rate and death rate are likely to go up exponentially again.
Wrong.
Evidence?
Sweden.
Sweden is not the UK. The population density of Sweden is nothing like the UK.
My favourite remark about Sweden is that when people were told to stand 2 metres apart there, the response was "why do we need to be closer together than normal"?
But then you know that already. This point has been raised with you time and again already but you just wilfully ignore it. That makes me think you're trolling and not serious because nobody could be that silly as to ignore that.
Its not a relevant point given the nature of Corona.
Are you seriously arguing that a pub or theatre full of Swedes would jnfect each other less than a pub full of Britons because Sweden is more spaced out than Britain is??
Look at Japan. A hundred and thirty million people squashed into to a group of mountainous islands. Corona?
Your excuses are just as spurious now as they always have been.
Yes, yes I am seriously arguing that.
Population density matters intensely.
And yet if you look at the statistics within a single country like Germany all of the districts with the highest per capita numbers of Covid cases and deaths are not densely populated, which suggests it doesn't necessarily matter so intensely.
I'd like to see a citation for that please.
For any data I've seen unless the virus has been essentially contained completely the numbers within countries with out of control outbreaks all have seen hits vary by population density.
That's just Germany, which didn't have an out of control outbreak like Sweden so not really relevant.
I did say Germany, you asked for a citation, I gave one THEN you say not relevant. Hmmm not sure that is very honest of you.
It was pretty much out of control, over 200,000 cases and over 9000 deaths, and might be again soon...It was certainly not "essentially contained completely" which was what you originally said.
We were talking about comparing the UK with Sweden and I said population density matters, you replied and yes mentioned Germany but the implicit assumption seemed to be that it was meant to be applied to more than just Germany since it was a discussion about the UK and Sweden. I replied saying countries (plural) and then you replied with just Germany again, so I think there's been some confusion.
OK, I doubt that population density *as such* is the overriding factor, and the German data is evidence that supports that. I used Germany because it's where I live, and it's the only country I've looked at. I doubt it's unique.
If you manage to eliminate the virus through other means then population density doesn't matter. But contrarian wanted to compare the UK to Sweden. If you look at Sweden, the UK, the 50 States of America, Spain etc then yes population density is very much a relevant factor.
Wait so if Microsoft buys TikTok, are we using Microsoft
No, only US users. I'm honestly not sure how it will work with two apps of the same name being available doing exactly the same thing but having two different owners and being based in two different countries.
Wait so if Microsoft buys TikTok, are we using Microsoft
No, only US users. I'm honestly not sure how it will work with two apps of the same name being available doing exactly the same thing but having two different owners and being based in two different countries.
I suspect the UK Government would be happy with TikTok UK being bought by Microsoft too
Before Keir became leader, Opinium lead: 23 points
Today: 3 points. This has to be one of the fastest/best polling improvements in modern political history
My boy Dave (pbuh) turned a Labour lead of 13% into a Tory lead of 7% in a fortnight back in 2007.
In 2005 he turned a Labour lead of 10% into a Tory lead of 9% in a little over a fortnight.
Boris turned a 6 point poll deficit (Survation, 10-11 July) to a double-digit poll lead that was maintained until and achieved at the General Election.
In ACTUAL national polling:
23 May, 2019: Conservatives achieve 8.8% under Theresa May
12 December, 2019: Conservatives achieve 43.6% under Boris Johnson.
Wait so if Microsoft buys TikTok, are we using Microsoft
No, only US users. I'm honestly not sure how it will work with two apps of the same name being available doing exactly the same thing but having two different owners and being based in two different countries.
I suspect the UK Government would be happy with TikTok UK being bought by Microsoft too
Indeed. The whole of Europe will breathe a sigh of relief. It is just the US operation though aiui, the rest of the world stays on the main branch, only US users will be forked to the MS version. I also don't know if MS will be allowed to compete for users with bytedance, though it provides a route for countries to ban the Chinese branch and get MS to deploy the forked version.
TBH what is the point of this? Is it that Trump should not be playing golf? What is wrong with exercising in this way if it is? Is it that 900 people die with covid 19 in a day in the US? If it is it would be better matched to the population than comparing it to a golf round
A lot of people dont like golf (often never tried it) so it plays well with them.
There is nothing wrong with a politician playing golf. Trump was completely wrong on calling out Obama for it (as he is on most things).
Whilst it shows Trump to be a hypocrite, that is so low down on his list of failures it doesn't deserve a mention.
Report in Spain says that 18 to 29 year olds have very low perception of the risk of the virus to themselves, want to enjoy their holidays and suffer accrue peer pressure to join in with the majority. Not surprising but maybe there should be more focus on publicizing the Long term risks at whatever age.
There is not a ton of evidence about "long-term" risks after less than a year. From Europe, however, there is evidence that manyyoung people can get the virus with very little impact on hospital admissions, let alone ICU.
Indeed. The statistics are rather stark.
Quiz question: how many under 40s with no comorbidities have died from coronavirus in the UK?
I cheated and looked up the total for hospitals in England, which is 37. That would imply a value for the whole UK of something like 45, or somewhat less than 0.1 per 100,000 people. It's possible that a small handful of people may have fallen victim to it without ever having gone to hospital for treatment, but given that the large bulk of deaths have been registered either in hospitals or elderly care homes it seems unlikely that this would contribute a further significant amount to the total.
For comparison, the most recent statistics published by the ONS for suicide in the UK (for 2018) are that it was the cause of death in 6,507 cases, which is described as representing an age-standardised rate of 11.2 deaths per 100,000 population. I think we can safely assume that the numbers for 2020, and especially 2021, will be a fair bit higher than that.
Report in Spain says that 18 to 29 year olds have very low perception of the risk of the virus to themselves, want to enjoy their holidays and suffer accrue peer pressure to join in with the majority. Not surprising but maybe there should be more focus on publicizing the Long term risks at whatever age.
There is not a ton of evidence about "long-term" risks after less than a year. From Europe, however, there is evidence that manyyoung people can get the virus with very little impact on hospital admissions, let alone ICU.
In Almeria that was certainly true initially but is slowly changing no doubt as they pass it on to more vulnerable relatives and frineds.
Well, that's a different question: making big sacrifices on behalf of the older generation.
Yes, this gets conflated endlessly on PB, I have no idea why. Of course younger fitter people can pass it to the more vulnerable. This is where the conversation started: shield the vulnerable, let others get on with their lives. We go around in bloody circles on here.
And if you are a younger, fitter person whose teacher is one of the more vulnerable?
Those teachers should be shielded and understudied. This is not easy; but it is possible - and better than closing the whole bloody country down.
15% of teachers are aged over 50.
If they cannot come back, we cannot reopen schools.
Find a way. There will be a way.
Better than closing down the whole country AGAIN so schools can open.
How?
There isn’t necessarily a way - with a society so intertwined and interdependent. To segment all this would need to segregate our population to an incredible extent. Parents and children, grandparents, shopkeepers, bus drivers, teachers, police, service personnel... and a lot of people don’t have a spare house to use so that those over whatever-age-you-choose can be sequestrated.
By the way - in which category do you consider that you fall?
Report in Spain says that 18 to 29 year olds have very low perception of the risk of the virus to themselves, want to enjoy their holidays and suffer accrue peer pressure to join in with the majority. Not surprising but maybe there should be more focus on publicizing the Long term risks at whatever age.
There is not a ton of evidence about "long-term" risks after less than a year. From Europe, however, there is evidence that manyyoung people can get the virus with very little impact on hospital admissions, let alone ICU.
In Almeria that was certainly true initially but is slowly changing no doubt as they pass it on to more vulnerable relatives and frineds.
Well, that's a different question: making big sacrifices on behalf of the older generation.
Yes, this gets conflated endlessly on PB, I have no idea why. Of course younger fitter people can pass it to the more vulnerable. This is where the conversation started: shield the vulnerable, let others get on with their lives. We go around in bloody circles on here.
And if you are a younger, fitter person whose teacher is one of the more vulnerable?
Those teachers should be shielded and understudied. This is not easy; but it is possible - and better than closing the whole bloody country down.
15% of teachers are aged over 50.
If they cannot come back, we cannot reopen schools.
I've been checking the gov.scot official covid risk checker (England haven't got one yet, surprise, surprise). Apparently my COVID age is 68 (maybe 65, depending on terminology), so I have the same risk as a healthy 68 year old male. Marvellous.....
On the main point of the (excellent) thread header, there are some interesting international comparisons now to make. The big problem is that Johnson has proposed a return as Israel did and we know how disastrously that went. At the very least we will need to have smaller classes, compulsory mask wearing, outdoor lessons where practicable and investment in HEPA air filtering equipment. Other problems such as shared transport to and from school are a major problem that I don't think anyone has an answer to. I've put a diagram regarding US education below and what is becoming the consensus view there to see just how far we are away from fulfilling any meaningful attempts at safety.
Sweden has been interesting, given that their schools closed in mid June and suddenly the number of cases fell markedly. It shows how they have let children spread the virus (and they do, and the medical consensus, again, is finding that they both get and transmit the virus as per adults, especially at secondary age). The added extras of greater mobility and mixing in the general public will also have increased that marked fall, so we've been gifted the opportunity to see what difference opening education up to 16 years old does to the R rate.
One thing is for sure, closing pubs is nowhere near enough to compensate. Has Johnson got the guts to reclose large sections of the economy again or is it (as I suspect) going to be a half in/half out solution with leisure businesses bearing the brunt of any 'squeezing'.
My idea of shifting the school year is still out there as an option, we need radical solutions and this is the most obvious one. If education suffers, then add on time lost at the end of when it would otherwise finish.
I'm in one of the local areas with the new tightened measures, by the way. I can only say that, given the very low compliance with mask wearing apart from the public facing workers such as taxi drivers, takeaway and restaurant workers, this is not surprising.
Or we just accept a few hundred more deaths is the price to be paid for a functioning economy and society.
Assume you are sure you are not in that number or would not be so keen
On the main point of the (excellent) thread header, there are some interesting international comparisons now to make. The big problem is that Johnson has proposed a return as Israel did and we know how disastrously that went. At the very least we will need to have smaller classes, compulsory mask wearing, outdoor lessons where practicable and investment in HEPA air filtering equipment. Other problems such as shared transport to and from school are a major problem that I don't think anyone has an answer to. I've put a diagram regarding US education below and what is becoming the consensus view there to see just how far we are away from fulfilling any meaningful attempts at safety.
Sweden has been interesting, given that their schools closed in mid June and suddenly the number of cases fell markedly. It shows how they have let children spread the virus (and they do, and the medical consensus, again, is finding that they both get and transmit the virus as per adults, especially at secondary age). The added extras of greater mobility and mixing in the general public will also have increased that marked fall, so we've been gifted the opportunity to see what difference opening education up to 16 years old does to the R rate.
One thing is for sure, closing pubs is nowhere near enough to compensate. Has Johnson got the guts to reclose large sections of the economy again or is it (as I suspect) going to be a half in/half out solution with leisure businesses bearing the brunt of any 'squeezing'.
My idea of shifting the school year is still out there as an option, we need radical solutions and this is the most obvious one. If education suffers, then add on time lost at the end of when it would otherwise finish.
I'm in one of the local areas with the new tightened measures, by the way. I can only say that, given the very low compliance with mask wearing apart from the public facing workers such as taxi drivers, takeaway and restaurant workers, this is not surprising.
Or we just accept a few hundred more deaths is the price to be paid for a functioning economy and society.
Assume you are sure you are not in that number or would not be so keen
Everyone has to take their chances just as they do in everything else.
If @Carnyx is around, I’m giving the mutton stew a go, though I had to settle for lamb in the end.
Not easy to get hold of mutton, is it? I was trying to to make a mutton lasagne, as I think the stronger flavour will work well. But it doesn’t seem to be available in Staffs.
TBH what is the point of this? Is it that Trump should not be playing golf? What is wrong with exercising in this way if it is? Is it that 900 people die with covid 19 in a day in the US? If it is it would be better matched to the population than comparing it to a golf round
A lot of people dont like golf (often never tried it) so it plays well with them.
There is nothing wrong with a politician playing golf. Trump was completely wrong on calling out Obama for it (as he is on most things).
Whilst it shows Trump to be a hypocrite, that is so low down on his list of failures it doesn't deserve a mention.
I believe FDR liked to be photographed riding a horse because it was a man of the people kinda thing to do, but tried to hide his golfing habit the way Harold Wilson tried to hide his cigars.
If @Carnyx is around, I’m giving the mutton stew a go, though I had to settle for lamb in the end.
Not easy to get hold of mutton, is it? I was trying to to make a mutton lasagne, as I think the stronger flavour will work well. But it doesn’t seem to be available in Staffs.
sure you will get it online
You can. Not mad keen about ordering meat from Dorset.
TBH what is the point of this? Is it that Trump should not be playing golf? What is wrong with exercising in this way if it is? Is it that 900 people die with covid 19 in a day in the US? If it is it would be better matched to the population than comparing it to a golf round
A lot of people dont like golf (often never tried it) so it plays well with them.
There is nothing wrong with a politician playing golf. Trump was completely wrong on calling out Obama for it (as he is on most things).
Whilst it shows Trump to be a hypocrite, that is so low down on his list of failures it doesn't deserve a mention.
I believe FDR liked to be photographed riding a horse because it was a man of the people kinda thing to do, but tried to hide his golfing habit the way Harold Wilson tried to hide his cigars.
Given FDR was paralysed, that seems slightly improbable. Are you sure you don’t mean Theodore Roosevelt?
TBH what is the point of this? Is it that Trump should not be playing golf? What is wrong with exercising in this way if it is? Is it that 900 people die with covid 19 in a day in the US? If it is it would be better matched to the population than comparing it to a golf round
A lot of people dont like golf (often never tried it) so it plays well with them.
There is nothing wrong with a politician playing golf. Trump was completely wrong on calling out Obama for it (as he is on most things).
Whilst it shows Trump to be a hypocrite, that is so low down on his list of failures it doesn't deserve a mention.
I believe FDR liked to be photographed riding a horse because it was a man of the people kinda thing to do, but tried to hide his golfing habit the way Harold Wilson tried to hide his cigars.
Given FDR was paralysed, that seems slightly improbable. Are you sure you don’t mean Theodore Roosevelt?
Quite sure. He contracted polio (or possibly Guillan-Barre syndrome) at 39; before that he was fine. Try a google image search for fdr riding horse. The camera never lies.
TBH what is the point of this? Is it that Trump should not be playing golf? What is wrong with exercising in this way if it is? Is it that 900 people die with covid 19 in a day in the US? If it is it would be better matched to the population than comparing it to a golf round
A lot of people dont like golf (often never tried it) so it plays well with them.
There is nothing wrong with a politician playing golf. Trump was completely wrong on calling out Obama for it (as he is on most things).
Whilst it shows Trump to be a hypocrite, that is so low down on his list of failures it doesn't deserve a mention.
I happen to like golf too. The problem is not that Trump plays golf but that he cheats when he does. He cheats blatantly and relentlessly not giving a shit whether his playing partners realize it or not. They say the game is not character building but character revealing. Never a truer word.
Well, that's a different question: making big sacrifices on behalf of the older generation.
Yes, this gets conflated endlessly on PB, I have no idea why. Of course younger fitter people can pass it to the more vulnerable. This is where the conversation started: shield the vulnerable, let others get on with their lives. We go around in bloody circles on here.
And if you are a younger, fitter person whose teacher is one of the more vulnerable?
Those teachers should be shielded and understudied. This is not easy; but it is possible - and better than closing the whole bloody country down.
15% of teachers are aged over 50.
If they cannot come back, we cannot reopen schools.
Find a way. There will be a way.
Better than closing down the whole country AGAIN so schools can open.
How?
There isn’t necessarily a way - with a society so intertwined and interdependent. To segment all this would need to segregate our population to an incredible extent. Parents and children, grandparents, shopkeepers, bus drivers, teachers, police, service personnel... and a lot of people don’t have a spare house to use so that those over whatever-age-you-choose can be sequestrated.
By the way - in which category do you consider that you fall?
Indeed. Would be interesting to hear more. Micro containment and risk segmentation versus utterly destructive national lockdowns. Now let me think...
So as an over-40, are you in the locked away category?
Temporary micro-containment is great and may work (although the latency of the presymptomatic period is an issue, if people aren’t moving around much, the numbers can easily be on our side). As is more knowledgeable (now) targeting (outdoor stuff far lower risk than indoor stuff, for example). The segmenting/segregation thing - really can’t see it. I tried, as a thought experiment, to work out all the issues with a single University campus as possibly the easiest starting point (so undergraduates at least could get going). With the professors, lecturers, library staff, cleaners, catering staff, security, deliverers and all their families - it’s a bastard of a problem. Either you find all those people all below forty and with no hints of asthma, diabetes, obesity, or any other factors AND with literally everyone in their households the same and everyone who interacts with their households the same as well, or you find those people (for literally every role on the campus) and get them to live onsite and never see their families and friends until it’s all over. And those students are staying on campus as well.
That’s a campus of a few thousand. Scale it up and you scale up the families-and-friends links at only one step, let alone at two steps displacement and three steps displacement. It rises geometrically when you’ve got everyone that the other people in your household interact with.
And as soon as you have a breach in that attack surface of a myriad facets, it’s failed and spread beyond.
TBH what is the point of this? Is it that Trump should not be playing golf? What is wrong with exercising in this way if it is? Is it that 900 people die with covid 19 in a day in the US? If it is it would be better matched to the population than comparing it to a golf round
Consider that a LOT of market research - esp. polling & focus groups - is going into these ads, which are being done under direction of some of the best Republican strategists around.
Perhaps THEY have a better insight than you do, as to what messages are most likely to persuade GOPers who supported Trumpsky in 2016 but are wavering in 2020?
Well, that's a different question: making big sacrifices on behalf of the older generation.
Yes, this gets conflated endlessly on PB, I have no idea why. Of course younger fitter people can pass it to the more vulnerable. This is where the conversation started: shield the vulnerable, let others get on with their lives. We go around in bloody circles on here.
And if you are a younger, fitter person whose teacher is one of the more vulnerable?
Those teachers should be shielded and understudied. This is not easy; but it is possible - and better than closing the whole bloody country down.
15% of teachers are aged over 50.
If they cannot come back, we cannot reopen schools.
Find a way. There will be a way.
Better than closing down the whole country AGAIN so schools can open.
How?
There isn’t necessarily a way - with a society so intertwined and interdependent. To segment all this would need to segregate our population to an incredible extent. Parents and children, grandparents, shopkeepers, bus drivers, teachers, police, service personnel... and a lot of people don’t have a spare house to use so that those over whatever-age-you-choose can be sequestrated.
By the way - in which category do you consider that you fall?
Indeed. Would be interesting to hear more. Micro containment and risk segmentation versus utterly destructive national lockdowns. Now let me think...
So as an over-40, are you in the locked away category?
Temporary micro-containment is great and may work (although the latency of the presymptomatic period is an issue, if people aren’t moving around much, the numbers can easily be on our side). As is more knowledgeable (now) targeting (outdoor stuff far lower risk than indoor stuff, for example). The segmenting/segregation thing - really can’t see it. I tried, as a thought experiment, to work out all the issues with a single University campus as possibly the easiest starting point (so undergraduates at least could get going). With the professors, lecturers, library staff, cleaners, catering staff, security, deliverers and all their families - it’s a bastard of a problem. Either you find all those people all below forty and with no hints of asthma, diabetes, obesity, or any other factors AND with literally everyone in their households the same and everyone who interacts with their households the same as well, or you find those people (for literally every role on the campus) and get them to live onsite and never see their families and friends until it’s all over. And those students are staying on campus as well.
That’s a campus of a few thousand. Scale it up and you scale up the families-and-friends links at only one step, let alone at two steps displacement and three steps displacement. It rises geometrically when you’ve got everyone that the other people in your household interact with.
And as soon as you have a breach in that attack surface of a myriad facets, it’s failed and spread beyond.
Below 60 and no comorbidities is fine for the open group. The risks to that group are still very low.
On the main point of the (excellent) thread header, there are some interesting international comparisons now to make. The big problem is that Johnson has proposed a return as Israel did and we know how disastrously that went. At the very least we will need to have smaller classes, compulsory mask wearing, outdoor lessons where practicable and investment in HEPA air filtering equipment. Other problems such as shared transport to and from school are a major problem that I don't think anyone has an answer to. I've put a diagram regarding US education below and what is becoming the consensus view there to see just how far we are away from fulfilling any meaningful attempts at safety.
Sweden has been interesting, given that their schools closed in mid June and suddenly the number of cases fell markedly. It shows how they have let children spread the virus (and they do, and the medical consensus, again, is finding that they both get and transmit the virus as per adults, especially at secondary age). The added extras of greater mobility and mixing in the general public will also have increased that marked fall, so we've been gifted the opportunity to see what difference opening education up to 16 years old does to the R rate.
One thing is for sure, closing pubs is nowhere near enough to compensate. Has Johnson got the guts to reclose large sections of the economy again or is it (as I suspect) going to be a half in/half out solution with leisure businesses bearing the brunt of any 'squeezing'.
My idea of shifting the school year is still out there as an option, we need radical solutions and this is the most obvious one. If education suffers, then add on time lost at the end of when it would otherwise finish.
I'm in one of the local areas with the new tightened measures, by the way. I can only say that, given the very low compliance with mask wearing apart from the public facing workers such as taxi drivers, takeaway and restaurant workers, this is not surprising.
Or we just accept a few hundred more deaths is the price to be paid for a functioning economy and society.
Assume you are sure you are not in that number or would not be so keen
Everyone has to take their chances just as they do in everything else.
easy one till you or your family are in the crosshairs
Comments
At least I have had good news this week. I've had about 11-12 hospital appointments since March, 3 or 4 of which have been made into phone or zoom, and I've gone through the whole cycle of final diagnosis and treatment of a very rare chronic form of Leukemia (200 cases a year) in the last 10 weeks, which I am told this week looks as though it is going into remission.
The local hospital has continued treatments cautiously throughout, and overall have been excellent.
I also hear from a friend who is about 18 months into recovery from major surgery that cancer type oprations are continuing at a local repurposed private hospital.
So not all bleak everywhere, though I expect capacity is reduced.
Kamala Harris: 2.48
Susan Rice: 5.4
Karen Bass: 6.2
Tammy Duckworth: 8.4
Elizabeth Warren: 18
Val Demings: 27
Gretchen Whitmer: 48
Michelle Obama: 50
Keisha Lance Bottoms: 110
Michelle Lujan Grisham: 160
Hillary Clinton: 190
Barack Obama: 500
Stacey Abrams: 600
I'm just hoping that my pessimism about the schools isn't borne out - because it might not be. I know that there's been a fair amount of evidence produced to suggest that primary school kids may not be particularly good either at catching the virus or passing it on, and if the older ones are either similar, or enough of them have already passed it round amongst themselves in the Spring to largely interrupt transmission, then we could get away with it.
If not then the Government is placed in an impossible position. Either we have schools staying shut, large number of parents who can't work from home being forced to quit their jobs to keep babysitting, and the media replete with tales of demotivated kids getting further and further behind with their education; or the schools open and a load of businesses shut to compensate, and we end up with children who can spell "separate" correctly and have a passable knowledge of Anglo-Saxon history, but find themselves living with Mum in a council-funded B&B after Dad's restaurant business went to the wall, the family home got repossessed and he went for a one-way walk onto the nearest railway line.
The numbers of casualties from this disaster are going to be enormous, and I remain convinced that the lives lost to the disease will be far exceeded by those ultimately lost to the consequences of the measures used to control it. Indeed, given that Covid-19 mortality is so skewed towards the elderly, the total number of years of life lost to the consequences of the control measures will be many multiples of that lost to the virus itself.
https://interaktiv.tagesspiegel.de/lab/karte-sars-cov-2-in-deutschland-landkreise/
Quiz question: how many under 40s with no comorbidities have died from coronavirus in the UK?
Hmmm not sure that is very honest of you.
It was pretty much out of control, over 200,000 cases and over 9000 deaths, and might be again soon...It was certainly not "essentially contained completely" which was what you originally said.
Requires a competent government and clear messaging and explanation/understanding of risk from Joe Public.
See you on Mars!!
I don't think the mistake is as bad as people make out, however, the government made it one of the key measures so we should judge them by it.
It usually goes into remission for anything from 5 years to 20 years, then treatment can usually repeat.
If they cannot come back, we cannot reopen schools.
Log in issues should now be solved.
Please try again
Better than closing down the whole country AGAIN so schools can open.
Coronavirus card payments: Bakery manager sacked for accepting cash
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-53613062
Lead shrank again
I accept your comment on the awesomeness of the likes of me, @Stuartinromford, @Fysics_Teacher, @ukpaul with due regality.
For comparison, the most recent statistics published by the ONS for suicide in the UK (for 2018) are that it was the cause of death in 6,507 cases, which is described as representing an age-standardised rate of 11.2 deaths per 100,000 population. I think we can safely assume that the numbers for 2020, and especially 2021, will be a fair bit higher than that.
There isn’t necessarily a way - with a society so intertwined and interdependent.
To segment all this would need to segregate our population to an incredible extent. Parents and children, grandparents, shopkeepers, bus drivers, teachers, police, service personnel... and a lot of people don’t have a spare house to use so that those over whatever-age-you-choose can be sequestrated.
By the way - in which category do you consider that you fall?
Before Keir became leader, Opinium lead: 23 points
Today: 3 points. This has to be one of the fastest/best polling improvements in modern political history
I think it was Stodge who commented a couple of days ago that if we end up back in lockdown and further damaging the economy then the great British public much shoulder most of the blame. I think that is spot on.
Inept though this government's handling of the pandemic undoubtedly has been, it doesn't matter what the government does if a significant number of our fellow citizens don't give a sh1t.
https://twitter.com/janemerrick23/status/1289487663011991552
Spike Island (BBC1)
Apocalalypse Now: Final Cut (BBC2)
The Masked Singer (ITV)
The Last Wave (BBC4)
End of Days (ITV4)
Not Going Out Live (Dave)
It was similar for example when Gordon Brown became Labour leader in 2007. When Ed Milliband became leader he also got a bounce though not as big. Theresa May, Boris both got bounces too.
Corbyn not getting any meaningful bounce was the exception not the rule and plays into exaggerating the appearing significance of Starmers.
BoZo failed to sack 1 person.
QED...
In 2005 he turned a Labour lead of 10% into a Tory lead of 9% in a little over a fortnight.
23 May, 2019: Conservatives achieve 8.8% under Theresa May
12 December, 2019: Conservatives achieve 43.6% under Boris Johnson.
An increase of 34.8%.
That's the bar.
Unlike Labour, who under the previous leadership of Corbyn and McCluskey put people they were sleeping with into positions of power.
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1289597004201435136
There is nothing wrong with a politician playing golf. Trump was completely wrong on calling out Obama for it (as he is on most things).
Whilst it shows Trump to be a hypocrite, that is so low down on his list of failures it doesn't deserve a mention.
That’s what Gloucestershire are getting into.
If anyone wants a go, here it is.
https://bit.ly/3gmCLw1
Covid deaths England hospitals:
31/07 0
30/07 2
29/07 4
28/07 7
27/07 7
26/07 11
25/07 10
24/07 5
Covid deaths England
31/07 20
30/07 26
29/07 40
28/07 36
27/07 39
26/07 56
25/07 41
24/07 34
Temporary micro-containment is great and may work (although the latency of the presymptomatic period is an issue, if people aren’t moving around much, the numbers can easily be on our side). As is more knowledgeable (now) targeting (outdoor stuff far lower risk than indoor stuff, for example).
The segmenting/segregation thing - really can’t see it. I tried, as a thought experiment, to work out all the issues with a single University campus as possibly the easiest starting point (so undergraduates at least could get going).
With the professors, lecturers, library staff, cleaners, catering staff, security, deliverers and all their families - it’s a bastard of a problem. Either you find all those people all below forty and with no hints of asthma, diabetes, obesity, or any other factors AND with literally everyone in their households the same and everyone who interacts with their households the same as well, or you find those people (for literally every role on the campus) and get them to live onsite and never see their families and friends until it’s all over. And those students are staying on campus as well.
That’s a campus of a few thousand. Scale it up and you scale up the families-and-friends links at only one step, let alone at two steps displacement and three steps displacement. It rises geometrically when you’ve got everyone that the other people in your household interact with.
And as soon as you have a breach in that attack surface of a myriad facets, it’s failed and spread beyond.
Perhaps THEY have a better insight than you do, as to what messages are most likely to persuade GOPers who supported Trumpsky in 2016 but are wavering in 2020?
Everyone else shielded.
Not easy, but preferable to national lockdowns.