Interesting: looks like Maine and Nebraska split their EC vote rather than being winner takes all.
Yes, they both give two EC votes to statewide election (to match their number of Senators), and one EC vote per congressional district (to match their number of Representatives).
I wonder what proportion of the reduced attendance of hospitals is people who need to go to hospitals not going . . . and what proportion is hypochondriacs deciding they have something better to do.
In the past when I've waited in A&E I've often felt the majority of people there didn't really need to be there.
They were looking at you thinking exactly the same thing.
"Often felt" - how many times have you been to A&E?
10,000 doctrinaire posts/week extract a terrible toll in carpal tunnel syndrome.
I wonder what proportion of the reduced attendance of hospitals is people who need to go to hospitals not going . . . and what proportion is hypochondriacs deciding they have something better to do.
In the past when I've waited in A&E I've often felt the majority of people there didn't really need to be there.
They were looking at you thinking exactly the same thing.
"Often felt" - how many times have you been to A&E?
Four times in the past decade. All pregnancy/child related.
Once my wife was very pregnant, she fell over on black ice hitting her stomach and couldn't feel the baby kick afterwards. We called her midwife and were told to go immediately to A&E. We were asked questions on arrival including could she feel the baby kick ("No") and we then sat there for just under 4 hours. When the doctor finally came to speak to us the triage nurse had incorrectly written yes to the baby kicking on the notes. Eventually got taken through and they found a fetal heartbeat.
About two years later as a toddler our daughter fell down the stairs tumbling from the top to the bottom of the stairs. We took her immediately to A&E, were advised to go straight to a children's unit and were seen immediately by a paediatrician. She was OK.
Third time our daughter while climbing on the couch jumped off it and hit her head which immediately swelled up. Called 111 and told to go to A&E because it was a head injury. Waited about six hours, she got a check up and was OK.
Finally our second daughter accidentally dislocated her hand/wrist. Took her to A&E, waited about five hours. Doctor "popped" it back in and she was OK.
I've had colleagues in the past who'd go in fortnightly to monthly it seemed.
Trending away since 2015, when the majority was only 1026. What has happened there?
I honestly don’t know! As I have demonstrated I thought it was marginal.
I would guess, but I could be completely wrong, that it’s where most of the Royal Navy have their shore homes, and that Corbyn’s pacifism didn’t play too well. Labour’s vote went down in Plymouth Sutton and Devonport as well, although not as catastrophically.
Labour’s vote absolutely cratered in Taunton Deane as well, and was down in Bath. Equally, however, it rose in Portsmouth South.
I wonder what proportion of the reduced attendance of hospitals is people who need to go to hospitals not going . . . and what proportion is hypochondriacs deciding they have something better to do.
In the past when I've waited in A&E I've often felt the majority of people there didn't really need to be there.
But it's not just A&E that's running at below capacity, it's everything including oncology.
Indeed, oncology being down is very worrying.
I'm not suggesting that all the decrease is non-worrying, but not all of the decrease is worrying either. Some of the decrease is people being more careful (or less driving or less drunk) and fewer accidents, some of it is fewer hypochondriacs going out . . . but much of it is what should be going on like oncology.
There should be an awareness campaign going on for cancer awareness. I think that's the biggest concern of them all.
It's not just cancer though, there's a whole host of routine procedures that are being put off or going undiagnosed because people don't want to go to hospital. The person with undiagnosed high cholesterol is at risk of a stroke, that's as serious as it gets.
Or even a stomach ulcer that goes untreated too long.
Exactly, cancer is just one of the serious health conditions currently going untreated or undetected because the government has sacrificed all other public health priorities for the virus. It's going to end very badly unless there is a serious rethink of policy.
Question for PB's Foreign Correspondents; how are other (dare one say, better run) health systems responding to this question? Unfortunately, I can see a chain which goes UK running Covid control relatively hot --> a bit less general medical capacity and a bit more fear --> other illnesses bubbling up as well.
This is a global problem with all acute health crises. We saw exactly the same with Ebola in West Africa - treatments of everything else, particularly other fever-inducing infections such as HIV and malaria, suffered considerably until the Ebola outbreak was over.
Why does Italy have fewer new Covid-19 cases than Spain? Since the Italian government eased lockdown restrictions, the country has been reporting an average of 200 daily infections, while Spanish authorities are recording more than 1,500
We have a large outbreak in the tourist town near me - all located at 3 discos where the social distancing was inadequate. The authorities have no clue what to do and display extraordinary ignorance when trying to reassure people: ' no transmission from staff to clients' - 24 hours after recording 31 positives and while testing is still ongoing!
More than ever convinced the UK action last week was spot on. My only caveat being there should have been no non-essential foreign travel at all this year. Total hostage to fortune.
The impression I get - and I will have a better idea if my trip next month goes ahead - is that the severity of the localised crisis in Northern Italy at the beginning of the crisis, with people being left to die outside hospitals and the rest - has been such a shock to the country and made the threat of the virus seem very real, such that most Italians are still going above and beyond in terms of restricting contact with others. If so a surprise, given their usual character and culture.
In the UK we’ve had more pain but spread more evenly over time and across the country, which hasn’t made the same imprint on our psychology.
Trending away since 2015, when the majority was only 1026. What has happened there?
I honestly don’t know! As I have demonstrated I thought it was marginal.
I would guess, but I could be completely wrong, that it’s where most of the Royal Navy have their shore homes, and that Corbyn’s pacifism didn’t play too well. Labour’s vote went down in Plymouth Sutton and Devonport as well, although not as catastrophically.
Labour’s vote absolutely cratered in Taunton Deane as well, and was down in Bath. Equally, however, it rose in Portsmouth South.
Well I think you would hope Labour might recover some then, with a leader who is not Corbyn.
I do think in these very marginal Brexit-voting seats, Corbyn was the factor that sealed the deal for many voters.
I would expect Starmer will win some back just by not being Corbyn.
Had a long chat with a cousin yesterday at a family picnic, he's a very high up at a major London trust. He basically said that the NHS is currently operating at 10-20% in London depending on the specific trust and he thinks people are going to die because the government pushed the messaging of "save the NHS" too hard early on and are still doing it which is putting people off from getting care for potentially life-threatening conditions. On the virus itself, he said his hospital and the surrounding ones haven't had a new case in about two weeks and the number of active cases are fairly small and confined to a single ward with no crossover in staffing and they are thinking of consolidating all existing London cases at a single trust and declaring the rest of the hospitals COVID-free to encourage patients to come back.
He also said there is no sign of a second wave in terms of hospital admissions for them and they haven't picked up any additional suspected cases in their A&E. He's definitely of the opinion that the government needs to rethink the whole strategy of sacrificing all public health initiatives at the altar of the virus, especially now that we haven't got the same hospital caseload as before and there is spare capacity.
I had a course of treatment postponed by the lockdown, but they phoned my at the beginning of June to go and get it finished. The hospital seemed pretty empty, but I go in at aside entrance to get to the ward I need so it was hard to compare. I also get the impression that they are prioritising cancer treatment.
I've had a surgeon's office call me about a small, non-urgent procedure that was postponed from March. I think in the US, surgeons are eager to get more work as patients are not so keen to go to hospitals even now elective procedures are permitted.
I’ve picked up a few hospital acquired infections in my time (although usually from what I would call invasive procedures) so I can certainly understand why people are avoiding hospitals unless they absolutely have to go.
Nosocomial infections kill around 100k in the US per year ...
I had pneumonia last year and it was described as “community acquired”: that is they have a special category for those illnesses not picked up in hospital...
I was told by one senior medical type, that a major reason behind the modern emphasis on getting people out of hospital quickly, is the risk of picking up infections.
And the realisation that most patients recover faster if they are pushed back toward normal activity rather than the old assumption of bed rest. And straightforward economics, of course.
I wonder what proportion of the reduced attendance of hospitals is people who need to go to hospitals not going . . . and what proportion is hypochondriacs deciding they have something better to do.
In the past when I've waited in A&E I've often felt the majority of people there didn't really need to be there.
They were looking at you thinking exactly the same thing.
"Often felt" - how many times have you been to A&E?
Four times in the past decade. All pregnancy/child related.
Once my wife was very pregnant, she fell over on black ice hitting her stomach and couldn't feel the baby kick afterwards. We called her midwife and were told to go immediately to A&E. We were asked questions on arrival including could she feel the baby kick ("No") and we then sat there for just under 4 hours. When the doctor finally came to speak to us the triage nurse had incorrectly written yes to the baby kicking on the notes. Eventually got taken through and they found a fetal heartbeat.
About two years later as a toddler our daughter fell down the stairs tumbling from the top to the bottom of the stairs. We took her immediately to A&E, were advised to go straight to a children's unit and were seen immediately by a paediatrician. She was OK.
Third time our daughter while climbing on the couch jumped off it and hit her head which immediately swelled up. Called 111 and told to go to A&E because it was a head injury. Waited about six hours, she got a check up and was OK.
Finally our second daughter accidentally dislocated her hand/wrist. Took her to A&E, waited about five hours. Doctor "popped" it back in and she was OK.
I've had colleagues in the past who'd go in fortnightly to monthly it seemed.
Some very scary stuff in there but not all slam dunk reasons to be in A&E to someone sitting across the room, I presume?
Had a long chat with a cousin yesterday at a family picnic, he's a very high up at a major London trust. He basically said that the NHS is currently operating at 10-20% in London depending on the specific trust and he thinks people are going to die because the government pushed the messaging of "save the NHS" too hard early on and are still doing it which is putting people off from getting care for potentially life-threatening conditions. On the virus itself, he said his hospital and the surrounding ones haven't had a new case in about two weeks and the number of active cases are fairly small and confined to a single ward with no crossover in staffing and they are thinking of consolidating all existing London cases at a single trust and declaring the rest of the hospitals COVID-free to encourage patients to come back.
He also said there is no sign of a second wave in terms of hospital admissions for them and they haven't picked up any additional suspected cases in their A&E. He's definitely of the opinion that the government needs to rethink the whole strategy of sacrificing all public health initiatives at the altar of the virus, especially now that we haven't got the same hospital caseload as before and there is spare capacity.
I had a course of treatment postponed by the lockdown, but they phoned my at the beginning of June to go and get it finished. The hospital seemed pretty empty, but I go in at aside entrance to get to the ward I need so it was hard to compare. I also get the impression that they are prioritising cancer treatment.
I've had a surgeon's office call me about a small, non-urgent procedure that was postponed from March. I think in the US, surgeons are eager to get more work as patients are not so keen to go to hospitals even now elective procedures are permitted.
I’ve picked up a few hospital acquired infections in my time (although usually from what I would call invasive procedures) so I can certainly understand why people are avoiding hospitals unless they absolutely have to go.
Nosocomial infections kill around 100k in the US per year ...
I had pneumonia last year and it was described as “community acquired”: that is they have a special category for those illnesses not picked up in hospital...
I was told by one senior medical type, that a major reason behind the modern emphasis on getting people out of hospital quickly, is the risk of picking up infections.
And the realisation that most patients recover faster if they are pushed back toward normal activity rather than the old assumption of bed rest. And straightforward economics, of course.
I understand it is a mixture of all three. The one about not picking up other infections is not often emphasised though.
Oh and the govt's eat out to help out initiative coming at exactly the same time as its let's all lose weight initiative is vying with we have a 5-point scale and we're on 3.5 as the most totally moronic and risible thing it's done and it's a low bar.
Had a long chat with a cousin yesterday at a family picnic, he's a very high up at a major London trust. He basically said that the NHS is currently operating at 10-20% in London depending on the specific trust and he thinks people are going to die because the government pushed the messaging of "save the NHS" too hard early on and are still doing it which is putting people off from getting care for potentially life-threatening conditions. On the virus itself, he said his hospital and the surrounding ones haven't had a new case in about two weeks and the number of active cases are fairly small and confined to a single ward with no crossover in staffing and they are thinking of consolidating all existing London cases at a single trust and declaring the rest of the hospitals COVID-free to encourage patients to come back.
He also said there is no sign of a second wave in terms of hospital admissions for them and they haven't picked up any additional suspected cases in their A&E. He's definitely of the opinion that the government needs to rethink the whole strategy of sacrificing all public health initiatives at the altar of the virus, especially now that we haven't got the same hospital caseload as before and there is spare capacity.
I had a course of treatment postponed by the lockdown, but they phoned my at the beginning of June to go and get it finished. The hospital seemed pretty empty, but I go in at aside entrance to get to the ward I need so it was hard to compare. I also get the impression that they are prioritising cancer treatment.
I've had a surgeon's office call me about a small, non-urgent procedure that was postponed from March. I think in the US, surgeons are eager to get more work as patients are not so keen to go to hospitals even now elective procedures are permitted.
I’ve picked up a few hospital acquired infections in my time (although usually from what I would call invasive procedures) so I can certainly understand why people are avoiding hospitals unless they absolutely have to go.
Nosocomial infections kill around 100k in the US per year ...
I had pneumonia last year and it was described as “community acquired”: that is they have a special category for those illnesses not picked up in hospital...
I was told by one senior medical type, that a major reason behind the modern emphasis on getting people out of hospital quickly, is the risk of picking up infections.
Operations are now often done as day cases. I have spent fewer nights in hospital than I have had general anaesthetics.
In the US, many (most?) operations are not done in hospitals, but in surgery centres - so walk in, walk out same day.
Two of my day case tests under GA turned into ops and I ended up staying the night on a ward (indeed the right ward for my particular problem). How easy is that from a surgery center?
I wonder what proportion of the reduced attendance of hospitals is people who need to go to hospitals not going . . . and what proportion is hypochondriacs deciding they have something better to do.
In the past when I've waited in A&E I've often felt the majority of people there didn't really need to be there.
They were looking at you thinking exactly the same thing.
"Often felt" - how many times have you been to A&E?
Four times in the past decade. All pregnancy/child related.
Once my wife was very pregnant, she fell over on black ice hitting her stomach and couldn't feel the baby kick afterwards. We called her midwife and were told to go immediately to A&E. We were asked questions on arrival including could she feel the baby kick ("No") and we then sat there for just under 4 hours. When the doctor finally came to speak to us the triage nurse had incorrectly written yes to the baby kicking on the notes. Eventually got taken through and they found a fetal heartbeat.
About two years later as a toddler our daughter fell down the stairs tumbling from the top to the bottom of the stairs. We took her immediately to A&E, were advised to go straight to a children's unit and were seen immediately by a paediatrician. She was OK.
Third time our daughter while climbing on the couch jumped off it and hit her head which immediately swelled up. Called 111 and told to go to A&E because it was a head injury. Waited about six hours, she got a check up and was OK.
Finally our second daughter accidentally dislocated her hand/wrist. Took her to A&E, waited about five hours. Doctor "popped" it back in and she was OK.
I've had colleagues in the past who'd go in fortnightly to monthly it seemed.
Some very scary stuff in there but not all slam dunk reasons to be in A&E to someone sitting across the room, I presume?
No, but when I was there the first time when she couldn't feel the baby kick I was sat near the entrance desk so could hear the reasons given on arrival and many to me did not seem to be either accidents or emergencies, never was the patient told "go home and call your GP" which seemed like it would be the appropriate answer.
But as I said my thinking doesn't just extend to how often I have been to A&E personally, but knowing how often some other people do go. One particular hypochondriac I used to work with seemed to go every other week to monthly, which seemed to coincide with when she was hungover.
Re Inter-country comparisons of excess deaths, I haven't seen any mention here of the EuroMoMo (= European Mortality Monitor) data which you can find here: https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps They show excess deaths weekly over the last 5 years, presenting breakdowns by country and age using a "Z-score" (they explain), and they disaggregate the UK into component nations. It is quite remarkable how much the European countries differ, and regrettably England is the second worst performer. Spain is the worst. Some countries hardly show a blip of any kind, even for their older cohorts.
I wonder what proportion of the reduced attendance of hospitals is people who need to go to hospitals not going . . . and what proportion is hypochondriacs deciding they have something better to do.
In the past when I've waited in A&E I've often felt the majority of people there didn't really need to be there.
They were looking at you thinking exactly the same thing.
"Often felt" - how many times have you been to A&E?
Four times in the past decade. All pregnancy/child related.
Once my wife was very pregnant, she fell over on black ice hitting her stomach and couldn't feel the baby kick afterwards. We called her midwife and were told to go immediately to A&E. We were asked questions on arrival including could she feel the baby kick ("No") and we then sat there for just under 4 hours. When the doctor finally came to speak to us the triage nurse had incorrectly written yes to the baby kicking on the notes. Eventually got taken through and they found a fetal heartbeat.
About two years later as a toddler our daughter fell down the stairs tumbling from the top to the bottom of the stairs. We took her immediately to A&E, were advised to go straight to a children's unit and were seen immediately by a paediatrician. She was OK.
Third time our daughter while climbing on the couch jumped off it and hit her head which immediately swelled up. Called 111 and told to go to A&E because it was a head injury. Waited about six hours, she got a check up and was OK.
Finally our second daughter accidentally dislocated her hand/wrist. Took her to A&E, waited about five hours. Doctor "popped" it back in and she was OK.
I've had colleagues in the past who'd go in fortnightly to monthly it seemed.
Some very scary stuff in there but not all slam dunk reasons to be in A&E to someone sitting across the room, I presume?
No, but when I was there the first time when she couldn't feel the baby kick I was sat near the entrance desk so could hear the reasons given on arrival and many to me did not seem to be either accidents or emergencies, never was the patient told "go home and call your GP" which seemed like it would be the appropriate answer.
But as I said my thinking doesn't just extend to how often I have been to A&E personally, but knowing how often some other people do go. One particular hypochondriac I used to work with seemed to go every other week to monthly, which seemed to coincide with when she was hungover.
Can work the other way though. A couple of years back I had chest pains, which I was fairly sure were heartburn but as they were persistent and annoying so I called the GP and asked for an appointment.
I was told, to my astonishment, that the correct course of action for any chest pain was to dial 999.
I persuaded the receptionist that it was not necessary to do that, and the doctor confirmed it was heartburn which cleared up with prescription drugs in a week.
I wonder what proportion of the reduced attendance of hospitals is people who need to go to hospitals not going . . . and what proportion is hypochondriacs deciding they have something better to do.
In the past when I've waited in A&E I've often felt the majority of people there didn't really need to be there.
They were looking at you thinking exactly the same thing.
"Often felt" - how many times have you been to A&E?
Four times in the past decade. All pregnancy/child related.
Once my wife was very pregnant, she fell over on black ice hitting her stomach and couldn't feel the baby kick afterwards. We called her midwife and were told to go immediately to A&E. We were asked questions on arrival including could she feel the baby kick ("No") and we then sat there for just under 4 hours. When the doctor finally came to speak to us the triage nurse had incorrectly written yes to the baby kicking on the notes. Eventually got taken through and they found a fetal heartbeat.
About two years later as a toddler our daughter fell down the stairs tumbling from the top to the bottom of the stairs. We took her immediately to A&E, were advised to go straight to a children's unit and were seen immediately by a paediatrician. She was OK.
Third time our daughter while climbing on the couch jumped off it and hit her head which immediately swelled up. Called 111 and told to go to A&E because it was a head injury. Waited about six hours, she got a check up and was OK.
Finally our second daughter accidentally dislocated her hand/wrist. Took her to A&E, waited about five hours. Doctor "popped" it back in and she was OK.
I've had colleagues in the past who'd go in fortnightly to monthly it seemed.
Some very scary stuff in there but not all slam dunk reasons to be in A&E to someone sitting across the room, I presume?
No, but when I was there the first time when she couldn't feel the baby kick I was sat near the entrance desk so could hear the reasons given on arrival and many to me did not seem to be either accidents or emergencies, never was the patient told "go home and call your GP" which seemed like it would be the appropriate answer.
But as I said my thinking doesn't just extend to how often I have been to A&E personally, but knowing how often some other people do go. One particular hypochondriac I used to work with seemed to go every other week to monthly, which seemed to coincide with when she was hungover.
"go home and call your GP" was obviously the wrong advice. "Go and ask that bloke sitting over there" would have sorted the situation and emptied A&E with less hassle.
Re Inter-country comparisons of excess deaths, I haven't seen any mention here of the EuroMoMo (= European Mortality Monitor) data which you can find here: https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps They show excess deaths weekly over the last 5 years, presenting breakdowns by country and age using a "Z-score" (they explain), and they disaggregate the UK into component nations. It is quite remarkable how much the European countries differ, and regrettably England is the second worst performer. Spain is the worst. Some countries hardly show a blip of any kind, even for their older cohorts.
But we all LOVE THE NHS, remember?
Think of a healthcare system like you think of a religion, and it becomes infallible.
Re Inter-country comparisons of excess deaths, I haven't seen any mention here of the EuroMoMo (= European Mortality Monitor) data which you can find here: https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps They show excess deaths weekly over the last 5 years, presenting breakdowns by country and age using a "Z-score" (they explain), and they disaggregate the UK into component nations. It is quite remarkable how much the European countries differ, and regrettably England is the second worst performer. Spain is the worst. Some countries hardly show a blip of any kind, even for their older cohorts.
But we all LOVE THE NHS, remember?
Think of a healthcare system like you think of a religion, and it becomes infallible.
It is of course the envy of the world. So much so that no other country has dared to emulate it.
Its one thing to lose a job,though, but what will really turn people against the government is when they discover the chances of getting another one are close to zero.
Re Inter-country comparisons of excess deaths, I haven't seen any mention here of the EuroMoMo (= European Mortality Monitor) data which you can find here: https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps They show excess deaths weekly over the last 5 years, presenting breakdowns by country and age using a "Z-score" (they explain), and they disaggregate the UK into component nations. It is quite remarkable how much the European countries differ, and regrettably England is the second worst performer. Spain is the worst. Some countries hardly show a blip of any kind, even for their older cohorts.
But we all LOVE THE NHS, remember?
Think of a healthcare system like you think of a religion, and it becomes infallible.
Tbf England has two religions, though they seem to be coalescing.
Trending away since 2015, when the majority was only 1026. What has happened there?
I honestly don’t know! As I have demonstrated I thought it was marginal.
I would guess, but I could be completely wrong, that it’s where most of the Royal Navy have their shore homes, and that Corbyn’s pacifism didn’t play too well. Labour’s vote went down in Plymouth Sutton and Devonport as well, although not as catastrophically.
Labour’s vote absolutely cratered in Taunton Deane as well, and was down in Bath. Equally, however, it rose in Portsmouth South.
Moor View was estimated at 68% Brexit compared to 52% in Sutton and Devonport
F*** All new about that , it has been planned for ages , dates have been there for ages , what tossers these unionists are, and he is among the top dummies. The interesting thing is the unionist UK led civil service have not been able to provide their documentation in 4 months and are trying to delay yet again. Someone trying to keep their job a bit longer perhaps or the shredders being repaired.
F*** All new about that , it has been planned for ages , dates have been there for ages , what tossers these unionists are, and he is among the top dummies.
I thought you liked him?
Oh sorry, you mean Paul Hutcheon not ALex Salmond.
Had a long chat with a cousin yesterday at a family picnic, he's a very high up at a major London trust. He basically said that the NHS is currently operating at 10-20% in London depending on the specific trust and he thinks people are going to die because the government pushed the messaging of "save the NHS" too hard early on and are still doing it which is putting people off from getting care for potentially life-threatening conditions. On the virus itself, he said his hospital and the surrounding ones haven't had a new case in about two weeks and the number of active cases are fairly small and confined to a single ward with no crossover in staffing and they are thinking of consolidating all existing London cases at a single trust and declaring the rest of the hospitals COVID-free to encourage patients to come back.
He also said there is no sign of a second wave in terms of hospital admissions for them and they haven't picked up any additional suspected cases in their A&E. He's definitely of the opinion that the government needs to rethink the whole strategy of sacrificing all public health initiatives at the altar of the virus, especially now that we haven't got the same hospital caseload as before and there is spare capacity.
I had a course of treatment postponed by the lockdown, but they phoned my at the beginning of June to go and get it finished. The hospital seemed pretty empty, but I go in at aside entrance to get to the ward I need so it was hard to compare. I also get the impression that they are prioritising cancer treatment.
I've had a surgeon's office call me about a small, non-urgent procedure that was postponed from March. I think in the US, surgeons are eager to get more work as patients are not so keen to go to hospitals even now elective procedures are permitted.
I’ve picked up a few hospital acquired infections in my time (although usually from what I would call invasive procedures) so I can certainly understand why people are avoiding hospitals unless they absolutely have to go.
Nosocomial infections kill around 100k in the US per year ...
I had pneumonia last year and it was described as “community acquired”: that is they have a special category for those illnesses not picked up in hospital...
I was told by one senior medical type, that a major reason behind the modern emphasis on getting people out of hospital quickly, is the risk of picking up infections.
Operations are now often done as day cases. I have spent fewer nights in hospital than I have had general anaesthetics.
In the US, many (most?) operations are not done in hospitals, but in surgery centres - so walk in, walk out same day.
Two of my day case tests under GA turned into ops and I ended up staying the night on a ward (indeed the right ward for my particular problem). How easy is that from a surgery center?
It can be very easy. Particularly if the same group owns both the hospital and the surgery centre, and the surgeons are credentialed in both.
F*** All new about that , it has been planned for ages , dates have been there for ages , what tossers these unionists are, and he is among the top dummies.
I thought you liked him?
Oh sorry, you mean Paul Hutcheon not ALex Salmond.
Its one thing to lose a job,though, but what will really turn people against the government is when they discover the chances of getting another one are close to zero.
Wait till they find out what living on UC or ESA is like for more than a month or two.
I suspect we'll be hearing rather less about alarm clock Britain getting up while next door's blinds are still drawn as they sleep in on benefits.
I wonder what proportion of the reduced attendance of hospitals is people who need to go to hospitals not going . . . and what proportion is hypochondriacs deciding they have something better to do.
In the past when I've waited in A&E I've often felt the majority of people there didn't really need to be there.
But it's not just A&E that's running at below capacity, it's everything including oncology.
Indeed, oncology being down is very worrying.
I'm not suggesting that all the decrease is non-worrying, but not all of the decrease is worrying either. Some of the decrease is people being more careful (or less driving or less drunk) and fewer accidents, some of it is fewer hypochondriacs going out . . . but much of it is what should be going on like oncology.
There should be an awareness campaign going on for cancer awareness. I think that's the biggest concern of them all.
It's not just cancer though, there's a whole host of routine procedures that are being put off or going undiagnosed because people don't want to go to hospital. The person with undiagnosed high cholesterol is at risk of a stroke, that's as serious as it gets.
Or even a stomach ulcer that goes untreated too long.
Exactly, cancer is just one of the serious health conditions currently going untreated or undetected because the government has sacrificed all other public health priorities for the virus. It's going to end very badly unless there is a serious rethink of policy.
This would be helped a lot if Covid could be moved to a defined set of hospitals whose mission was to deal with Covid.
It's not just a problem of treatment not being given to the vulnerable, I suspect there's also an issue of them not wanting to go and be treated in a hospital where there's a risk of Covid infection.
As I've said before, I think we need: - An interim health sec so Matt Hancock can deal with Covid - Matt Hancock deals with opening a new network of Covid hospitals - New health sec aims to get the Covid-free NHS up and running again
F*** All new about that , it has been planned for ages , dates have been there for ages , what tossers these unionists are, and he is among the top dummies. The interesting thing is the unionist UK led civil service have not been able to provide their documentation in 4 months and are trying to delay yet again. Someone trying to keep their job a bit longer perhaps or the shredders being repaired.
I wonder what proportion of the reduced attendance of hospitals is people who need to go to hospitals not going . . . and what proportion is hypochondriacs deciding they have something better to do.
In the past when I've waited in A&E I've often felt the majority of people there didn't really need to be there.
But it's not just A&E that's running at below capacity, it's everything including oncology.
Indeed, oncology being down is very worrying.
I'm not suggesting that all the decrease is non-worrying, but not all of the decrease is worrying either. Some of the decrease is people being more careful (or less driving or less drunk) and fewer accidents, some of it is fewer hypochondriacs going out . . . but much of it is what should be going on like oncology.
There should be an awareness campaign going on for cancer awareness. I think that's the biggest concern of them all.
It's not just cancer though, there's a whole host of routine procedures that are being put off or going undiagnosed because people don't want to go to hospital. The person with undiagnosed high cholesterol is at risk of a stroke, that's as serious as it gets.
Or even a stomach ulcer that goes untreated too long.
Exactly, cancer is just one of the serious health conditions currently going untreated or undetected because the government has sacrificed all other public health priorities for the virus. It's going to end very badly unless there is a serious rethink of policy.
This would be helped a lot if Covid could be moved to a defined set of hospitals whose mission was to deal with Covid.
It's not just a problem of treatment not being given to the vulnerable, I suspect there's also an issue of them not wanting to go and be treated in a hospital where there's a risk of Covid infection.
As I've said before, I think we need: - An interim health sec so Matt Hancock can deal with Covid - Matt Hancock deals with opening a new network of Covid hospitals - New health sec aims to get the Covid-free NHS up and running again
Who's going to go in these Covid hospitals? Is England now not averaging less than 1 patient in hospital per hospital?
Time to get some perspective on wild plans for more coming lockdowns?
Sigh
We have the following facts. NOTE : all data for the last 3-5 days is provisional. Anyone attempting to prove their point with data from that period will be subjected to the collected speeches of Donald Trump for the rest of their life.
1) Cases are rising
2) This is not due to just testing more. In fact the ratio of positives is going up for Pillar 2 (community testing)
3) Hospital fatalities are going down for the moment
4) As are the all settings numbers
5) The reason that the hospital numbers are going down while infections are rising is that the age profile has changed - for the moment
6) In a number of places, such as Florida, it has been shown that the virus spreads rapidly among the young, then pivots into the elderly and vulnerable groups.
All of the above means that containing the virus early is the way to prevent it getting into the vulnerable groups in a big way, again.
I wonder what proportion of the reduced attendance of hospitals is people who need to go to hospitals not going . . . and what proportion is hypochondriacs deciding they have something better to do.
In the past when I've waited in A&E I've often felt the majority of people there didn't really need to be there.
But it's not just A&E that's running at below capacity, it's everything including oncology.
Indeed, oncology being down is very worrying.
I'm not suggesting that all the decrease is non-worrying, but not all of the decrease is worrying either. Some of the decrease is people being more careful (or less driving or less drunk) and fewer accidents, some of it is fewer hypochondriacs going out . . . but much of it is what should be going on like oncology.
There should be an awareness campaign going on for cancer awareness. I think that's the biggest concern of them all.
It's not just cancer though, there's a whole host of routine procedures that are being put off or going undiagnosed because people don't want to go to hospital. The person with undiagnosed high cholesterol is at risk of a stroke, that's as serious as it gets.
Or even a stomach ulcer that goes untreated too long.
Exactly, cancer is just one of the serious health conditions currently going untreated or undetected because the government has sacrificed all other public health priorities for the virus. It's going to end very badly unless there is a serious rethink of policy.
This would be helped a lot if Covid could be moved to a defined set of hospitals whose mission was to deal with Covid.
It's not just a problem of treatment not being given to the vulnerable, I suspect there's also an issue of them not wanting to go and be treated in a hospital where there's a risk of Covid infection.
As I've said before, I think we need: - An interim health sec so Matt Hancock can deal with Covid - Matt Hancock deals with opening a new network of Covid hospitals - New health sec aims to get the Covid-free NHS up and running again
Who's going to go in these Covid hospitals? Is England now not averaging less than 1 patient in hospital per hospital?
It certainly is, hospitals are mothballing their covid wards. Unfortunately the majority of their other wards are pretty empty as well. Thousands of people with other illnesses are not being treated. GP Surgeries have got to open up and not just put people off or tell people to go and see their Pharmacist.
Time to get some perspective on wild plans for more coming lockdowns?
IT's how many are dying in 3-4 weeks that is the question.
And nobody was dying when the virus first boomed.
So on that basis the govt at any time is able to declare that "normal" life can never resume. Should it choose to.
AIUI they weren't actual plans, we are told, but scenarios being explored, as to what might turn out to happen ans what might have to be done at T plus delta T if an infection begins. And quite rightly. And a good thing if this have finally got the concept of exponential growth into the heads of the (often) mathematically and scientifically illiterate politicians.
In all seriousness, though, the time lag between new infections and deaths makes it dodgy to use the latter as a benchmark guide to the current pandemic situation.
Edit: and it's quite possible for deaths to be going down and new infections to go up at the same time.
Edsit 2: and see Malmesbury's excellent post a few moments ago.
That's my gym. In fairness they haven't been taking money during lockdown but you have to wonder how many of them will reopen now. My guess in Scotland (where gyms are still not permitted) the answer will be only under new ownership.
That's my gym. In fairness they haven't been taking money during lockdown but you have to wonder how many of them will reopen now. My guess in Scotland (where gyms are still not permitted) the answer will be only under new ownership.
Gyms have been given a target opening date of 15 September, I believe - my local one is working to that.
Trending away since 2015, when the majority was only 1026. What has happened there?
I honestly don’t know! As I have demonstrated I thought it was marginal.
I would guess, but I could be completely wrong, that it’s where most of the Royal Navy have their shore homes, and that Corbyn’s pacifism didn’t play too well. Labour’s vote went down in Plymouth Sutton and Devonport as well, although not as catastrophically.
Labour’s vote absolutely cratered in Taunton Deane as well, and was down in Bath. Equally, however, it rose in Portsmouth South.
Well I think you would hope Labour might recover some then, with a leader who is not Corbyn.
I do think in these very marginal Brexit-voting seats, Corbyn was the factor that sealed the deal for many voters.
I would expect Starmer will win some back just by not being Corbyn.
Only when he convinces them Labour is no longer Labour. Thier brand is buggered. He needs to oversee a rebrand. New Labour, if you will.
I'm sure all its activists can get behind that idea.
Trending away since 2015, when the majority was only 1026. What has happened there?
I honestly don’t know! As I have demonstrated I thought it was marginal.
I would guess, but I could be completely wrong, that it’s where most of the Royal Navy have their shore homes, and that Corbyn’s pacifism didn’t play too well. Labour’s vote went down in Plymouth Sutton and Devonport as well, although not as catastrophically.
Labour’s vote absolutely cratered in Taunton Deane as well, and was down in Bath. Equally, however, it rose in Portsmouth South.
Well I think you would hope Labour might recover some then, with a leader who is not Corbyn.
I do think in these very marginal Brexit-voting seats, Corbyn was the factor that sealed the deal for many voters.
I would expect Starmer will win some back just by not being Corbyn.
Only when he convinces them Labour is no longer Labour. Thier brand is buggered. He needs to oversee a rebrand. New Labour, if you will.
I'm sure all its activists can get behind that idea.
If he rebrands as New Labour, he's completely buggered. The Left will explode and the Right will mock.
Something like Ordinary Labour would serve better, especially given the collection of weirdos he's going to be up against.
malmesbury's assertion that the ratio of positives is going up rests on week's data, the latest week, in a period that he himself has dubbed as provisional and therefore not to be used as an argument.
Strip that week out of the numbers and the proportionality trend has fallen and is stable.
Also, given the spike in numbers in the North West has been going up for a while now, if the data were reliable hospital admissions should be seriously rising. essentially the spike started 20 July.
malmesbury's assertion that the ratio of positives is going up rests on week's data, the latest week, in a period that he himself has dubbed as provisional and therefore not to be used as an argument.
Strip that week out of the numbers and the proportionality trend has fallen and is stable.
Also, given the spike in numbers in the North West has been going up for a while now, if the data were reliable hospital admissions should be seriously rising. essentially the spike started 20 July.
They aren't.
Week 30 goes from July 20-July 26, that's outside the window for provisional data.
That's my gym. In fairness they haven't been taking money during lockdown but you have to wonder how many of them will reopen now. My guess in Scotland (where gyms are still not permitted) the answer will be only under new ownership.
Gyms have been given a target opening date of 15 September, I believe - my local one is working to that.
malmesbury's assertion that the ratio of positives is going up rests on week's data, the latest week, in a period that he himself has dubbed as provisional and therefore not to be used as an argument.
Strip that week out of the numbers and the proportionality trend has fallen and is stable.
Also, given the spike in numbers in the North West has been going up for a while now, if the data were reliable hospital admissions should be seriously rising. essentially the spike started 20 July.
They aren't.
The positives number is up to week 30 - which is at the end of July. We are in August.
The reason that hospital numbers haven't spiked is also explained by the profile of the cases - a much lower number of the very elderly are currently getting COVID. The problem is that this will change when the disease becomes more prevalent.
The aim should be to bring down the epidemic imo. With that in mind, wouldn't it be a good thing to ensure that people engaged in international travel are early recipients of the vaccine? So no external seeding into the host populations into which they travel.
Swing of 0.43% required to win all of these. Despite the most unpopular Labour leader in history and Brexit, they only lost narrowly.
Emma Dent Coad was certainly the straw that broke the camel's back in Kensington. If they'd had someone with 10% more decency Labour would have kept the seat.
Interesting that Lithuania sees the USA as more important than the EU still. But not surprising. Further European integration of the armed forces to form a bulwark against Vlad the bad might change that calculation, but till then the USA is essentially the de facto global force dissuading invasion.
The aim should be to bring down the epidemic imo. With that in mind, wouldn't it be a good thing to ensure that people engaged in international travel are early recipients of the vaccine? So no external seeding into the host populations into which they travel.
That would bump me up the list, so perhaps I should agree.
Seriously, Redfield's comment about it needing to be seen to be fair and equitable, not just efficient and effective, is a key point.
On-topic re Dem VP choice, the screen grab in the header from CBS News includes Maggie Hassan, available at 1000 on Betfair if you believe CBS that she is a live contender. That is longer than Barack (not Michelle) Obama, who falls down on the being a woman part. I've not been including her in any of the betting summaries I've posted from time to time.
Elizabeth Warren is interesting. Though it has been said Biden will nominate a "woman of colour", I cannot trace that back to the man himself, who has said it will be a woman. This is not a tip, more a reflection on how opaque this apparently open process remains. My own sense from looking at the betting and reading American coverage from thousands of miles away, is that the first five in the betting remain under active consideration.
Here is a longer, though still not full, list from Betfair.
malmesbury's assertion that the ratio of positives is going up rests on week's data, the latest week, in a period that he himself has dubbed as provisional and therefore not to be used as an argument.
Strip that week out of the numbers and the proportionality trend has fallen and is stable.
Also, given the spike in numbers in the North West has been going up for a while now, if the data were reliable hospital admissions should be seriously rising. essentially the spike started 20 July.
They aren't.
The positives number is up to week 30 - which is at the end of July. We are in August.
The reason that hospital numbers haven't spiked is also explained by the profile of the cases - a much lower number of the very elderly are currently getting COVID. The problem is that this will change when the disease becomes more prevalent.
On-topic re Dem VP choice, the screen grab in the header from CBS News includes Maggie Hassan, available at 1000 on Betfair if you believe CBS that she is a live contender. That is longer than Barack (not Michelle) Obama, who falls down on the being a woman part. I've not been including her in any of the betting summaries I've posted from time to time.
Elizabeth Warren is interesting. Though it has been said Biden will nominate a "woman of colour", I cannot trace that back to the man himself, who has said it will be a woman. This is not a tip, more a reflection on how opaque this apparently open process remains. My own sense from looking at the betting and reading American coverage from thousands of miles away, is that the first five in the betting remain under active consideration.
Here is a longer, though still not full, list from Betfair.
I wonder what proportion of the reduced attendance of hospitals is people who need to go to hospitals not going . . . and what proportion is hypochondriacs deciding they have something better to do.
In the past when I've waited in A&E I've often felt the majority of people there didn't really need to be there.
But it's not just A&E that's running at below capacity, it's everything including oncology.
Indeed, oncology being down is very worrying.
I'm not suggesting that all the decrease is non-worrying, but not all of the decrease is worrying either. Some of the decrease is people being more careful (or less driving or less drunk) and fewer accidents, some of it is fewer hypochondriacs going out . . . but much of it is what should be going on like oncology.
There should be an awareness campaign going on for cancer awareness. I think that's the biggest concern of them all.
It's not just cancer though, there's a whole host of routine procedures that are being put off or going undiagnosed because people don't want to go to hospital. The person with undiagnosed high cholesterol is at risk of a stroke, that's as serious as it gets.
Or even a stomach ulcer that goes untreated too long.
Exactly, cancer is just one of the serious health conditions currently going untreated or undetected because the government has sacrificed all other public health priorities for the virus. It's going to end very badly unless there is a serious rethink of policy.
This would be helped a lot if Covid could be moved to a defined set of hospitals whose mission was to deal with Covid.
It's not just a problem of treatment not being given to the vulnerable, I suspect there's also an issue of them not wanting to go and be treated in a hospital where there's a risk of Covid infection.
As I've said before, I think we need: - An interim health sec so Matt Hancock can deal with Covid - Matt Hancock deals with opening a new network of Covid hospitals - New health sec aims to get the Covid-free NHS up and running again
Who's going to go in these Covid hospitals? Is England now not averaging less than 1 patient in hospital per hospital?
Well, if there really turned out to be no patients, I suppose they'd be turned into Covid immunisation centres or centres of excellence for contagious disease, or eventually returned to the mainstream NHS. But most seem to think we still need the capacity.
And with no patients, they might get the Florence Nightingale award for hygiene.
malmesbury's assertion that the ratio of positives is going up rests on week's data, the latest week, in a period that he himself has dubbed as provisional and therefore not to be used as an argument.
Strip that week out of the numbers and the proportionality trend has fallen and is stable.
Also, given the spike in numbers in the North West has been going up for a while now, if the data were reliable hospital admissions should be seriously rising. essentially the spike started 20 July.
They aren't.
The positives number is up to week 30 - which is at the end of July. We are in August.
The reason that hospital numbers haven't spiked is also explained by the profile of the cases - a much lower number of the very elderly are currently getting COVID. The problem is that this will change when the disease becomes more prevalent.
On-topic re Dem VP choice, the screen grab in the header from CBS News includes Maggie Hassan, available at 1000 on Betfair if you believe CBS that she is a live contender. That is longer than Barack (not Michelle) Obama, who falls down on the being a woman part. I've not been including her in any of the betting summaries I've posted from time to time.
Elizabeth Warren is interesting. Though it has been said Biden will nominate a "woman of colour", I cannot trace that back to the man himself, who has said it will be a woman. This is not a tip, more a reflection on how opaque this apparently open process remains. My own sense from looking at the betting and reading American coverage from thousands of miles away, is that the first five in the betting remain under active consideration.
Here is a longer, though still not full, list from Betfair.
Biden has said he will pick a woman as his Vice Presidential running mate. Has NOT gone beyond that, speculation he will choose VP of color is just that -speculation.
Keep in mind there are MANY competing interest groups here within or closely adjacent to the Democratic Party and/or Biden campaign.
Including politicos in MANY states who might benefit IF one or another of the hopefuls in picked. For example IF that pick created a potential vacancy for US Senator or Governor.
On-topic re Dem VP choice, the screen grab in the header from CBS News includes Maggie Hassan, available at 1000 on Betfair if you believe CBS that she is a live contender. That is longer than Barack (not Michelle) Obama, who falls down on the being a woman part. I've not been including her in any of the betting
summaries I've posted from time to time.
Elizabeth Warren is interesting. Though it has been said Biden will nominate a "woman of colour", I cannot trace that back to the man himself, who has said it will be a woman. This is not a tip, more a reflection on how opaque this apparently open process remains. My own sense from looking at the betting and reading American coverage from thousands of miles away, is that the first five in the betting remain under active consideration.
Here is a longer, though still not full, list from Betfair.
On-topic re Dem VP choice, the screen grab in the header from CBS News includes Maggie Hassan, available at 1000 on Betfair if you believe CBS that she is a live contender. That is longer than Barack (not Michelle) Obama, who falls down on the being a woman part. I've not been including her in any of the betting summaries I've posted from time to time.
Elizabeth Warren is interesting. Though it has been said Biden will nominate a "woman of colour", I cannot trace that back to the man himself, who has said it will be a woman. This is not a tip, more a reflection on how opaque this apparently open process remains. My own sense from looking at the betting and reading American coverage from thousands of miles away, is that the first five in the betting remain under active consideration.
Here is a longer, though still not full, list from Betfair.
Biden has said he will pick a woman as his Vice Presidential running mate. Has NOT gone beyond that, speculation he will choose VP of color is just that -speculation.
Keep in mind there are MANY competing interest groups here within or closely adjacent to the Democratic Party and/or Biden campaign.
Including politicos in MANY states who might benefit IF one or another of the hopefuls in picked. For example IF that pick created a potential vacancy for US Senator or Governor.
You can see why there is such a fight. Whoever wins is the de facto President from day one, and probably the actual president shortly after that.
Seeing some of the clips of Biden, it really is very sad.
The aim should be to bring down the epidemic imo. With that in mind, wouldn't it be a good thing to ensure that people engaged in international travel are early recipients of the vaccine? So no external seeding into the host populations into which they travel.
That would bump me up the list, so perhaps I should agree.
Seriously, Redfield's comment about it needing to be seen to be fair and equitable, not just efficient and effective, is a key point.
Sorry to differ with you about that. It is easy to agree on the words "fair and equitable" but also easy to dispute any particular notion of what that entails in practice. I think the sole aim is to control the epidemic, both the severity and the spread. A corollary could be that if it threatens to rage in poor countries with deficient health systems, then they should perhaps be prioritised.
We are. But some other countries are worse (or am I being racist by saying that?)
So if we hadn't let the foreigners in, we'd be even less racist?
I'll get my coat.
That's certainly how it's worked for Scotland. 92% white British, 92% more likely to be pictured holding a #RefugeesWelcome sign and making snide comments about English bigotry.
malmesbury's assertion that the ratio of positives is going up rests on week's data, the latest week, in a period that he himself has dubbed as provisional and therefore not to be used as an argument.
Strip that week out of the numbers and the proportionality trend has fallen and is stable.
Also, given the spike in numbers in the North West has been going up for a while now, if the data were reliable hospital admissions should be seriously rising. essentially the spike started 20 July.
They aren't.
The positives number is up to week 30 - which is at the end of July. We are in August.
The reason that hospital numbers haven't spiked is also explained by the profile of the cases - a much lower number of the very elderly are currently getting COVID. The problem is that this will change when the disease becomes more prevalent.
The lad's hit the ground running. I'm sure extolling the important legislative role played by *checks notes* Evgeny Lebedev, Claire Fox, Kate Hoey, Digby Jones, Zac Goldsmith and BJ's less famous brother will be a real vote winner.
On-topic re Dem VP choice, the screen grab in the header from CBS News includes Maggie Hassan, available at 1000 on Betfair if you believe CBS that she is a live contender. That is longer than Barack (not Michelle) Obama, who falls down on the being a woman part. I've not been including her in any of the betting
summaries I've posted from time to time.
Elizabeth Warren is interesting. Though it has been said Biden will nominate a "woman of colour", I cannot trace that back to the man himself, who has said it will be a woman. This is not a tip, more a reflection on how opaque this apparently open process remains. My own sense from looking at the betting and reading American coverage from thousands of miles away, is that the first five in the betting remain under active consideration.
Here is a longer, though still not full, list from Betfair.
Claiming US VP selection "open" is political window dressing for a process that by its very nature is limited to a VERY small number of people - ultimately one - who are truly "in the know".
This is true even when decision is to throw the nomination to the national party convention - which Adlai Stevenson did in 1956 - because even THAT decision is made by just one: the presidential nomineee.
Essentially the whole VP "race" is a concept conceived, nurtured and (mostly) perpetuated by media. Primarily to see papers, clicks, etc, but also as response to the rise of President of the United States as Leader of the Free World and now only superpower.
Trending away since 2015, when the majority was only 1026. What has happened there?
I honestly don’t know! As I have demonstrated I thought it was marginal.
I would guess, but I could be completely wrong, that it’s where most of the Royal Navy have their shore homes, and that Corbyn’s pacifism didn’t play too well. Labour’s vote went down in Plymouth Sutton and Devonport as well, although not as catastrophically.
Labour’s vote absolutely cratered in Taunton Deane as well, and was down in Bath. Equally, however, it rose in Portsmouth South.
Well I think you would hope Labour might recover some then, with a leader who is not Corbyn.
I do think in these very marginal Brexit-voting seats, Corbyn was the factor that sealed the deal for many voters.
I would expect Starmer will win some back just by not being Corbyn.
Only when he convinces them Labour is no longer Labour. Thier brand is buggered. He needs to oversee a rebrand. New Labour, if you will.
I'm sure all its activists can get behind that idea.
If he rebrands as New Labour, he's completely buggered. The Left will explode and the Right will mock.
Something like Ordinary Labour would serve better, especially given the collection of weirdos he's going to be up against.
malmesbury's assertion that the ratio of positives is going up rests on week's data, the latest week, in a period that he himself has dubbed as provisional and therefore not to be used as an argument.
Strip that week out of the numbers and the proportionality trend has fallen and is stable.
Also, given the spike in numbers in the North West has been going up for a while now, if the data were reliable hospital admissions should be seriously rising. essentially the spike started 20 July.
They aren't.
The positives number is up to week 30 - which is at the end of July. We are in August.
The reason that hospital numbers haven't spiked is also explained by the profile of the cases - a much lower number of the very elderly are currently getting COVID. The problem is that this will change when the disease becomes more prevalent.
"Don't go and hug your grandparents after you've been boozing it up down the pub/gym/bowling alley" would have a pretty effective outcome. And be no different from the situation anyway.
The lad's hit the ground running. I'm sure extolling the important legislative role played by *checks notes* Evgeny Lebedev, Claire Fox, Kate Hoey, Digby Jones, Zac Goldsmith and BJ's less famous brother will be a real vote winner.
The lad's hit the ground running. I'm sure extolling the important legislative role played by *checks notes* Evgeny Lebedev, Claire Fox, Kate Hoey, Digby Jones, Zac Goldsmith and BJ's less famous brother will be a real vote winner.
He was on GMS this morning , a complete powderpuff, just another bag of wind whose only answers were SNPBAD. He did not like getting reminded of his one wish answer re "rid Scotland of gypsies
On-topic re Dem VP choice, the screen grab in the header from CBS News includes Maggie Hassan, available at 1000 on Betfair if you believe CBS that she is a live contender. That is longer than Barack (not Michelle) Obama, who falls down on the being a woman part. I've not been including her in any of the betting
summaries I've posted from time to time.
Elizabeth Warren is interesting. Though it has been said Biden will nominate a "woman of colour", I cannot trace that back to the man himself, who has said it will be a woman. This is not a tip, more a reflection on how opaque this apparently open process remains. My own sense from looking at the betting and reading American coverage from thousands of miles away, is that the first five in the betting remain under active consideration.
Here is a longer, though still not full, list from Betfair.
Missed this -- Tammy Baldwin backed off the boards and now even money on Betfair!!
I wonder if someone got Tammy Baldwin mixed up with Duckworth.
ETA since Baldwin is still at three-figure prices with the books, I'm inclined to think someone (or someone's bot) has ballsed up badly on Betfair.
Sorry, this is a nonsense. Tammy Baldwin's low match price was 30.
A few hours ago, Tammy Baldwin was available at 940. Now 2. Someone has taken everything. In the absence of any news, and since Duckworth has also been backed, my guess is someone mixed them up.
Trending away since 2015, when the majority was only 1026. What has happened there?
I honestly don’t know! As I have demonstrated I thought it was marginal.
I would guess, but I could be completely wrong, that it’s where most of the Royal Navy have their shore homes, and that Corbyn’s pacifism didn’t play too well. Labour’s vote went down in Plymouth Sutton and Devonport as well, although not as catastrophically.
Labour’s vote absolutely cratered in Taunton Deane as well, and was down in Bath. Equally, however, it rose in Portsmouth South.
Well I think you would hope Labour might recover some then, with a leader who is not Corbyn.
I do think in these very marginal Brexit-voting seats, Corbyn was the factor that sealed the deal for many voters.
I would expect Starmer will win some back just by not being Corbyn.
Only when he convinces them Labour is no longer Labour. Thier brand is buggered. He needs to oversee a rebrand. New Labour, if you will.
I'm sure all its activists can get behind that idea.
If he rebrands as New Labour, he's completely buggered. The Left will explode and the Right will mock.
Something like Ordinary Labour would serve better, especially given the collection of weirdos he's going to be up against.
Classic Labour? Diet Labour? Labour Zero?
Real Labour. Continuity Labour. Keepin' It Real Labour.
malmesbury's assertion that the ratio of positives is going up rests on week's data, the latest week, in a period that he himself has dubbed as provisional and therefore not to be used as an argument.
Strip that week out of the numbers and the proportionality trend has fallen and is stable.
Also, given the spike in numbers in the North West has been going up for a while now, if the data were reliable hospital admissions should be seriously rising. essentially the spike started 20 July.
They aren't.
The positives number is up to week 30 - which is at the end of July. We are in August.
The reason that hospital numbers haven't spiked is also explained by the profile of the cases - a much lower number of the very elderly are currently getting COVID. The problem is that this will change when the disease becomes more prevalent.
Trending away since 2015, when the majority was only 1026. What has happened there?
I honestly don’t know! As I have demonstrated I thought it was marginal.
I would guess, but I could be completely wrong, that it’s where most of the Royal Navy have their shore homes, and that Corbyn’s pacifism didn’t play too well. Labour’s vote went down in Plymouth Sutton and Devonport as well, although not as catastrophically.
Labour’s vote absolutely cratered in Taunton Deane as well, and was down in Bath. Equally, however, it rose in Portsmouth South.
Well I think you would hope Labour might recover some then, with a leader who is not Corbyn.
I do think in these very marginal Brexit-voting seats, Corbyn was the factor that sealed the deal for many voters.
I would expect Starmer will win some back just by not being Corbyn.
Only when he convinces them Labour is no longer Labour. Thier brand is buggered. He needs to oversee a rebrand. New Labour, if you will.
I'm sure all its activists can get behind that idea.
If he rebrands as New Labour, he's completely buggered. The Left will explode and the Right will mock.
Something like Ordinary Labour would serve better, especially given the collection of weirdos he's going to be up against.
The lad's hit the ground running. I'm sure extolling the important legislative role played by *checks notes* Evgeny Lebedev, Claire Fox, Kate Hoey, Digby Jones, Zac Goldsmith and BJ's less famous brother will be a real vote winner.
Trending away since 2015, when the majority was only 1026. What has happened there?
I honestly don’t know! As I have demonstrated I thought it was marginal.
I would guess, but I could be completely wrong, that it’s where most of the Royal Navy have their shore homes, and that Corbyn’s pacifism didn’t play too well. Labour’s vote went down in Plymouth Sutton and Devonport as well, although not as catastrophically.
Labour’s vote absolutely cratered in Taunton Deane as well, and was down in Bath. Equally, however, it rose in Portsmouth South.
Well I think you would hope Labour might recover some then, with a leader who is not Corbyn.
I do think in these very marginal Brexit-voting seats, Corbyn was the factor that sealed the deal for many voters.
I would expect Starmer will win some back just by not being Corbyn.
Only when he convinces them Labour is no longer Labour. Thier brand is buggered. He needs to oversee a rebrand. New Labour, if you will.
I'm sure all its activists can get behind that idea.
If he rebrands as New Labour, he's completely buggered. The Left will explode and the Right will mock.
Something like Ordinary Labour would serve better, especially given the collection of weirdos he's going to be up against.
Classic Labour? Diet Labour? Labour Zero?
I'd have thought 'Old Labour' would hit the sweet spot.
Trending away since 2015, when the majority was only 1026. What has happened there?
I honestly don’t know! As I have demonstrated I thought it was marginal.
I would guess, but I could be completely wrong, that it’s where most of the Royal Navy have their shore homes, and that Corbyn’s pacifism didn’t play too well. Labour’s vote went down in Plymouth Sutton and Devonport as well, although not as catastrophically.
Labour’s vote absolutely cratered in Taunton Deane as well, and was down in Bath. Equally, however, it rose in Portsmouth South.
Plymouth Sutton & Devonport was a Labour gain in 2017 and retained in 2019. Plymouth Moor View was Labour-held until 2015 when Mercer won it as a surprise Tory gain. The 2019 Tory majority there might well flatter the Tories - we simply do not know big a swingback is likely as the Corbyn and Brexit factors disappear. Labour has now clearly established itself as the obvious anti-Tory option in Portsmouth South after winning the seat from third place in 2017. Pre-2015 it had been a LibDem seat with many Labour voters supporting them tactically - and doubtless some continued to do so in 2017. Rather the reverse of Brecon & Radnor!
Trending away since 2015, when the majority was only 1026. What has happened there?
I honestly don’t know! As I have demonstrated I thought it was marginal.
I would guess, but I could be completely wrong, that it’s where most of the Royal Navy have their shore homes, and that Corbyn’s pacifism didn’t play too well. Labour’s vote went down in Plymouth Sutton and Devonport as well, although not as catastrophically.
Labour’s vote absolutely cratered in Taunton Deane as well, and was down in Bath. Equally, however, it rose in Portsmouth South.
Well I think you would hope Labour might recover some then, with a leader who is not Corbyn.
I do think in these very marginal Brexit-voting seats, Corbyn was the factor that sealed the deal for many voters.
I would expect Starmer will win some back just by not being Corbyn.
Only when he convinces them Labour is no longer Labour. Thier brand is buggered. He needs to oversee a rebrand. New Labour, if you will.
I'm sure all its activists can get behind that idea.
If he rebrands as New Labour, he's completely buggered. The Left will explode and the Right will mock.
Something like Ordinary Labour would serve better, especially given the collection of weirdos he's going to be up against.
Classic Labour? Diet Labour? Labour Zero?
I'd have thought 'Old Labour' would hit the sweet spot.
Ye Olde Labour. Tolpuddle Martyrs sold separately.
Trending away since 2015, when the majority was only 1026. What has happened there?
I honestly don’t know! As I have demonstrated I thought it was marginal.
I would guess, but I could be completely wrong, that it’s where most of the Royal Navy have their shore homes, and that Corbyn’s pacifism didn’t play too well. Labour’s vote went down in Plymouth Sutton and Devonport as well, although not as catastrophically.
Labour’s vote absolutely cratered in Taunton Deane as well, and was down in Bath. Equally, however, it rose in Portsmouth South.
Well I think you would hope Labour might recover some then, with a leader who is not Corbyn.
I do think in these very marginal Brexit-voting seats, Corbyn was the factor that sealed the deal for many voters.
I would expect Starmer will win some back just by not being Corbyn.
Only when he convinces them Labour is no longer Labour. Thier brand is buggered. He needs to oversee a rebrand. New Labour, if you will.
I'm sure all its activists can get behind that idea.
I've become increasingly convinced that the brand is as you say buggered. Plenty of signs of that here on Teesside where the party name literally repels voters of the kind who would have voted for Blair in their droves. Its not just Corbyn its all the people associated with Corbyn and the anti-aspiration vibe. I don't think SKS can convincingly pull off a pro-prosperity vibe and even if he gives a decent impression of doing so there will be a significant chunk of the party ready to attack people for not having been 100% loyal.
The lad's hit the ground running. I'm sure extolling the important legislative role played by *checks notes* Evgeny Lebedev, Claire Fox, Kate Hoey, Digby Jones, Zac Goldsmith and BJ's less famous brother will be a real vote winner.
Comments
https://www.270towin.com/content/split-electoral-votes-maine-and-nebraska/
https://unherd.com/2020/08/its-time-the-tories-got-tough-on-landlords/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3
Once my wife was very pregnant, she fell over on black ice hitting her stomach and couldn't feel the baby kick afterwards. We called her midwife and were told to go immediately to A&E. We were asked questions on arrival including could she feel the baby kick ("No") and we then sat there for just under 4 hours. When the doctor finally came to speak to us the triage nurse had incorrectly written yes to the baby kicking on the notes. Eventually got taken through and they found a fetal heartbeat.
About two years later as a toddler our daughter fell down the stairs tumbling from the top to the bottom of the stairs. We took her immediately to A&E, were advised to go straight to a children's unit and were seen immediately by a paediatrician. She was OK.
Third time our daughter while climbing on the couch jumped off it and hit her head which immediately swelled up. Called 111 and told to go to A&E because it was a head injury. Waited about six hours, she got a check up and was OK.
Finally our second daughter accidentally dislocated her hand/wrist. Took her to A&E, waited about five hours. Doctor "popped" it back in and she was OK.
I've had colleagues in the past who'd go in fortnightly to monthly it seemed.
I would guess, but I could be completely wrong, that it’s where most of the Royal Navy have their shore homes, and that Corbyn’s pacifism didn’t play too well. Labour’s vote went down in Plymouth Sutton and Devonport as well, although not as catastrophically.
Labour’s vote absolutely cratered in Taunton Deane as well, and was down in Bath. Equally, however, it rose in Portsmouth South.
In the UK we’ve had more pain but spread more evenly over time and across the country, which hasn’t made the same imprint on our psychology.
I do think in these very marginal Brexit-voting seats, Corbyn was the factor that sealed the deal for many voters.
I would expect Starmer will win some back just by not being Corbyn.
One of those ones where the LD destruction in 2015 has made it safe Tory.
But as I said my thinking doesn't just extend to how often I have been to A&E personally, but knowing how often some other people do go. One particular hypochondriac I used to work with seemed to go every other week to monthly, which seemed to coincide with when she was hungover.
DW Sports chain collapse threatens 1,700 jobs
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53635211
https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps
They show excess deaths weekly over the last 5 years, presenting breakdowns by country and age using a "Z-score" (they explain), and they disaggregate the UK into component nations. It is quite remarkable how much the European countries differ, and regrettably England is the second worst performer. Spain is the worst. Some countries hardly show a blip of any kind, even for their older cohorts.
I was told, to my astonishment, that the correct course of action for any chest pain was to dial 999.
I persuaded the receptionist that it was not necessary to do that, and the doctor confirmed it was heartburn which cleared up with prescription drugs in a week.
Think of a healthcare system like you think of a religion, and it becomes infallible.
Its one thing to lose a job,though, but what will really turn people against the government is when they discover the chances of getting another one are close to zero.
https://twitter.com/mynnoj/status/1289630694830989312?s=20
The interesting thing is the unionist UK led civil service have not been able to provide their documentation in 4 months and are trying to delay yet again. Someone trying to keep their job a bit longer perhaps or the shredders being repaired.
Lol Goodwin's been found out
Oh sorry, you mean Paul Hutcheon not ALex Salmond.
Simply the issue of "Where is the data for x" can tell you a lot - asking for it hard enough can trigger changes throughout a system.
I suspect we'll be hearing rather less about alarm clock Britain getting up while next door's blinds are still drawn as they sleep in on benefits.
It's not just a problem of treatment not being given to the vulnerable, I suspect there's also an issue of them not wanting to go and be treated in a hospital where there's a risk of Covid infection.
As I've said before, I think we need:
- An interim health sec so Matt Hancock can deal with Covid
- Matt Hancock deals with opening a new network of Covid hospitals
- New health sec aims to get the Covid-free NHS up and running again
Time to get some perspective on wild plans for more coming lockdowns?
And nobody was dying when the virus first boomed.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1290220473490571264?s=20
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1290227999770632195?s=20
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1290228005420163072?s=20
We have the following facts. NOTE : all data for the last 3-5 days is provisional. Anyone attempting to prove their point with data from that period will be subjected to the collected speeches of Donald Trump for the rest of their life.
1) Cases are rising
2) This is not due to just testing more. In fact the ratio of positives is going up for Pillar 2 (community testing)
3) Hospital fatalities are going down for the moment
4) As are the all settings numbers
5) The reason that the hospital numbers are going down while infections are rising is that the age profile has changed - for the moment
6) In a number of places, such as Florida, it has been shown that the virus spreads rapidly among the young, then pivots into the elderly and vulnerable groups.
All of the above means that containing the virus early is the way to prevent it getting into the vulnerable groups in a big way, again.
That's been said many times since Super Saturday and look where we are, weeks later.
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2020/08/02/debate-begins-for-whos-first-in-line-for-covid-19-vaccine/24579884/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9uZXdzLmdvb2dsZS5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKJOVBd2O6q_cgnekFH8ZaxvRz37F5qo4sMmKD8-GzWCFB3mffnT8lYErbK9ajMym3Z-6UZF4p0TVjJl8pWaSGQLeU4Ej8vxo1O4zyrSfu3DtasEOCcDSUO5i0NkbhTa9IL2xtNNQQONDiaFfrbXYB9Rytss_nt024iacnP63kRN
Thousands of people with other illnesses are not being treated.
GP Surgeries have got to open up and not just put people off or tell people to go and see their Pharmacist.
In all seriousness, though, the time lag between new infections and deaths makes it dodgy to use the latter as a benchmark guide to the current pandemic situation.
Edit: and it's quite possible for deaths to be going down and new infections to go up at the same time.
Edsit 2: and see Malmesbury's excellent post a few moments ago.
Edit: 14 Sept.
I'm sure all its activists can get behind that idea.
I'll get my coat.
Something like Ordinary Labour would serve better, especially given the collection of weirdos he's going to be up against.
Strip that week out of the numbers and the proportionality trend has fallen and is stable.
Also, given the spike in numbers in the North West has been going up for a while now, if the data were reliable hospital admissions should be seriously rising. essentially the spike started 20 July.
They aren't.
The reason that hospital numbers haven't spiked is also explained by the profile of the cases - a much lower number of the very elderly are currently getting COVID. The problem is that this will change when the disease becomes more prevalent.
The assumption that immigrants are always wonderful is, to me, a strange idea. People are quite generally.... people.
Seriously, Redfield's comment about it needing to be seen to be fair and equitable, not just efficient and effective, is a key point.
Kamala Harris: 1.93
Susan Rice: 6
Tammy Duckworth: 9.4
Karen Bass: 11.5
Elizabeth Warren: 19
Michelle Obama: 29
Val Demings: 29
Gretchen Whitmer: 34
Hillary Clinton: 100
Michelle Lujan Grisham: 120
Keisha Lance Bottoms: 160
Stacey Abrams: 200
Barack Obama: 300
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8588249/This-NOT-second-wave-Mini-Covid-19-outbreaks-UK-just-ripples-epidemic.html?ito=push-notification&ci=26285&si=13855726
And with no patients, they might get the Florence Nightingale award for hygiene.
Keep in mind there are MANY competing interest groups here within or closely adjacent to the Democratic Party and/or Biden campaign.
Including politicos in MANY states who might benefit IF one or another of the hopefuls in picked. For example IF that pick created a potential vacancy for US Senator or Governor.
ETA since Baldwin is still at three-figure prices with the books, I'm inclined to think someone (or someone's bot) has ballsed up badly on Betfair.
Seeing some of the clips of Biden, it really is very sad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmInkxbvlCs
https://twitter.com/mark_mclaughlin/status/1290293547250270209?s=20
This is true even when decision is to throw the nomination to the national party convention - which Adlai Stevenson did in 1956 - because even THAT decision is made by just one: the presidential nomineee.
Essentially the whole VP "race" is a concept conceived, nurtured and (mostly) perpetuated by media. Primarily to see papers, clicks, etc, but also as response to the rise of President of the United States as Leader of the Free World and now only superpower.
Labour has now clearly established itself as the obvious anti-Tory option in Portsmouth South after winning the seat from third place in 2017. Pre-2015 it had been a LibDem seat with many Labour voters supporting them tactically - and doubtless some continued to do so in 2017. Rather the reverse of Brecon & Radnor!
NEW THREAD