Don't supporters of The Jeremy see the irony. Traitor Blairites disasterously gain 30 seats. They get ousted and replaced by True Socialists loyal to the Twice Elected Leader who lose 60 seats.
That rather begs the question though. If anti-Corbyn machinations cost Labour 15 seats in 2017, the party would have ended up on 275 - 280 seats - enough to oust Theresa May and form a minority Government.
All those Muslims in Preston going to the pub caused the latest lockdown.
'Mixing in pubs' led to Preston's rise in coronavirus cases
People mixing with other households in pubs, as well as in their homes, has led to a need for increased coronavirus restrictions in Preston, the area’s director of public health has said.
Speaking at a media briefing after the announcement the city had been designated an “area of intervention” on Friday, director of Public Health for Lancashire Sakthi Karunanithi said almost half of the cases reported were among people aged 30 and younger.
A spike in cases in the city was affecting people from south Asian and white ethnic backgrounds – particularly those living in poor socio-economic conditions, he said.
He said:
I want to pay extra attention to indoor spaces, particularly pubs, where high numbers of people are mixing between households.
That’s a worrying pattern that we really must avoid.
1. Poor families in crap housing 2. Dipstick behaviour in pubs
Can't do much about 1. but use restrictions and wait for the cases to drop. Example of restriction: shut the pubs. Sturgeon probably acted correctly over Aberdeen.
1. Spend months telling everyone that young people are immune. 2. Wonder why they believe you.
I can only read the first line of that report, because paywall, but even from that I can tell it's bollocks. 96% of the population is categorically not "wearing one to leave the house." Wearing one around the shops, maybe. But not everywhere - although I wouldn't put it past this rotten Government to try to force their use outdoors at some point in the not-too-distant future.
Question: “In the past seven days, have you used a face covering when outside your home to slow the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19)?”
Well by that criteria I would answer yes because I went to tesco's put on a mask then took it off again when I realised it wasn't being enforced and just over a third hadn't bothered at all and a good number of those that had a mask on it was dangling round their neck
If a third hadn't bothered at all how would you get to 96%?
Maybe they did what I did and just put the mask back in their pocket. As to 96% frankl;y don't believe it for a moment. The sampling or something is obvioously flawed. Maybe it could be as simple as those more minded to wear a mask are also the type of folk to fill in ons surveys
I mean this is an ONS survey, not some voodoo poll in a newspaper.
And as many have also commented it is not anything like that where they live. Nor does the question "in the last 7 days" imply they do it as a normal course of things. I can easily imagine someone wears a mask to visit the doctors but doesn't bother for shops. I only have to walk round Tesco's to see that usage isnt even close to 96% and would be lucky to hit 70%
I can only read the first line of that report, because paywall, but even from that I can tell it's bollocks. 96% of the population is categorically not "wearing one to leave the house." Wearing one around the shops, maybe. But not everywhere - although I wouldn't put it past this rotten Government to try to force their use outdoors at some point in the not-too-distant future.
Question: “In the past seven days, have you used a face covering when outside your home to slow the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19)?”
Well by that criteria I would answer yes because I went to tesco's put on a mask then took it off again when I realised it wasn't being enforced and just over a third hadn't bothered at all and a good number of those that had a mask on it was dangling round their neck
If a third hadn't bothered at all how would you get to 96%?
Maybe they did what I did and just put the mask back in their pocket. As to 96% frankl;y don't believe it for a moment. The sampling or something is obvioously flawed. Maybe it could be as simple as those more minded to wear a mask are also the type of folk to fill in ons surveys
I mean this is an ONS survey, not some voodoo poll in a newspaper.
And as many have also commented it is not anything like that where they live. Nor does the question "in the last 7 days" imply they do it as a normal course of things. I can easily imagine someone wears a mask to visit the doctors but doesn't bother for shops. I only have to walk round Tesco's to see that usage isnt even close to 96% and would be lucky to hit 70%
Gee, isn't it surprising that someone so against wearing face masks finds that adherence is much lower than the ONS figures suggest?
I can only read the first line of that report, because paywall, but even from that I can tell it's bollocks. 96% of the population is categorically not "wearing one to leave the house." Wearing one around the shops, maybe. But not everywhere - although I wouldn't put it past this rotten Government to try to force their use outdoors at some point in the not-too-distant future.
Question: “In the past seven days, have you used a face covering when outside your home to slow the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19)?”
Well by that criteria I would answer yes because I went to tesco's put on a mask then took it off again when I realised it wasn't being enforced and just over a third hadn't bothered at all and a good number of those that had a mask on it was dangling round their neck
If a third hadn't bothered at all how would you get to 96%?
Maybe they did what I did and just put the mask back in their pocket. As to 96% frankl;y don't believe it for a moment. The sampling or something is obvioously flawed. Maybe it could be as simple as those more minded to wear a mask are also the type of folk to fill in ons surveys
I mean this is an ONS survey, not some voodoo poll in a newspaper.
And as many have also commented it is not anything like that where they live. Nor does the question "in the last 7 days" imply they do it as a normal course of things. I can easily imagine someone wears a mask to visit the doctors but doesn't bother for shops. I only have to walk round Tesco's to see that usage isnt even close to 96% and would be lucky to hit 70%
Gee, isn't it surprising that someone so against wearing face masks finds that adherence is much lower than the ONS figures suggest?
Just reporting what I am seeing and others who aren't anti mask like Stodge have said its not 96% where they are. So not just me. Again I repeat worn sometimes in the last 7 days does not apply adherence. I would count as yes on those stats but you wouldn't claim I am adhering to it.
Don't supporters of The Jeremy see the irony. Traitor Blairites disasterously gain 30 seats. They get ousted and replaced by True Socialists loyal to the Twice Elected Leader who lose 60 seats.
That rather begs the question though. If anti-Corbyn machinations cost Labour 15 seats in 2017, the party would have ended up on 275 - 280 seats - enough to oust Theresa May and form a minority Government.
How do anti-Corbyn machinations simultaneously gain 30 seats but traitorously spike the campaign in these other seats not won?
The Tories stayed in power in 2017 because unpopular Teresa May added 20% more votes on top of Cameron's haul in 2015. Crap efficiency from far more votes lost them seats - but it was far more votes. Corbynite loons always bang on about national vote tallies instead of seats to show how popular he was vs PM Blair, yet are silent on how The Jeremy drove 2.3m people to vote for May when they didn't vote for Cameron
I can only read the first line of that report, because paywall, but even from that I can tell it's bollocks. 96% of the population is categorically not "wearing one to leave the house." Wearing one around the shops, maybe. But not everywhere - although I wouldn't put it past this rotten Government to try to force their use outdoors at some point in the not-too-distant future.
Question: “In the past seven days, have you used a face covering when outside your home to slow the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19)?”
Well by that criteria I would answer yes because I went to tesco's put on a mask then took it off again when I realised it wasn't being enforced and just over a third hadn't bothered at all and a good number of those that had a mask on it was dangling round their neck
More fool you it’s not a fashion statement it’s a legal requirement and common sense.
Since they will not be allowing appeals, I do hope if this is true they are ready to be sued.
It was a bad system, run by incompetent and lazy people, moderated by a useless and inappropriate algorithm rather than any evidence, and based on the overwhelming arrogance of the powers that be.
They buggered up exam reform, they buggered up this.
Their sole job is to maintain public confidence in exams. Time for them all to be sacked and the money put towards something useful.
I wonder how much of that is an artefact of overpredicting for the sake of motivation?
None. They’ve said they don’t actually care about predicted grades, they’re going by past performance. Which on its own is pretty serious as that’s the opposite of what they said before. No wonder they were so anxious that nobody discuss predicted grades if they had already decided on the basis of an invalid algorithm!
But even on their own terms this is a failure - you can’t go by past performance, because the exams are too new. The GCSE History grades, for example, can only be compared to last year. Well, trying to draw meaningful comparisons from one dataset is ridiculous. But it’s worse, because they say they’re using three years’ data, in which case they’ll not only be using the deeply flawed first year of the new GCSEs, but the *old* GCSEs as well - which were totally different.
Anyone who uses algorithms in this way is so utterly thick they should be locked up. And I mean that seriously. Even Donald Trump would blush at this level of incompetence.
And what’s worse is, they’ll blame teachers, when it’s their fault for being useless, dishonest, lazy, thick, incompetent and dangerous.
They will get sued, and they will lose, and probably lose all their money which might be funny.
But it won’t cure the terrible damage they’re doing if this story is true, or alter the fact that from now on it’s clear we can’t have any confidence in the exam system because the people running it couldn’t find their genitals if standing naked in front of a full length mirror.
I can only read the first line of that report, because paywall, but even from that I can tell it's bollocks. 96% of the population is categorically not "wearing one to leave the house." Wearing one around the shops, maybe. But not everywhere - although I wouldn't put it past this rotten Government to try to force their use outdoors at some point in the not-too-distant future.
Question: “In the past seven days, have you used a face covering when outside your home to slow the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19)?”
Well by that criteria I would answer yes because I went to tesco's put on a mask then took it off again when I realised it wasn't being enforced and just over a third hadn't bothered at all and a good number of those that had a mask on it was dangling round their neck
More fool you it’s not a fashion statement it’s a legal requirement and common sense.
Would you care to explain why I am suddenly more at risk going to exactly the same shops as I have visited since lockdown started in March? The simple answer is I am not in any more danger of catching it now than I was then. Frankly its pure theatre to justify reopening things like pubs before its safe to do so.
I can only read the first line of that report, because paywall, but even from that I can tell it's bollocks. 96% of the population is categorically not "wearing one to leave the house." Wearing one around the shops, maybe. But not everywhere - although I wouldn't put it past this rotten Government to try to force their use outdoors at some point in the not-too-distant future.
Question: “In the past seven days, have you used a face covering when outside your home to slow the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19)?”
Well by that criteria I would answer yes because I went to tesco's put on a mask then took it off again when I realised it wasn't being enforced and just over a third hadn't bothered at all and a good number of those that had a mask on it was dangling round their neck
If a third hadn't bothered at all how would you get to 96%?
Maybe they did what I did and just put the mask back in their pocket. As to 96% frankl;y don't believe it for a moment. The sampling or something is obvioously flawed. Maybe it could be as simple as those more minded to wear a mask are also the type of folk to fill in ons surveys
I believe it round here, in supermarket and barber where I was today. The local co op too.
I really don't get the anti-maskers. Yes, masks only reduce the risk of transmission downwards by a bit over 50%, but that is the difference between an r of 1.5 and 0.75. If people want lockdowns to end, wearing masks is a pretty modest price.
I think nearly all spread is by aerosol in an indoor environment. There seem very few cases associated with fomites (contaminated objects). While masks are permeable to fine aerosols, they reduce velocity and thereby area of spread.
Don't supporters of The Jeremy see the irony. Traitor Blairites disasterously gain 30 seats. They get ousted and replaced by True Socialists loyal to the Twice Elected Leader who lose 60 seats.
That rather begs the question though. If anti-Corbyn machinations cost Labour 15 seats in 2017, the party would have ended up on 275 - 280 seats - enough to oust Theresa May and form a minority Government.
That is a fantasy. Do you think that the anti Corbyn SNP and Lib Dems would have supported a radical manifesto?
In any case, in 2017 plenty of candidates prospered by distancing themselves from Corbyn. We discussed here how few had pictures of the leader on their leaflets etc. The individualised, devolved campaigns may have meant more gains than otherwise.
What Corbynites need to consider is whether to continue their snide attacks on Starmer, thereby making a similar difference to your postulate. It could be the difference between a Labour PM and a Tory one at the next GE.
Don't supporters of The Jeremy see the irony. Traitor Blairites disasterously gain 30 seats. They get ousted and replaced by True Socialists loyal to the Twice Elected Leader who lose 60 seats.
That rather begs the question though. If anti-Corbyn machinations cost Labour 15 seats in 2017, the party would have ended up on 275 - 280 seats - enough to oust Theresa May and form a minority Government.
How do anti-Corbyn machinations simultaneously gain 30 seats but traitorously spike the campaign in these other seats not won?
The Tories stayed in power in 2017 because unpopular Teresa May added 20% more votes on top of Cameron's haul in 2015. Crap efficiency from far more votes lost them seats - but it was far more votes. Corbynite loons always bang on about national vote tallies instead of seats to show how popular he was vs PM Blair, yet are silent on how The Jeremy drove 2.3m people to vote for May when they didn't vote for Cameron
That does not address the serious possibility that better allocation of resources in 2017 might have yielded 45 rather than 30 Labour gains . I was never a Corbynite - but those 15 seats would have proved crucial and pushed the Tories down to 302.
Since they will not be allowing appeals, I do hope if this is true they are ready to be sued.
It was a bad system, run by incompetent and lazy people, moderated by a useless and inappropriate algorithm rather than any evidence, and based on the overwhelming arrogance of the powers that be.
They buggered up exam reform, they buggered up this.
Their sole job is to maintain public confidence in exams. Time for them all to be sacked and the money put towards something useful.
I wonder how much of that is an artefact of overpredicting for the sake of motivation?
None. They’ve said they don’t actually care about predicted grades, they’re going by past performance. Which on its own is pretty serious as that’s the opposite of what they said before. No wonder they were so anxious that nobody discuss predicted grades if they had already decided on the basis of an invalid algorithm!
But even on their own terms this is a failure - you can’t go by past performance, because the exams are too new. The GCSE History grades, for example, can only be compared to last year. Well, trying to draw meaningful comparisons from one dataset is ridiculous. But it’s worse, because they say they’re using three years’ data, in which case they’ll not only be using the deeply flawed first year of the new GCSEs, but the *old* GCSEs as well - which were totally different.
Anyone who uses algorithms in this way is so utterly thick they should be locked up. And I mean that seriously. Even Donald Trump would blush at this level of incompetence.
And what’s worse is, they’ll blame teachers, when it’s their fault for being useless, dishonest, lazy, thick, incompetent and dangerous.
They will get sued, and they will lose, and probably lose all their money which might be funny.
But it won’t cure the terrible damage they’re doing if this story is true, or alter the fact that from now on it’s clear we can’t have any confidence in the exam system because the people running it couldn’t find their genitals if standing naked in front of a full length mirror.
With this leak it seems that the results are going to be discredited and worthless even before students get them. It’s an absolute disaster.
I mean, who is going to take any notice of them now? Nobody. At least with teacher assessment in the mix, small subjects may be okay but that will just screw over larger subject cohorts even more as they become manipulated out of recognition.
Comments
2. Wonder why they believe you.
The Tories stayed in power in 2017 because unpopular Teresa May added 20% more votes on top of Cameron's haul in 2015. Crap efficiency from far more votes lost them seats - but it was far more votes. Corbynite loons always bang on about national vote tallies instead of seats to show how popular he was vs PM Blair, yet are silent on how The Jeremy drove 2.3m people to vote for May when they didn't vote for Cameron
But even on their own terms this is a failure - you can’t go by past performance, because the exams are too new. The GCSE History grades, for example, can only be compared to last year. Well, trying to draw meaningful comparisons from one dataset is ridiculous. But it’s worse, because they say they’re using three years’ data, in which case they’ll not only be using the deeply flawed first year of the new GCSEs, but the *old* GCSEs as well - which were totally different.
Anyone who uses algorithms in this way is so utterly thick they should be locked up. And I mean that seriously. Even Donald Trump would blush at this level of incompetence.
And what’s worse is, they’ll blame teachers, when it’s their fault for being useless, dishonest, lazy, thick, incompetent and dangerous.
They will get sued, and they will lose, and probably lose all their money which might be funny.
But it won’t cure the terrible damage they’re doing if this story is true, or alter the fact that from now on it’s clear we can’t have any confidence in the exam system because the people running it couldn’t find their genitals if standing naked in front of a full length mirror.
Game on
I really don't get the anti-maskers. Yes, masks only reduce the risk of transmission downwards by a bit over 50%, but that is the difference between an r of 1.5 and 0.75. If people want lockdowns to end, wearing masks is a pretty modest price.
I think nearly all spread is by aerosol in an indoor environment. There seem very few cases associated with fomites (contaminated objects). While masks are permeable to fine aerosols, they reduce velocity and thereby area of spread.
In any case, in 2017 plenty of candidates prospered by distancing themselves from Corbyn. We discussed here how few had pictures of the leader on their leaflets etc. The individualised, devolved campaigns may have meant more gains than otherwise.
What Corbynites need to consider is whether to continue their snide attacks on Starmer, thereby making a similar difference to your postulate. It could be the difference between a Labour PM and a Tory one at the next GE.
I mean, who is going to take any notice of them now? Nobody. At least with teacher assessment in the mix, small subjects may be okay but that will just screw over larger subject cohorts even more as they become manipulated out of recognition.