Back to Corona :-) This is something I have been cogitating for the last couple of weeks, and would like the opinion of NigelB or Foxy or anyone else with a better biology background than me.
In the last couple of months we have seen big increases in the number of cases of SARS-COV2 in some countries, but the level of severe illness is much lower than expected, as measured by hospitalisations and deaths. There was speculation in the spring that the virus would not spread as quickly in summer as colds and flu are strongly seasonal. But it seems that the spread of the SARS-COV2 virus has little to do with the season.
Is it at all plausible though, that these seasonal illness viruses still spread at a similar rate but less frequently appears as an illness? It is possible that the human body is under less stress in summer and more stress in winter, due to lots of reasons: not moving from cold to warm environments several times a day, not inhailing air under 10 degrees, generally getting more exercise, sunlight and fresh air etc. If the body or in particular the immune system is under more stress then an onslaught from a virus is more likely to develop into illness.
Is it plausible that catching the virus is just as easy in summer, but this developing into a serious disease is much lower in summer and higher in winter? For most other Rhino/Corona/Flu viruses there is as good as no testing of the prevelance of the virus in the general population, so we do not really appreciate how widley cold viruses are spread in summer, and only if the immune system is under some other kind of stress does this develop into a "summer cold" which are ususally not as heavy as a winter cold.
I'm nowhere near an expert, but can't it be explained by the age profile of those infected being significantly younger, and nothing to do with transmission is summer vs. winter?
The reduction in fatality rate may be caused by the death of what is bleakly called 'dry tinder' in the spring/early summer. Frail, very old, major complications, often in care homes and so on. To be blunt they possibly only had months to live. Obviously not very nice to think in these stark terms, but it may be the medical reality.
Not very accurate though. The actuaries believe that the mean loss of years of Covid-19 victims was 10 years. Certainly my seventy something friend who died in March was otherwise well and could have expected a decade or more with her grandchildren.
Should people on chemo have the flu vaccine and the corona one when it’s available or is it an individual thing?
I really don't know. Probably best to discuss with your oncologist.
Will do just wondered if there was a generalized rule.
The weather's gone from unbearably hot to bloody freezing in the space of a couple of weeks.
I'm not sure where you're writing from, but it's about 15°C here in Herts and in no way could that be described as "freezing." It probably only feels like it because, as you note, we were only recently being roasted to death. Mercifully it looks like that's over for the year.
Should people on chemo have the flu vaccine and the corona one when it’s available or is it an individual thing?
One would've assumed that anyone sick or vulnerable enough to go on the shielding list would be near the front of the queue for vaccines, along with the elderly.
I’m worried about the reduced immunology that can be a side effect of chemo, which might be a problem with a vaccine.
Yes, it depends both on the nature of the vaccine and the nature of the chemo.
@Big_G_NorthWales why do you think crossover is coming, isn't Election Maps just reporting the facts?
Boris is having a shocking period and Williamson still in post is just wrong
Below the tweet by election maps there are suggestion that opinium tonight could show a labour lead but it is only a tweet and we all know that tweets are not facts
Back to Corona :-) This is something I have been cogitating for the last couple of weeks, and would like the opinion of NigelB or Foxy or anyone else with a better biology background than me.
In the last couple of months we have seen big increases in the number of cases of SARS-COV2 in some countries, but the level of severe illness is much lower than expected, as measured by hospitalisations and deaths. There was speculation in the spring that the virus would not spread as quickly in summer as colds and flu are strongly seasonal. But it seems that the spread of the SARS-COV2 virus has little to do with the season.
Is it at all plausible though, that these seasonal illness viruses still spread at a similar rate but less frequently appears as an illness? It is possible that the human body is under less stress in summer and more stress in winter, due to lots of reasons: not moving from cold to warm environments several times a day, not inhailing air under 10 degrees, generally getting more exercise, sunlight and fresh air etc. If the body or in particular the immune system is under more stress then an onslaught from a virus is more likely to develop into illness.
Is it plausible that catching the virus is just as easy in summer, but this developing into a serious disease is much lower in summer and higher in winter? For most other Rhino/Corona/Flu viruses there is as good as no testing of the prevelance of the virus in the general population, so we do not really appreciate how widley cold viruses are spread in summer, and only if the immune system is under some other kind of stress does this develop into a "summer cold" which are ususally not as heavy as a winter cold.
I'm nowhere near an expert, but can't it be explained by the age profile of those infected being significantly younger, and nothing to do with transmission is summer vs. winter?
The reduction in fatality rate may be caused by the death of what is bleakly called 'dry tinder' in the spring/early summer. Frail, very old, major complications, often in care homes and so on. To be blunt they possibly only had months to live. Obviously not very nice to think in these stark terms, but it may be the medical reality.
That is not correct. We discussed awhile ago when covered on 'More or Less' (there I go plugging it again - must sort out the commission).
If for instance you reach 80 your life expectancy is now still quite long even if you have other conditions, which of course most will actually have.
Life expectancy then is about another 10 years and here was the really interesting bit - an obese 80 year old with a heart condition on average will last another 5 years.
Off topic (but thanks to David for another thoughtful article), I see Joe Biden has drifted out to 1.9 on Betfair. I can't see any justification for this in the polls so presumably punters are using their intuition. Nothing wrong with that but the polls cannot be lightly dismissed and Joe's price is starting to look serious value to me.
I accept the Stodge thesis, derived from forensic work on the cross-tables, that Biden appears to be stacking up votes in areas where they don't do him much good (because he will either win or lose heavily there anyway.) What convinces me that Joe should still be solid favorite is that he is still maintaining a strong lead in Philadelphia. Nate Silver's 'snake' is a useful graphic illustration of just how vital that State is to both candidates.
Penn State polls show a pretty consistent Biden lead, currently 4.7 points on the RCP average. I would watch that closely and continue taking the 10/11 JB as long as it stays above 3.
Unless I'm missing some news somewhere....
Dems are 1.85 so that is quite a spread between a Dem win and a Biden win.
Yes, I think the difference is hard to justify. The 1.85 is ok but 1.90 looks distinctly generous.
Also, please don't call me Mr Battery, I've asked you before to call me Horse and it's disrespectful to keep ignoring what I've kindly asked you to do.
Personally, I find I work far better at an office than at home. I get far too easily distracted at home.
Which is why many people want to work at home - so they can do other things while being paid to work.
You are either stupid or just being obtuse, if you are not doing the work you would not last long.
In my experience people who like homeworking tend to be from the poles - either they want to get their work done with maximum efficiency or they want to skive. While the mass in the middle, who are neither shirkers nor super-productive, but will do some work then stare into space or talk with colleagues for ten minutes, then do some more work like the office.
An important point to note is that WFH removes from working life one of its greatest and most damaging sources of negative stress - the need to pretend you are busy in an office when you are not.
That's such a weird one, a consensual lie that even quite senior manager buy into. Pretty sure that some are so addicted to it that their negative feelings towards WFH are based mainly on frustration in not being able to indulge their taste for it. i derive a not insignificant amount of pleasure knowing that the thought of thousands of employees sitting around not looking busy is gnawing at their guts.
A COUPLE forced to work from home has each realised that the other one’s claims to have a punishingly hard job are bullshit.
Clare said: “I’ve kept telling Tom to push for a promotion because the way he talked up work, he should be on six figures. After one day watching him in action I think he should be fired
lol.
A good example of what I was posting about earlier. WFH changes everything.
kinabalu, if you have not already done so, you should read some of Amy Edmondson's works on not just the stress cost, but the cost to the organization in terms of work lost, by people spending much of their time pretending and defending rather than doing and improving.
Ed: She calls it psychological safety in the workplace
I think good employers like mine realise people don't work 100% of the time every day, total output is the key thing, not the time it is done in
But the concept of psychological safety goes well beyond that, CHB - it's the ability to be who you really are and not waste any mental energy on trying to be what you think people think you should be, so concentrating much more of your energy and abilities on doing what you should be doing.
It does increase productivity, but even more importantly in a knowledge economy, innovation and creativity. If that allows you to either spend less time in the workplace, or goof around at work some/much of the time, so much the better.
Also, please don't call me Mr Battery, I've asked you before to call me Horse and it's disrespectful to keep ignoring what I've kindly asked you to do.
Personally, I find I work far better at an office than at home. I get far too easily distracted at home.
Which is why many people want to work at home - so they can do other things while being paid to work.
You are either stupid or just being obtuse, if you are not doing the work you would not last long.
In my experience people who like homeworking tend to be from the poles - either they want to get their work done with maximum efficiency or they want to skive. While the mass in the middle, who are neither shirkers nor super-productive, but will do some work then stare into space or talk with colleagues for ten minutes, then do some more work like the office.
An important point to note is that WFH removes from working life one of its greatest and most damaging sources of negative stress - the need to pretend you are busy in an office when you are not.
That's such a weird one, a consensual lie that even quite senior manager buy into. Pretty sure that some are so addicted to it that their negative feelings towards WFH are based mainly on frustration in not being able to indulge their taste for it. i derive a not insignificant amount of pleasure knowing that the thought of thousands of employees sitting around not looking busy is gnawing at their guts.
A COUPLE forced to work from home has each realised that the other one’s claims to have a punishingly hard job are bullshit.
Clare said: “I’ve kept telling Tom to push for a promotion because the way he talked up work, he should be on six figures. After one day watching him in action I think he should be fired
lol.
A good example of what I was posting about earlier. WFH changes everything.
kinabalu, if you have not already done so, you should read some of Amy Edmondson's works on not just the stress cost, but the cost to the organization in terms of work lost, by people spending much of their time pretending and defending rather than doing and improving.
Ed: She calls it psychological safety in the workplace
I think good employers like mine realise people don't work 100% of the time every day, total output is the key thing, not the time it is done in
But the concept of psychological safety goes well beyond that, CHB - it's the ability to be who you really are and not waste any mental energy on trying to be what you think people think you should be, so concentrating much more of your energy and abilities on doing what you should be doing.
It does increase productivity, but even more importantly in a knowledge economy, innovation and creativity. If that allows you to either spend less time in the workplace, or goof around at work some/much of the time, so much the better.
If you applied that doctrine to Boris Johnson, or politicians in general, I'm not sure the result would be beneficial.
Back to Corona :-) This is something I have been cogitating for the last couple of weeks, and would like the opinion of NigelB or Foxy or anyone else with a better biology background than me.
In the last couple of months we have seen big increases in the number of cases of SARS-COV2 in some countries, but the level of severe illness is much lower than expected, as measured by hospitalisations and deaths. There was speculation in the spring that the virus would not spread as quickly in summer as colds and flu are strongly seasonal. But it seems that the spread of the SARS-COV2 virus has little to do with the season.
Is it at all plausible though, that these seasonal illness viruses still spread at a similar rate but less frequently appears as an illness? It is possible that the human body is under less stress in summer and more stress in winter, due to lots of reasons: not moving from cold to warm environments several times a day, not inhailing air under 10 degrees, generally getting more exercise, sunlight and fresh air etc. If the body or in particular the immune system is under more stress then an onslaught from a virus is more likely to develop into illness.
Is it plausible that catching the virus is just as easy in summer, but this developing into a serious disease is much lower in summer and higher in winter? For most other Rhino/Corona/Flu viruses there is as good as no testing of the prevelance of the virus in the general population, so we do not really appreciate how widley cold viruses are spread in summer, and only if the immune system is under some other kind of stress does this develop into a "summer cold" which are ususally not as heavy as a winter cold.
I'm nowhere near an expert, but can't it be explained by the age profile of those infected being significantly younger, and nothing to do with transmission is summer vs. winter?
The reduction in fatality rate may be caused by the death of what is bleakly called 'dry tinder' in the spring/early summer. Frail, very old, major complications, often in care homes and so on. To be blunt they possibly only had months to live. Obviously not very nice to think in these stark terms, but it may be the medical reality.
That is not correct. We discussed awhile ago when covered on 'More or Less' (there I go plugging it again - must sort out the commission).
If for instance you reach 80 your life expectancy is now still quite long even if you have other conditions, which of course most will actually have.
Life expectancy then is about another 10 years and here was the really interesting bit - an obese 80 year old with a heart condition on average will last another 5 years.
'More or Less' beats anecdotes every time, really good programme.
Also, please don't call me Mr Battery, I've asked you before to call me Horse and it's disrespectful to keep ignoring what I've kindly asked you to do.
If anyone has felt disrespected by my calling them mate I do apologise and if you let me know what you'd prefer to be called, please do so and I will listen.
It's only fair if I wish to be called Horse - as I've explained before Mr makes me feel like you're putting me above yourself and I'm below most of you in knowledge and experience - that I call you by your preferred name.
I can't tell if you're joking or not but - if you're not - since this is obviously not your real name (at least.. I really hope for your sake it isn't) then why does it matter?
I couldn't care less if I'm called Casino, Mr. Royale or any other derivative. It's not my name. It's an internet ID.
I do care if someone personally insults me or swears at me but that's different.
It's the Mr I'd prefer not to be called because to me it's like you're putting me above yourself.
It's like when I go into a shop and they start calling me Mr X, I just don't feel comfortable with it
Fair enough, I quite like it and feel very respected when addressed in that manner. It's a sign of courtesy.
If someone I don't know repeats my name time and time again (yes, I'm talking to you Starbucks and HSBC call centre) then I find it overlyfamiliar and rather irritating.
I totally agree!
Call centre operatives calling me Mr first name also annoys me....
Somewhat crass even at the time, but a friend at Uni's dad had been to the same college. When one of the Porter's addressed the friend as 'mate' he turned around and without irony said, 'He's sir to you, or nothing'. Ouch.
I remember my Mum complaining once that she went through an entire day without being called by her name
“Darling” when she woke up “Mrs Richard” when she went down to breakfast (she had spent the night in the flat above my father’s shop) “Mrs X” (my fathers surname) when she arrived at work “Madam Chairman” by the court staff “Your honour” by the police “You X” by the defendant “mummy” when she got home
Back to Corona :-) This is something I have been cogitating for the last couple of weeks, and would like the opinion of NigelB or Foxy or anyone else with a better biology background than me.
In the last couple of months we have seen big increases in the number of cases of SARS-COV2 in some countries, but the level of severe illness is much lower than expected, as measured by hospitalisations and deaths. There was speculation in the spring that the virus would not spread as quickly in summer as colds and flu are strongly seasonal. But it seems that the spread of the SARS-COV2 virus has little to do with the season.
Is it at all plausible though, that these seasonal illness viruses still spread at a similar rate but less frequently appears as an illness? It is possible that the human body is under less stress in summer and more stress in winter, due to lots of reasons: not moving from cold to warm environments several times a day, not inhailing air under 10 degrees, generally getting more exercise, sunlight and fresh air etc. If the body or in particular the immune system is under more stress then an onslaught from a virus is more likely to develop into illness.
Is it plausible that catching the virus is just as easy in summer, but this developing into a serious disease is much lower in summer and higher in winter? For most other Rhino/Corona/Flu viruses there is as good as no testing of the prevelance of the virus in the general population, so we do not really appreciate how widley cold viruses are spread in summer, and only if the immune system is under some other kind of stress does this develop into a "summer cold" which are ususally not as heavy as a winter cold.
I'm nowhere near an expert, but can't it be explained by the age profile of those infected being significantly younger, and nothing to do with transmission is summer vs. winter?
The reduction in fatality rate may be caused by the death of what is bleakly called 'dry tinder' in the spring/early summer. Frail, very old, major complications, often in care homes and so on. To be blunt they possibly only had months to live. Obviously not very nice to think in these stark terms, but it may be the medical reality.
That is not correct. We discussed awhile ago when covered on 'More or Less' (there I go plugging it again - must sort out the commission).
If for instance you reach 80 your life expectancy is now still quite long even if you have other conditions, which of course most will actually have.
Life expectancy then is about another 10 years and here was the really interesting bit - an obese 80 year old with a heart condition on average will last another 5 years.
That makes sense. There are two components to our ever-aging population - declining fertility rates, and the ever-improving ability of medical science to keep knackered, wheezing old fatties alive.
Fitness and healthy eating isn't really about avoiding dropping down dead of a coronary in middle age (although it's bound to improve your chances of avoiding an unfortunate accident somewhat.) It's about getting into old age whilst still being able to do something other than vegetate in front of daytime TV and trundle back and forth to Morrisons on a mobility scooter (and also, by the way, reducing the likelihood of your becoming yet another decrepit burden for the NHS to carry.) If you want to completely let yourself go then your friendly local GP will pump you full of drugs to keep you from kicking the bucket.
Another problem with assuming a title e.g. Mr Eristdoof, is that you do not know whether Eritstdoof is male or female or even if that thitle is appropriate. For all you know I could be Baroness Eristdoof.
I'm certain Moris_Dancer checks Who's Who before commenting.
I don't think that means crossover is coming and without significant gains in Scotland it is hard to see Labour overtaking the Tories in voteshare across the UK given the Tories have such a big lead in England, even if Labour and the SNP's combined voteshare is already ahead of the Tories in a few polls
Back to Corona :-) This is something I have been cogitating for the last couple of weeks, and would like the opinion of NigelB or Foxy or anyone else with a better biology background than me.
In the last couple of months we have seen big increases in the number of cases of SARS-COV2 in some countries, but the level of severe illness is much lower than expected, as measured by hospitalisations and deaths. There was speculation in the spring that the virus would not spread as quickly in summer as colds and flu are strongly seasonal. But it seems that the spread of the SARS-COV2 virus has little to do with the season.
Is it at all plausible though, that these seasonal illness viruses still spread at a similar rate but less frequently appears as an illness? It is possible that the human body is under less stress in summer and more stress in winter, due to lots of reasons: not moving from cold to warm environments several times a day, not inhailing air under 10 degrees, generally getting more exercise, sunlight and fresh air etc. If the body or in particular the immune system is under more stress then an onslaught from a virus is more likely to develop into illness.
Is it plausible that catching the virus is just as easy in summer, but this developing into a serious disease is much lower in summer and higher in winter? For most other Rhino/Corona/Flu viruses there is as good as no testing of the prevelance of the virus in the general population, so we do not really appreciate how widley cold viruses are spread in summer, and only if the immune system is under some other kind of stress does this develop into a "summer cold" which are ususally not as heavy as a winter cold.
I'm nowhere near an expert, but can't it be explained by the age profile of those infected being significantly younger, and nothing to do with transmission is summer vs. winter?
The reduction in fatality rate may be caused by the death of what is bleakly called 'dry tinder' in the spring/early summer. Frail, very old, major complications, often in care homes and so on. To be blunt they possibly only had months to live. Obviously not very nice to think in these stark terms, but it may be the medical reality.
That is not correct. We discussed awhile ago when covered on 'More or Less' (there I go plugging it again - must sort out the commission).
If for instance you reach 80 your life expectancy is now still quite long even if you have other conditions, which of course most will actually have.
Life expectancy then is about another 10 years and here was the really interesting bit - an obese 80 year old with a heart condition on average will last another 5 years.
'More or Less' beats anecdotes every time, really good programme.
When this week they fact checked the Trump announcement on the Covid plasma treatment my first thought was 'You're not really going to try and fact check Trump are you? I think you might need a longer slot.'
Back to Corona :-) This is something I have been cogitating for the last couple of weeks, and would like the opinion of NigelB or Foxy or anyone else with a better biology background than me.
In the last couple of months we have seen big increases in the number of cases of SARS-COV2 in some countries, but the level of severe illness is much lower than expected, as measured by hospitalisations and deaths. There was speculation in the spring that the virus would not spread as quickly in summer as colds and flu are strongly seasonal. But it seems that the spread of the SARS-COV2 virus has little to do with the season.
Is it at all plausible though, that these seasonal illness viruses still spread at a similar rate but less frequently appears as an illness? It is possible that the human body is under less stress in summer and more stress in winter, due to lots of reasons: not moving from cold to warm environments several times a day, not inhailing air under 10 degrees, generally getting more exercise, sunlight and fresh air etc. If the body or in particular the immune system is under more stress then an onslaught from a virus is more likely to develop into illness.
Is it plausible that catching the virus is just as easy in summer, but this developing into a serious disease is much lower in summer and higher in winter? For most other Rhino/Corona/Flu viruses there is as good as no testing of the prevelance of the virus in the general population, so we do not really appreciate how widley cold viruses are spread in summer, and only if the immune system is under some other kind of stress does this develop into a "summer cold" which are ususally not as heavy as a winter cold.
I'm nowhere near an expert, but can't it be explained by the age profile of those infected being significantly younger, and nothing to do with transmission is summer vs. winter?
The reduction in fatality rate may be caused by the death of what is bleakly called 'dry tinder' in the spring/early summer. Frail, very old, major complications, often in care homes and so on. To be blunt they possibly only had months to live. Obviously not very nice to think in these stark terms, but it may be the medical reality.
That is not correct. We discussed awhile ago when covered on 'More or Less' (there I go plugging it again - must sort out the commission).
If for instance you reach 80 your life expectancy is now still quite long even if you have other conditions, which of course most will actually have.
Life expectancy then is about another 10 years and here was the really interesting bit - an obese 80 year old with a heart condition on average will last another 5 years.
That makes sense. There are two components to our ever-aging population - declining fertility rates, and the ever-improving ability of medical science to keep knackered, wheezing old fatties alive.
Fitness and healthy eating isn't really about avoiding dropping down dead of a coronary in middle age (although it's bound to improve your chances of avoiding an unfortunate accident somewhat.) It's about getting into old age whilst still being able to do something other than vegetate in front of daytime TV and trundle back and forth to Morrisons on a mobility scooter (and also, by the way, reducing the likelihood of your becoming yet another decrepit burden for the NHS to carry.) If you want to completely let yourself go then your friendly local GP will pump you full of drugs to keep you from kicking the bucket.
Hang on there that is a bit too close for comfort for me.
Without commuters paying peak fares – particularly into London – then it’s hard to see how the sector could survive without serious cuts, given that significantly increased subsidies are likely to be off the table for a government that will need to rein in its budget deficit.
The government has something of a problem. Usage of National Rail is about a 1/3 of what it normally is:
Passengers pay c.£10 billion a year. Let's assume that those travelling at the moment are paying quite a lot less than the normal average (i.e. no one will buy a first class ticket, those travelling are probably more local, fewer tickets purchased for business use). Let's say that the government is getting around £2 billion a year (and we're assuming that August usage is maintained - it might be propped up by a higher share of leisure travel).
So as David says, the subsidy goes from £4.5 billion a year to £12.5 billion a year. But what can the government do other than pay it? The people using the trains are people who have to go to work. They are key workers. There would be a huge backlash if the government starts cutting services.
Oh, and one other thing. HS2. How can the government justify ploughing on with that whilst closing existing railways? They can't.
The Government can save some money by reducing the frequency of services, particularly at peak times - indeed, if we arrive in a situation where flexible working means that the remaining passenger journeys are much more spread out during the day, then I can see the entire peak/off-peak divide being tossed in the dustbin.
Certainly it's going to take a couple of years for such changes to come into effect: all those who had to endure the great TSGN timetabling disaster of 2018 will be all too acutely aware of the need to manage these things properly. But it must surely happen?
As for HS2, I think the London to Birmingham section will end up being built in full, for several reasons. Firstly, it's already underway so this Government has to deal with it (whereas the branches to the North can be placed under review and booted into the long grass for the next Prime Minister to worry about.) Secondly, it's being used as much as a means to dole out contracts to the construction industry and maintain and develop skills as it is to build infrastructure, and this arguably becomes a greater priority for Government during a recession. Thirdly, there will be the usual concerns about sunk costs involved in abandoning any partially completed project. Finally, the Tory West Midlands metro-mayor is an enthusiast for the scheme and is up for re-election next May.
However, I seriously doubt if the remainder of HS2 will ever get built.
And that leaves Johnson's levelling up with the North in tatters.
Yes and Scotland yet again paying for London infrastructure from its fabled London deficit
What’s your GERS deficit and government spending per head again?
Tired unionist rhetoric on fake unionist estimates , 166 estimates in the fake GERS, UK numbers. If the best London can do with lakes of oil for 40 years is to have us with a deficit , based on London spending given Scotland runs a zero deficit, makes me laugh. What do they squander all their deficit on again, can you explain it. Any link to what UK spend the 30+ billion ,they claim, on.
Posts like this convince me that the only way Scotland will release its position is when it goes independent and can't afford to provide basic public services without huge tax rises.
I don't think that means crossover is coming and without significant gains in Scotland it is hard to see Labour overtaking the Tories in voteshare across the UK given the Tories have such a big lead in England, even if Labour and the SNP's combined voteshare is already ahead of the Tories in a few polls
You may be right but the tweets indicate a labour lead in tonight's opinium
However, a tweet is not fact, just need to wait a see, but Boris is having a shocking period to be honest
If anyone has felt disrespected by my calling them mate I do apologise and if you let me know what you'd prefer to be called, please do so and I will listen.
It's only fair if I wish to be called Horse - as I've explained before Mr makes me feel like you're putting me above yourself and I'm below most of you in knowledge and experience - that I call you by your preferred name.
I can't tell if you're joking or not but - if you're not - since this is obviously not your real name (at least.. I really hope for your sake it isn't) then why does it matter?
I couldn't care less if I'm called Casino, Mr. Royale or any other derivative. It's not my name. It's an internet ID.
I do care if someone personally insults me or swears at me but that's different.
It's the Mr I'd prefer not to be called because to me it's like you're putting me above yourself.
It's like when I go into a shop and they start calling me Mr X, I just don't feel comfortable with it
Fair enough, I quite like it and feel very respected when addressed in that manner. It's a sign of courtesy.
If someone I don't know repeats my name time and time again (yes, I'm talking to you Starbucks and HSBC call centre) then I find it overlyfamiliar and rather irritating.
I totally agree!
Call centre operatives calling me Mr first name also annoys me....
Somewhat crass even at the time, but a friend at Uni's dad had been to the same college. When one of the Porter's addressed the friend as 'mate' he turned around and without irony said, 'He's sir to you, or nothing'. Ouch.
I remember my Mum complaining once that she went through an entire day without being called by her name
“Darling” when she woke up “Mrs Richard” when she went down to breakfast (she had spent the night in the flat above my father’s shop) “Mrs X” (my fathers surname) when she arrived at work “Madam Chairman” by the court staff “Your honour” by the police “You X” by the defendant “mummy” when she got home
"The betting markets have moved decisively in the wake of the convention. The Democratic challenger, Joe Biden, was the clear favourite going into it, but most bookies now have the two candidates level-pegging at 10/11. You can still find Trump at evens in one or two places, though you have to look hard to find the price.
The same is true on Betfair, where Trump’s implied probability of victory enjoyed an eight-point, convention-driven bump, surging from 41 per cent to 49 per cent. That’s a record."
Yep. The betting markets are anticipating the post convention polls showing a big swing towards Trump. If it happens the money on him at anything above evens will look smart. If it doesn't his price will be heading out towards 3 in quite short order. A very interesting couple of weeks coming up.
Pret made a third of its workforce redundant. From what I have seen so many of its workforce are the very same migrants the government wants rid of - so whats the problem?
Ah yes. The real problem. So many of the friends of the Conservative Party own vast property portfolios. Big business suddenly has realised it doesn't need a big expensive office. Which collapses demand and with it values. This is Bad News for the friends of the party. So fuck the virus get everyone back into the office. Says Grant Shapps. From Home.
Companies will still need office space. They will be smaller and more flexible. Suspect many will also utilise regional hubs. People will still meet face to face - just less often. The economics of forcing people to waste money and productive time travelling to do something they can do without travelling is no longer viable. The restructuring of our economy offers plenty of commercial opportunities if you think about it, and the more profitable use of time and the more profitable use of money not being spaffed up against the wall in pointless commuting and twatty coffee will be a gain.
Tell the oligarchs to do one.
Your prejudices are showing
The government is shitting themselves about the loss of jobs, loss of tax revenues, impact on pension funds (the biggest owners of commercial property) and the need to avoid the hollowing out of big cities. Oligarchs don’t really figure highly.
assume your lot own half of London , hence the concern
Without commuters paying peak fares – particularly into London – then it’s hard to see how the sector could survive without serious cuts, given that significantly increased subsidies are likely to be off the table for a government that will need to rein in its budget deficit.
The government has something of a problem. Usage of National Rail is about a 1/3 of what it normally is:
Passengers pay c.£10 billion a year. Let's assume that those travelling at the moment are paying quite a lot less than the normal average (i.e. no one will buy a first class ticket, those travelling are probably more local, fewer tickets purchased for business use). Let's say that the government is getting around £2 billion a year (and we're assuming that August usage is maintained - it might be propped up by a higher share of leisure travel).
So as David says, the subsidy goes from £4.5 billion a year to £12.5 billion a year. But what can the government do other than pay it? The people using the trains are people who have to go to work. They are key workers. There would be a huge backlash if the government starts cutting services.
Oh, and one other thing. HS2. How can the government justify ploughing on with that whilst closing existing railways? They can't.
The Government can save some money by reducing the frequency of services, particularly at peak times - indeed, if we arrive in a situation where flexible working means that the remaining passenger journeys are much more spread out during the day, then I can see the entire peak/off-peak divide being tossed in the dustbin.
Certainly it's going to take a couple of years for such changes to come into effect: all those who had to endure the great TSGN timetabling disaster of 2018 will be all too acutely aware of the need to manage these things properly. But it must surely happen?
As for HS2, I think the London to Birmingham section will end up being built in full, for several reasons. Firstly, it's already underway so this Government has to deal with it (whereas the branches to the North can be placed under review and booted into the long grass for the next Prime Minister to worry about.) Secondly, it's being used as much as a means to dole out contracts to the construction industry and maintain and develop skills as it is to build infrastructure, and this arguably becomes a greater priority for Government during a recession. Thirdly, there will be the usual concerns about sunk costs involved in abandoning any partially completed project. Finally, the Tory West Midlands metro-mayor is an enthusiast for the scheme and is up for re-election next May.
However, I seriously doubt if the remainder of HS2 will ever get built.
And that leaves Johnson's levelling up with the North in tatters.
Yes and Scotland yet again paying for London infrastructure from its fabled London deficit
What’s your GERS deficit and government spending per head again?
Tired unionist rhetoric on fake unionist estimates , 166 estimates in the fake GERS, UK numbers. If the best London can do with lakes of oil for 40 years is to have us with a deficit , based on London spending given Scotland runs a zero deficit, makes me laugh. What do they squander all their deficit on again, can you explain it. Any link to what UK spend the 30+ billion ,they claim, on.
Posts like this convince me that the only way Scotland will release its position is when it goes independent and can't afford to provide basic public services without huge tax rises.
Without commuters paying peak fares – particularly into London – then it’s hard to see how the sector could survive without serious cuts, given that significantly increased subsidies are likely to be off the table for a government that will need to rein in its budget deficit.
The government has something of a problem. Usage of National Rail is about a 1/3 of what it normally is:
Passengers pay c.£10 billion a year. Let's assume that those travelling at the moment are paying quite a lot less than the normal average (i.e. no one will buy a first class ticket, those travelling are probably more local, fewer tickets purchased for business use). Let's say that the government is getting around £2 billion a year (and we're assuming that August usage is maintained - it might be propped up by a higher share of leisure travel).
So as David says, the subsidy goes from £4.5 billion a year to £12.5 billion a year. But what can the government do other than pay it? The people using the trains are people who have to go to work. They are key workers. There would be a huge backlash if the government starts cutting services.
Oh, and one other thing. HS2. How can the government justify ploughing on with that whilst closing existing railways? They can't.
The Government can save some money by reducing the frequency of services, particularly at peak times - indeed, if we arrive in a situation where flexible working means that the remaining passenger journeys are much more spread out during the day, then I can see the entire peak/off-peak divide being tossed in the dustbin.
Certainly it's going to take a couple of years for such changes to come into effect: all those who had to endure the great TSGN timetabling disaster of 2018 will be all too acutely aware of the need to manage these things properly. But it must surely happen?
As for HS2, I think the London to Birmingham section will end up being built in full, for several reasons. Firstly, it's already underway so this Government has to deal with it (whereas the branches to the North can be placed under review and booted into the long grass for the next Prime Minister to worry about.) Secondly, it's being used as much as a means to dole out contracts to the construction industry and maintain and develop skills as it is to build infrastructure, and this arguably becomes a greater priority for Government during a recession. Thirdly, there will be the usual concerns about sunk costs involved in abandoning any partially completed project. Finally, the Tory West Midlands metro-mayor is an enthusiast for the scheme and is up for re-election next May.
However, I seriously doubt if the remainder of HS2 will ever get built.
And that leaves Johnson's levelling up with the North in tatters.
Yes and Scotland yet again paying for London infrastructure from its fabled London deficit
What’s your GERS deficit and government spending per head again?
Tired unionist rhetoric on fake unionist estimates , 166 estimates in the fake GERS, UK numbers. If the best London can do with lakes of oil for 40 years is to have us with a deficit , based on London spending given Scotland runs a zero deficit, makes me laugh. What do they squander all their deficit on again, can you explain it. Any link to what UK spend the 30+ billion ,they claim, on.
Posts like this convince me that the only way Scotland will release its position is when it goes independent and can't afford to provide basic public services without huge tax rises.
Or conversely it will prove how much London was ripping us off, particularly pompous to think the way you do from a pinnacle of ignorance.
Levitt: "at some point we need to make curves like this for flu and then people will say, oh I didn't realise influenza was so terrible, and I didn't get upset about it, so therefore why am I getting so upset about something that is as lethal [the coronavirus]"
Nonsense. If there really is a WFH revolution, cities and towns won't be competing on proximity to London anymore, it will be on crime, livability, beauty, amenities, surrounding countryside, airports, and price. That will level up the North.
I agree, though people might also start thinking about the weather as well, in which case Scotland and the north are screwed.
*gloriously sunny Devon gives a big smug wave*
Weather in Scotland is just fine and you can have a much better lifestyle, better scenery , more countryside , golf , etc. Fishing has obviously never been to Scotland.
Your post on this is as accurate as all your others. I spent the worst year-and-a-half of my life in Scotland, depressed that I had to wear a coat in August.
[Though the weather wasn't the main reason my time there was shit - it was professionally unsatisfying work].
12 degC at the moment here - windy too so feels like 9-10.
But low humidity, so considering whether to carry on with painting the shed rather than reading PB.
lovely and sunny on west coast , sitting in garden relaxing and reading the pathetic wittering of some of the pathetic halfwits on here, sans coat as well.
Getting a bit of a haar off the sea here. I did end up in and on the shed after all - with a t-shirt on under my paint-spattered shirt ...
Comments
However I would not be the least surprised
Below the tweet by election maps there are suggestion that opinium tonight could show a labour lead but it is only a tweet and we all know that tweets are not facts
If for instance you reach 80 your life expectancy is now still quite long even if you have other conditions, which of course most will actually have.
Life expectancy then is about another 10 years and here was the really interesting bit - an obese 80 year old with a heart condition on average will last another 5 years.
https://twitter.com/JoeMulhall_/status/1299676783017590785?s=20
I’ll go with the face masks, if that’s okay.
It does increase productivity, but even more importantly in a knowledge economy, innovation and creativity. If that allows you to either spend less time in the workplace, or goof around at work some/much of the time, so much the better.
“Darling” when she woke up
“Mrs Richard” when she went down to breakfast (she had spent the night in the flat above my father’s shop)
“Mrs X” (my fathers surname) when she arrived at work
“Madam Chairman” by the court staff
“Your honour” by the police
“You X” by the defendant
“mummy” when she got home
Fitness and healthy eating isn't really about avoiding dropping down dead of a coronary in middle age (although it's bound to improve your chances of avoiding an unfortunate accident somewhat.) It's about getting into old age whilst still being able to do something other than vegetate in front of daytime TV and trundle back and forth to Morrisons on a mobility scooter (and also, by the way, reducing the likelihood of your becoming yet another decrepit burden for the NHS to carry.) If you want to completely let yourself go then your friendly local GP will pump you full of drugs to keep you from kicking the bucket.
Another algorithm, I am sure this will go well
Yes that rings true. If you could somehow eliminate all of that it would be transformational. In general I think behavioural science is undervalued.
@Fishing
When I moved from office to trading floor that was one of the big pluses - no obligation to look busy if you weren't.
However, a tweet is not fact, just need to wait a see, but Boris is having a shocking period to be honest
We will see.
https://twitter.com/stephenfarrow/status/1299697351494430722?s=20
https://unherd.com/thepost/prof-michael-levitt-heres-what-i-got-wrong/
I am in covid mode this afternoon, reading stuff about whether we as a society have completely overreacted.
Encouraging people to live in small towns seems to be quite a good idea in the time of Corona...