It is odd that it has taken ~8 months for the variolation hypothesis to get serious consideration as it seemed obvious that the dosage of infection is important for the severity of the disease already in the case of Dr Li Wenliang the canary in the minepit of Wuhan.
Indeed we were discussing the importance of viral load at infection from about March/April. Much of the evidence that masks work came around the same time (and related to) the realisation about how important viral load is.
Glad to see that I had the right sort of feel of it back then, my years studying chemistry weren't completely useless.
Although they would of course have been much better spent studying a proper subject like History
No, history is a hobby not a career choice (apologies), as my wife found out. She needed a master's in economics before she was able to get a look in for jobs outside of the education sector.
Hmm. Thought. Grandson 2 is doing History at A level...... currently expected get either a very good B or just about an A and I was wondering about suggesting he thought about doing that at Uni. He's planning something practical at the moment.
My advice if I were a relative would be to do something he enjoys .
I have been thinking about the polling a little more and what intrigues me most is not continuing Red Wall support for the Tories, which I would expect given that once you have convinced yourself to make the leap you are not going to change your mind without very good reason, but the ongoing backing the party gets from a portion of Remainers. I am genuinely interested in knowing what is keeping them onside right now. Surely, it is more than tribalism.
Back in the day voting Conservative used to be seen as a mark of personal success by certain types of people. It was a theme running through the Margot Leadbeater character in The Good Life, she was posh so she voted Conservative and voting Conservative confirmed she was posh. Not voting Conservative might be seen in these circles as an admission of failure.
The reality these days however is that the Conservative Party under McMillan or Heath shares very little with Johnson's party except for the name.
I think it is interesting that people like Richard Nabavi, David Herdson and TSE - who were very loyal, ideologically-driven Tories that accepted the Brexit result and were convinced that it had to be honoured - have walked away from the party under Johnson, but that they do not seem to represent a movement, as such. It's notable that so many very talented individual Tories have deserted the party, but that this has not had much of an impact on its overall vote. That said, these are early days in this Parliament and the consequences of the undeliverable Brexit that Johnson and co have promised are yet to be felt, so maybe the old-style PB Tories are just the vanguard who have spent more time thinking about it than others have up to now.
Let's hope so.
I was disturbed by your assertion last evening that Johnson will at some point in the future call a referendum to restore capital punishment, in order to bolster his flagging popularity. I may be naive, but I am hoping this is a step too far even for Johnson.
I can definitely see him doing it. That's the point at which I leave the country!
The single most compelling argument for parliamentary governance, rather than government by plebiscite.
I'll be in the queue too, I will make my arrangements the moment the referendum is called. No point in waiting for the result.
My goodness there are a lot of people with a guilty conscience...
I don't expect to be facing a judge with a black cap, unless criticism of Johnson is deemed treasonous.
I do not want to live anywhere that allows the state to take on the role of God. It is particularly troublesome when one looks at the fatigue of miscarriages of justice we have seen since 1964.
Why would autocorrect change catalogue to fatigue?
I have been thinking about the polling a little more and what intrigues me most is not continuing Red Wall support for the Tories, which I would expect given that once you have convinced yourself to make the leap you are not going to change your mind without very good reason, but the ongoing backing the party gets from a portion of Remainers. I am genuinely interested in knowing what is keeping them onside right now. Surely, it is more than tribalism.
Back in the day voting Conservative used to be seen as a mark of personal success by certain types of people. It was a theme running through the Margot Leadbeater character in The Good Life, she was posh so she voted Conservative and voting Conservative confirmed she was posh. Not voting Conservative might be seen in these circles as an admission of failure.
The reality these days however is that the Conservative Party under McMillan or Heath shares very little with Johnson's party except for the name.
I think it is interesting that people like Richard Nabavi, David Herdson and TSE - who were very loyal, ideologically-driven Tories that accepted the Brexit result and were convinced that it had to be honoured - have walked away from the party under Johnson, but that they do not seem to represent a movement, as such. It's notable that so many very talented individual Tories have deserted the party, but that this has not had much of an impact on its overall vote. That said, these are early days in this Parliament and the consequences of the undeliverable Brexit that Johnson and co have promised are yet to be felt, so maybe the old-style PB Tories are just the vanguard who have spent more time thinking about it than others have up to now.
Let's hope so.
I was disturbed by your assertion last evening that Johnson will at some point in the future call a referendum to restore capital punishment, in order to bolster his flagging popularity. I may be naive, but I am hoping this is a step too far even for Johnson.
I think it would take a serious war, for the restoration of capital punishment to become a reality. In a WWII situation, no one would object to the execution of traitors or war criminals.
Except possibly Tony Blair.
The last words of John Amery were brilliant:
"Ah, Mr. Pierrepoint, I've long wanted to meet you, but not, I'm sure you'll understand, under present circumstances."
If you were a condemned war criminal, you'd want to be hanged by the British. The Americans were pretty sloppy executioners, and most of Eastern Europe used the short drop.
Pierrepoint was a wonderful man, an astute and firm abolitionist I believe.
It is odd that it has taken ~8 months for the variolation hypothesis to get serious consideration as it seemed obvious that the dosage of infection is important for the severity of the disease already in the case of Dr Li Wenliang the canary in the minepit of Wuhan.
Indeed we were discussing the importance of viral load at infection from about March/April. Much of the evidence that masks work came around the same time (and related to) the realisation about how important viral load is.
Glad to see that I had the right sort of feel of it back then, my years studying chemistry weren't completely useless.
Although they would of course have been much better spent studying a proper subject like History
No, history is a hobby not a career choice (apologies), as my wife found out. She needed a master's in economics before she was able to get a look in for jobs outside of the education sector.
Hmm. Thought. Grandson 2 is doing History at A level...... currently expected get either a very good B or just about an A and I was wondering about suggesting he thought about doing that at Uni. He's planning something practical at the moment.
Uni is great for vocational type degrees or ones with a defined career path, if he's already picked one. If he hasn't then something like economics, or if he's scientifically inclined physics, is a good all-round degree that opens up a lot of doors. I wish I'd done my degree the other way around, with physics as the main bulk and less chemistry but I guess it hasn't been a huge deal for me. My wife found that her 1st from UCL opened too few door outside of education and opted for a master's from Oxford at her own expense of £11k or something like that. In the end the gamble paid off as she's now a political risk analyst for a big hedge fund which is her dream job (the role, not the hedge fund).
Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.
Or that the disease is not that serious enough to warrant extreme measures like mask wearing in the first place
Or you could actually read the article and see why wearing one is a good thing and may lead to a faster end of the crisis and herd immunity without as many fatalities.
The article is paywalled in the Telegraph, but the case is made in this open access piece in the NEJM, Americas leading medical journal.
You could just as easily argue that cases have increased during the enforced mask wearing period (which they have) and reach a conclusion they are at best ineffective and at worst contributing to it
And wind farms are definitely the biggests culprits when it comes to global warming.
I think we are on the same page with not equating correlation with cause which started my challenge below against the assumption that the rate of low hospitalisations against new cases was to do with mask wearing
Mask wearing is reducing viral load, which reduces the severity of the illness. The data and evidence is there.
If you wish to oppose mask wearing because of other reasons then make that case - but if you're trying to do so based on evidence then the facts are not on your side.
I think that those arguing against masks, e.g. Hitchens, would do better to focus their arguments on principles rather that science. Alleging that masks have no role in reducing viral transmission has become implausible. However, compelling people to do so and the loss of civil liberties that his entails is a better argument.
Agreed 100%
A quick google suggest he has been arguing against loss of civil liberties and state control
Yes he does - and in this regard I do have sympathy with his argument (though on balance I`m a mask-convert). However, Hitchens regularly spoils his principled argument by straying into science and alleging that the masks have no effect.
Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.
Or that the disease is not that serious enough to warrant extreme measures like mask wearing in the first place
Or you could actually read the article and see why wearing one is a good thing and may lead to a faster end of the crisis and herd immunity without as many fatalities.
The article is paywalled in the Telegraph, but the case is made in this open access piece in the NEJM, Americas leading medical journal.
You could just as easily argue that cases have increased during the enforced mask wearing period (which they have) and reach a conclusion they are at best ineffective and at worst contributing to it
The obvious answer is that we’re detecting a far higher proportion of cases compared with April. It’s funny to read the mask fascists moving from “wear a mask to protect others” to “wear a mask to catch COVID a little bit”. As you say, the original line means that you shouldn’t be catching it in an environment where everyone is wearing a mask.
Nobody has ever said that masks prevent all transmission, which is partially why the WHO didn't recommend them from the start.
I have been thinking about the polling a little more and what intrigues me most is not continuing Red Wall support for the Tories, which I would expect given that once you have convinced yourself to make the leap you are not going to change your mind without very good reason, but the ongoing backing the party gets from a portion of Remainers. I am genuinely interested in knowing what is keeping them onside right now. Surely, it is more than tribalism.
Back in the day voting Conservative used to be seen as a mark of personal success by certain types of people. It was a theme running through the Margot Leadbeater character in The Good Life, she was posh so she voted Conservative and voting Conservative confirmed she was posh. Not voting Conservative might be seen in these circles as an admission of failure.
The reality these days however is that the Conservative Party under McMillan or Heath shares very little with Johnson's party except for the name.
I think it is interesting that people like Richard Nabavi, David Herdson and TSE - who were very loyal, ideologically-driven Tories that accepted the Brexit result and were convinced that it had to be honoured - have walked away from the party under Johnson, but that they do not seem to represent a movement, as such. It's notable that so many very talented individual Tories have deserted the party, but that this has not had much of an impact on its overall vote. That said, these are early days in this Parliament and the consequences of the undeliverable Brexit that Johnson and co have promised are yet to be felt, so maybe the old-style PB Tories are just the vanguard who have spent more time thinking about it than others have up to now.
Let's hope so.
I was disturbed by your assertion last evening that Johnson will at some point in the future call a referendum to restore capital punishment, in order to bolster his flagging popularity. I may be naive, but I am hoping this is a step too far even for Johnson.
I think it would take a serious war, for the restoration of capital punishment to become a reality. In a WWII situation, no one would object to the execution of traitors or war criminals.
Except possibly Tony Blair.
Who would object to the execution of Tone?
I suspect Cherie, as a human rights barrister, would raise objections.
I have been thinking about the polling a little more and what intrigues me most is not continuing Red Wall support for the Tories, which I would expect given that once you have convinced yourself to make the leap you are not going to change your mind without very good reason, but the ongoing backing the party gets from a portion of Remainers. I am genuinely interested in knowing what is keeping them onside right now. Surely, it is more than tribalism.
Back in the day voting Conservative used to be seen as a mark of personal success by certain types of people. It was a theme running through the Margot Leadbeater character in The Good Life, she was posh so she voted Conservative and voting Conservative confirmed she was posh. Not voting Conservative might be seen in these circles as an admission of failure.
The reality these days however is that the Conservative Party under McMillan or Heath shares very little with Johnson's party except for the name.
I think it is interesting that people like Richard Nabavi, David Herdson and TSE - who were very loyal, ideologically-driven Tories that accepted the Brexit result and were convinced that it had to be honoured - have walked away from the party under Johnson, but that they do not seem to represent a movement, as such. It's notable that so many very talented individual Tories have deserted the party, but that this has not had much of an impact on its overall vote. That said, these are early days in this Parliament and the consequences of the undeliverable Brexit that Johnson and co have promised are yet to be felt, so maybe the old-style PB Tories are just the vanguard who have spent more time thinking about it than others have up to now.
Let's hope so.
I was disturbed by your assertion last evening that Johnson will at some point in the future call a referendum to restore capital punishment, in order to bolster his flagging popularity. I may be naive, but I am hoping this is a step too far even for Johnson.
I think it would take a serious war, for the restoration of capital punishment to become a reality. In a WWII situation, no one would object to the execution of traitors or war criminals.
Except possibly Tony Blair.
The last words of John Amery were brilliant:
"Ah, Mr. Pierrepoint, I've long wanted to meet you, but not, I'm sure you'll understand, under present circumstances."
If you were a condemned war criminal, you'd want to be hanged by the British. The Americans were pretty sloppy executioners, and most of Eastern Europe used the short drop.
Pierrepoint was a wonderful man, an astute and firm abolitionist I believe.
Although when it came to his job, he left it hanging.
Am I the only one who almost never understands who The Times cartoon is supposed to depict?
Homer Simpson and Yvette Cooper, obviously.
Pity the poor cartoonist. Some faces are very difficult to draw, I am told. Cameroon was famously so - very bland features.
(I think the bloke is supposed to be Matt Hancock. No idea who the other is.)
I think she's probably a talentless ex-public school horsey type, promoted way beyond her abilities due to her elite connections. Just a guess.
I’d have said a horsey woman was a smart choice, given she’s having a mare.
Has her position as the head of this new pandemic fighting health body to replace PHE been confirmed yet? Indeed is anyone having second thoughts about its establishment...
I have been thinking about the polling a little more and what intrigues me most is not continuing Red Wall support for the Tories, which I would expect given that once you have convinced yourself to make the leap you are not going to change your mind without very good reason, but the ongoing backing the party gets from a portion of Remainers. I am genuinely interested in knowing what is keeping them onside right now. Surely, it is more than tribalism.
Back in the day voting Conservative used to be seen as a mark of personal success by certain types of people. It was a theme running through the Margot Leadbeater character in The Good Life, she was posh so she voted Conservative and voting Conservative confirmed she was posh. Not voting Conservative might be seen in these circles as an admission of failure.
The reality these days however is that the Conservative Party under McMillan or Heath shares very little with Johnson's party except for the name.
I think it is interesting that people like Richard Nabavi, David Herdson and TSE - who were very loyal, ideologically-driven Tories that accepted the Brexit result and were convinced that it had to be honoured - have walked away from the party under Johnson, but that they do not seem to represent a movement, as such. It's notable that so many very talented individual Tories have deserted the party, but that this has not had much of an impact on its overall vote. That said, these are early days in this Parliament and the consequences of the undeliverable Brexit that Johnson and co have promised are yet to be felt, so maybe the old-style PB Tories are just the vanguard who have spent more time thinking about it than others have up to now.
Let's hope so.
I was disturbed by your assertion last evening that Johnson will at some point in the future call a referendum to restore capital punishment, in order to bolster his flagging popularity. I may be naive, but I am hoping this is a step too far even for Johnson.
I think it would take a serious war, for the restoration of capital punishment to become a reality. In a WWII situation, no one would object to the execution of traitors or war criminals.
Except possibly Tony Blair.
Who would object to the execution of Tone?
I suspect Cherie, as a human rights barrister, would raise objections.
Wonder what stopped her doing so when Tone was killing Iraqis by the hundreds of thousands.
It is indicative of agendas that a lot of the reporting on this is as if the BBC adopted a "dramatic" last minute U-turn and nobody was expecting the words to be inserted
When in fact the announced the change weeks ago. Basically a lot of the popular press and politicians jumped onto it when it was originally announced, got very worked up about it, and then didn't pay any attention after that.
It is almost as if all those who do not bother watching it think they should have a greater say in what is played and sung than the musicians and producers who dedicate their whole life to music.
I have been thinking about the polling a little more and what intrigues me most is not continuing Red Wall support for the Tories, which I would expect given that once you have convinced yourself to make the leap you are not going to change your mind without very good reason, but the ongoing backing the party gets from a portion of Remainers. I am genuinely interested in knowing what is keeping them onside right now. Surely, it is more than tribalism.
Back in the day voting Conservative used to be seen as a mark of personal success by certain types of people. It was a theme running through the Margot Leadbeater character in The Good Life, she was posh so she voted Conservative and voting Conservative confirmed she was posh. Not voting Conservative might be seen in these circles as an admission of failure.
The reality these days however is that the Conservative Party under McMillan or Heath shares very little with Johnson's party except for the name.
I think it is interesting that people like Richard Nabavi, David Herdson and TSE - who were very loyal, ideologically-driven Tories that accepted the Brexit result and were convinced that it had to be honoured - have walked away from the party under Johnson, but that they do not seem to represent a movement, as such. It's notable that so many very talented individual Tories have deserted the party, but that this has not had much of an impact on its overall vote. That said, these are early days in this Parliament and the consequences of the undeliverable Brexit that Johnson and co have promised are yet to be felt, so maybe the old-style PB Tories are just the vanguard who have spent more time thinking about it than others have up to now.
Let's hope so.
I was disturbed by your assertion last evening that Johnson will at some point in the future call a referendum to restore capital punishment, in order to bolster his flagging popularity. I may be naive, but I am hoping this is a step too far even for Johnson.
I think it would take a serious war, for the restoration of capital punishment to become a reality. In a WWII situation, no one would object to the execution of traitors or war criminals.
Except possibly Tony Blair.
Who would object to the execution of Tone?
Me
I think it was a joke!
The original statement being that we would make an exception him as a person outside of WW1. The twist in the response being that he would be let off the hook.
I have been thinking about the polling a little more and what intrigues me most is not continuing Red Wall support for the Tories, which I would expect given that once you have convinced yourself to make the leap you are not going to change your mind without very good reason, but the ongoing backing the party gets from a portion of Remainers. I am genuinely interested in knowing what is keeping them onside right now. Surely, it is more than tribalism.
Back in the day voting Conservative used to be seen as a mark of personal success by certain types of people. It was a theme running through the Margot Leadbeater character in The Good Life, she was posh so she voted Conservative and voting Conservative confirmed she was posh. Not voting Conservative might be seen in these circles as an admission of failure.
The reality these days however is that the Conservative Party under McMillan or Heath shares very little with Johnson's party except for the name.
True enough, but then the party of Macmillan and Heath had little in common with the party of Salisbury and Balfour. The agenda moves on.
A section of upper middle class former Conservatives turned very hostile to the party under Thatcher, resulting in the loss of historic Conservative seats, even as gaining working class voters turned other seats blue.
Indeed, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries the Conservative Party of Disraeli, Joseph Chamberlain, Salisbury and Balfour won lots of working class votes on an agenda of Empire, tariffs and under Disraeli some social reform while the Liberal Party of Gladstone, Rosebery, Campbell Bannerman and Asquith won lots of middle class votes on an agenda of free trade.
The Tories had only really became the party of the middle class by the mid 20th century in response to the emergence of the Labour Party as the party of the working class and the decline of the Liberal Party, Brexit is probably the biggest political realignment potentially since then
Indeed in 2019 the Tories got their highest voteshare from skilled working class voters and the Liberal Democrats did best relatively with the upper middle class and Labour lost working class voters to the Tories
I have been thinking about the polling a little more and what intrigues me most is not continuing Red Wall support for the Tories, which I would expect given that once you have convinced yourself to make the leap you are not going to change your mind without very good reason, but the ongoing backing the party gets from a portion of Remainers. I am genuinely interested in knowing what is keeping them onside right now. Surely, it is more than tribalism.
Back in the day voting Conservative used to be seen as a mark of personal success by certain types of people. It was a theme running through the Margot Leadbeater character in The Good Life, she was posh so she voted Conservative and voting Conservative confirmed she was posh. Not voting Conservative might be seen in these circles as an admission of failure.
The reality these days however is that the Conservative Party under McMillan or Heath shares very little with Johnson's party except for the name.
Let's hope so.
I was disturbed by your assertion last evening that Johnson will at some point in the future call a referendum to restore capital punishment, in order to bolster his flagging popularity. I may be naive, but I am hoping this is a step too far even for Johnson.
I think it would take a serious war, for the restoration of capital punishment to become a reality. In a WWII situation, no one would object to the execution of traitors or war criminals.
Well some did of course but what was more questionable in WW2 was the execution of german spies (not traitors) but just spies. The last execution in the Tower of London was of a german spy who had the misfortune to be picked up almost on entering the country (I think by parachute) . Given he was probably compelled to do this by the german authorities it seems harsh to have exectuted him and other such cases. Lets not forget the quasi executions of huge amount of civilians in WW2 by British bombers who deliberately targeted civilians in mass bombings towards the end of the war , the most terribel example being Dresden where a deliberate policy of creating a firestorm to kill as many civilians as possible was deemed legitimate.
Spies know that's the risk they run in wartime (and often outside of wartime).
After four or five years of war, the revelation of the Holocaust and Generalplan Ost, few people would have had much sympathy for the victims of bombing.
Well not sure anyone can argue that the average german kid (say 5 year old) was complicit in the holocaust (not that I think the full horror was widely known by the normal german populace anyway at the time) but they were deliberately killed in terrible circumstances by British targeted bombing of civilians
I have been thinking about the polling a little more and what intrigues me most is not continuing Red Wall support for the Tories, which I would expect given that once you have convinced yourself to make the leap you are not going to change your mind without very good reason, but the ongoing backing the party gets from a portion of Remainers. I am genuinely interested in knowing what is keeping them onside right now. Surely, it is more than tribalism.
Back in the day voting Conservative used to be seen as a mark of personal success by certain types of people. It was a theme running through the Margot Leadbeater character in The Good Life, she was posh so she voted Conservative and voting Conservative confirmed she was posh. Not voting Conservative might be seen in these circles as an admission of failure.
The reality these days however is that the Conservative Party under McMillan or Heath shares very little with Johnson's party except for the name.
I think it is interesting that people like Richard Nabavi, David Herdson and TSE - who were very loyal, ideologically-driven Tories that accepted the Brexit result and were convinced that it had to be honoured - have walked away from the party under Johnson, but that they do not seem to represent a movement, as such. It's notable that so many very talented individual Tories have deserted the party, but that this has not had much of an impact on its overall vote. That said, these are early days in this Parliament and the consequences of the undeliverable Brexit that Johnson and co have promised are yet to be felt, so maybe the old-style PB Tories are just the vanguard who have spent more time thinking about it than others have up to now.
Let's hope so.
I was disturbed by your assertion last evening that Johnson will at some point in the future call a referendum to restore capital punishment, in order to bolster his flagging popularity. I may be naive, but I am hoping this is a step too far even for Johnson.
I think it would take a serious war, for the restoration of capital punishment to become a reality. In a WWII situation, no one would object to the execution of traitors or war criminals.
I might, depending what you mean by traitor and war criminal.
I don't think you have any feel for the sheer shittiness of the right wing populist shits governing the country. Do you seriously think Cummings and Johnson wouldn't hold that referendum if they thought there was a GE victory in it? And they would win it like the last one: let's give all the money we spend on life imprisonment to the NHS. And that would be therwilloftherpeople established and we'd all have to pretend again that you can't be against shitty populist referendums without being against democraceee and of course you must respect the result if you don't agree with it.
I think there is a strong chance the election in November in the US will be the closest in the EC since Bush v Gore in 2000 and OT yes it could even be closer than that if 269 269 which is possible if Biden wins Michigan, Pennsylvania and Nebraska 02
I have been thinking about the polling a little more and what intrigues me most is not continuing Red Wall support for the Tories, which I would expect given that once you have convinced yourself to make the leap you are not going to change your mind without very good reason, but the ongoing backing the party gets from a portion of Remainers. I am genuinely interested in knowing what is keeping them onside right now. Surely, it is more than tribalism.
Back in the day voting Conservative used to be seen as a mark of personal success by certain types of people. It was a theme running through the Margot Leadbeater character in The Good Life, she was posh so she voted Conservative and voting Conservative confirmed she was posh. Not voting Conservative might be seen in these circles as an admission of failure.
The reality these days however is that the Conservative Party under McMillan or Heath shares very little with Johnson's party except for the name.
I think it is interesting that people like Richard Nabavi, David Herdson and TSE - who were very loyal, ideologically-driven Tories that accepted the Brexit result and were convinced that it had to be honoured - have walked away from the party under Johnson, but that they do not seem to represent a movement, as such. It's notable that so many very talented individual Tories have deserted the party, but that this has not had much of an impact on its overall vote. That said, these are early days in this Parliament and the consequences of the undeliverable Brexit that Johnson and co have promised are yet to be felt, so maybe the old-style PB Tories are just the vanguard who have spent more time thinking about it than others have up to now.
Let's hope so.
I was disturbed by your assertion last evening that Johnson will at some point in the future call a referendum to restore capital punishment, in order to bolster his flagging popularity. I may be naive, but I am hoping this is a step too far even for Johnson.
I think it would take a serious war, for the restoration of capital punishment to become a reality. In a WWII situation, no one would object to the execution of traitors or war criminals.
Well some did of course but what was more questionable in WW2 was the execution of german spies (not traitors) but just spies. The last execution in the Tower of London was of a german spy who had the misfortune to be picked up almost on entering the country (I think by parachute) . Given he was probably compelled to do this by the german authorities it seems harsh to have exectuted him and other such cases. Lets not forget the quasi executions of huge amount of civilians in WW2 by British bombers who deliberately targeted civilians in mass bombings towards the end of the war , the most terribel example being Dresden where a deliberate policy of creating a firestorm to kill as many civilians as possible was deemed legitimate.
Spies have always been at increased risk of execution, falling as they do outside of the Geneva convention. That is as true today as it ever was (in countries where death penalty applies)
We've appointed an estate agent and the house goes on sale next week as we look to depart Teesside for Aberdeenshire. I've been fairly open about the struggles I had transitioning to this new virtual way of doing things but I have transitioned and it opens up all kinds of possibilities.
Fundamentally I can work from anywhere, and that is liberating. My wife's two years of study qualifies her for all kinds of education jobs and looking at where we are going job vacancies are there for the taking. There's also a reality check. I'm 44, my wife is 45, I have had two colleagues drop dead (not of the pox) this year with the second one my age. So the impetus is clear to not sit and wait for tomorrow but to get on with life before all of it passes me by.
I'm not the only person who's had a similar "oh shit" moment and is actively planning to do something about it (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-54028339) and the impacts onto how we all live, the economy and yes voting could be pretty profound. On balance 2020 has been an appalling year. But I can't remember being this motivated to get off my arse and suddenly here I am making big steps like move country and go self employed and start a business. So something has gone right...
I have been thinking about the polling a little more and what intrigues me most is not continuing Red Wall support for the Tories, which I would expect given that once you have convinced yourself to make the leap you are not going to change your mind without very good reason, but the ongoing backing the party gets from a portion of Remainers. I am genuinely interested in knowing what is keeping them onside right now. Surely, it is more than tribalism.
B
I think it is interesting that people like Richard Nabavi, David Herdson and TSE - who were very loyal, ideologically-driven Tories that accepted the Brexit result and were convinced that it had to be honoured - have walked away from the party under Johnson, but that they do not seem to represent a movement, as such. It's notable that so many very talented individual Tories have deserted the party, but that this has not had much of an impact on its overall vote. That said, these are early days in this Parliament and the consequences of the undeliverable Brexit that Johnson and co have promised are yet to be felt, so maybe the old-style PB Tories are just the vanguard who have spent more time thinking about it than others have up to now.
Let's hope so.
I was disturbed by your assertion last evening that Johnson will at some point in the future call a referendum to restore capital punishment, in order to bolster his flagging popularity. I may be naive, but I am hoping this is a step too far even for Johnson.
I think it would take a serious war, for the restoration of capital punishment to become a reality. In a WWII situation, no one would object to the execution of traitors or war criminals.
Except possibly Tony Blair.
The last words of John Amery were brilliant:
"Ah, Mr. Pierrepoint, I've long wanted to meet you, but not, I'm sure you'll understand, under present circumstances."
If you were a condemned war criminal, you'd want to be hanged by the British. The Americans were pretty sloppy executioners, and most of Eastern Europe used the short drop.
Pierrepoint was a wonderful man, an astute and firm abolitionist I believe.
He certainly aimed to minimise suffering among the condemned. He said most of them displayed remarkable courage.
Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.
Or that the disease is not that serious enough to warrant extreme measures like mask wearing in the first place
Or you could actually read the article and see why wearing one is a good thing and may lead to a faster end of the crisis and herd immunity without as many fatalities.
The article is paywalled in the Telegraph, but the case is made in this open access piece in the NEJM, Americas leading medical journal.
You could just as easily argue that cases have increased during the enforced mask wearing period (which they have) and reach a conclusion they are at best ineffective and at worst contributing to it
The obvious answer is that we’re detecting a far higher proportion of cases compared with April. It’s funny to read the mask fascists moving from “wear a mask to protect others” to “wear a mask to catch COVID a little bit”. As you say, the original line means that you shouldn’t be catching it in an environment where everyone is wearing a mask.
Nobody has ever said that masks prevent all transmission, which is partially why the WHO didn't recommend them from the start.
Perhaps not, but that Telegraph article is talking about masks helping the wearer.
And another thing. The evidence is that the virus is spreading in household settings, where people are not wearing masks.
It is odd that it has taken ~8 months for the variolation hypothesis to get serious consideration as it seemed obvious that the dosage of infection is important for the severity of the disease already in the case of Dr Li Wenliang the canary in the minepit of Wuhan.
Indeed we were discussing the importance of viral load at infection from about March/April. Much of the evidence that masks work came around the same time (and related to) the realisation about how important viral load is.
Glad to see that I had the right sort of feel of it back then, my years studying chemistry weren't completely useless.
Although they would of course have been much better spent studying a proper subject like History
No, history is a hobby not a career choice (apologies), as my wife found out. She needed a master's in economics before she was able to get a look in for jobs outside of the education sector.
Hmm. Thought. Grandson 2 is doing History at A level...... currently expected get either a very good B or just about an A and I was wondering about suggesting he thought about doing that at Uni. He's planning something practical at the moment.
Depends on whether he’s willing to do further study.
Max is correct incidentally that studying a history degree, on its own, isn’t usually enough for a top job. What it is is an excellent foundation for one year professional qualifications in a number of fields. Law. Business. Record management. Administration.
But you do need to be willing to do at least a further year to make that work.
However, I would advise most people doing a degree to be ready to do specific postgrad study now anyway.
Indeed, I did history and am now a records manager, lots of historians also convert to law after their degree and become solicitors or barristers.
Plenty of historians also join the civil service or politics eg Gordon Brown or Michael Portillo.
You don't just have to teach history if you do a history degree
I have been thinking about the polling a little more and what intrigues me most is not continuing Red Wall support for the Tories, which I would expect given that once you have c
Back in the day voting Conservative used to be seen as a mark of personal success by certain types of people. It
Let's hope so.
I was disturbed by your assertion last evening that Johnson will at some point in the future call a referendum to restore capital punishment, in order to bolster his flagging popularity. I may be naive, but I am hoping this is a step too far even for Johnson.
I think it would take a serious war, for the restoration of capital punishment to become a reality. In a WWII situation, no one would object to the execution of traitors or war criminals.
Well some did of course but what was more questionable in WW2 was the execution of german spies (not traitors) but just spies. .
Spies know that's the risk they run in wartime (and often outside of wartime).
After four or five years of war, the revelation of the Holocaust and Generalplan Ost, few people would have had much sympathy for the victims of bombing.
Well not sure anyone can argue that the average german kid (say 5 year old) was complicit in the holocaust (not that I think the full horror was widely known by the normal german populace anyway at the time) but they were deliberately killed in terrible circumstances by British targeted bombing of civilians
While many people would think that way eighty years on, few people would think like that in a war as intense as WWII. Most would take the view of Sir Arthur Harris, "They have sown the wind, now they shall reap the whirlwind."
I have been thinking about the polling a little more and what intrigues me most is not continuing Red Wall support for the Tories, which I would expect given that once you have convinced yourself to make the leap you are not going to change your mind without very good reason, but the ongoing backing the party gets from a portion of Remainers. I am genuinely interested in knowing what is keeping them onside right now. Surely, it is more than tribalism.
Back in the day voting Conservative used to be seen as a mark of personal success by certain types of people. It was a theme running through the Margot Leadbeater character in The Good Life, she was posh so she voted Conservative and voting Conservative confirmed she was posh. Not voting Conservative might be seen in these circles as an admission of failure.
The reality these days however is that the Conservative Party under McMillan or Heath shares very little with Johnson's party except for the name.
I think it is interesting that people like Richard Nabavi, David Herdson and TSE - who were very loyal, ideologically-driven Tories that accepted the Brexit result and were convinced that it had to be honoured - have walked away from the party under Johnson, but that they do not seem to represent a movement, as such. It's notable that so many very talented individual Tories have deserted the party, but that this has not had much of an impact on its overall vote. That said, these are early days in this Parliament and the consequences of the undeliverable Brexit that Johnson and co have promised are yet to be felt, so maybe the old-style PB Tories are just the vanguard who have spent more time thinking about it than others have up to now.
Let's hope so.
I was disturbed by your assertion last evening that Johnson will at some point in the future call a referendum to restore capital punishment, in order to bolster his flagging popularity. I may be naive, but I am hoping this is a step too far even for Johnson.
I think it would take a serious war, for the restoration of capital punishment to become a reality. In a WWII situation, no one would object to the execution of traitors or war criminals.
Except possibly Tony Blair.
Was he not cleared by the inquiry? The queue in front of Blair would be a long one from around the world.
We've appointed an estate agent and the house goes on sale next week as we look to depart Teesside for Aberdeenshire. I've been fairly open about the struggles I had transitioning to this new virtual way of doing things but I have transitioned and it opens up all kinds of possibilities.
Fundamentally I can work from anywhere, and that is liberating. My wife's two years of study qualifies her for all kinds of education jobs and looking at where we are going job vacancies are there for the taking. There's also a reality check. I'm 44, my wife is 45, I have had two colleagues drop dead (not of the pox) this year with the second one my age. So the impetus is clear to not sit and wait for tomorrow but to get on with life before all of it passes me by.
I'm not the only person who's had a similar "oh shit" moment and is actively planning to do something about it (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-54028339) and the impacts onto how we all live, the economy and yes voting could be pretty profound. On balance 2020 has been an appalling year. But I can't remember being this motivated to get off my arse and suddenly here I am making big steps like move country and go self employed and start a business. So something has gone right...
Really nice to hear you so positive, hope it works out well for you.
I have been thinking about the polling a little more and what intrigues me most is not continuing Red Wall support for the Tories, which I would expect given that once you have convinced yourself to make the leap you are not going to change your mind without very good reason, but the ongoing backing the party gets from a portion of Remainers. I am genuinely interested in knowing what is keeping them onside right now. Surely, it is more than tribalism.
Back in the day voting Conservative used to be seen as a mark of personal success by certain types of people. It was a theme running through the Margot Leadbeater character in The Good Life, she was posh so she voted Conservative and voting Conservative confirmed she was posh. Not voting Conservative might be seen in these circles as an admission of failure.
The reality these days however is that the Conservative Party under McMillan or Heath shares very little with Johnson's party except for the name.
True enough, but then the party of Macmillan and Heath had little in common with the party of Salisbury and Balfour. The agenda moves on.
A section of upper middle class former Conservatives turned very hostile to the party under Thatcher, resulting in the loss of historic Conservative seats, even as gaining working class voters turned other seats blue.
Whereas I don't disagree with your assertion that agendas move on. The Labour Party of Blair retained the notion of social justice. For its embrace of market economics it retained the ideals of the Fabians. Some may argue that was a failing.
Johnson seems to have jettisoned anything to do with one nation conservatism. The notion of the pastoral feudal Tory has been hurled from the party. Mrs Thatcher couldn't abide the 'wets' but she allowed them to stay within her broad church.
I have been thinking about the polling a little more and what intrigues me most is not continuing Red Wall support for the Tories, which I would expect given that once you have convinced yourself to make the leap you are not going to change your mind without very good reason, but the ongoing backing the party gets from a portion of Remainers. I am genuinely interested in knowing what is keeping them onside right now. Surely, it is more than tribalism.
Back in the day voting Conservative used to be seen as a mark of personal success by certain types of people. It was a theme running through the Margot Leadbeater character in The Good Life, she was posh so she voted Conservative and voting Conservative confirmed she was posh. Not voting Conservative might be seen in these circles as an admission of failure.
The reality these days however is that the Conservative Party under McMillan or Heath shares very little with Johnson's party except for the name.
Let's hope so.
I was disturbed by your assertion last evening that Johnson will at some point in the future call a referendum to restore capital punishment, in order to bolster his flagging popularity. I may be naive, but I am hoping this is a step too far even for Johnson.
I think it would take a serious war, for the restoration of capital punishment to become a reality. In a WWII situation, no one would object to the execution of traitors or war criminals.
Except possibly Tony Blair.
Was he not cleared by the inquiry? The queue in front of Blair would be a long one from around the world.
You can try people people easily enough for obvious evils like the Holocaust, or carrying out perverted medical experiments, or staging contests to behead civilians.
After that it become a lot murkier. If you try people for waging war, then argument of tu quoque applies.
It is odd that it has taken ~8 months for the variolation hypothesis to get serious consideration as it seemed obvious that the dosage of infection is important for the severity of the disease already in the case of Dr Li Wenliang the canary in the minepit of Wuhan.
Indeed we were discussing the importance of viral load at infection from about March/April. Much of the evidence that masks work came around the same time (and related to) the realisation about how important viral load is.
Glad to see that I had the right sort of feel of it back then, my years studying chemistry weren't completely useless.
Although they would of course have been much better spent studying a proper subject like History
No, history is a hobby not a career choice (apologies), as my wife found out. She needed a master's in economics before she was able to get a look in for jobs outside of the education sector.
Hmm. Thought. Grandson 2 is doing History at A level...... currently expected get either a very good B or just about an A and I was wondering about suggesting he thought about doing that at Uni. He's planning something practical at the moment.
Uni is great for vocational type degrees or ones with a defined career path, if he's already picked one. If he hasn't then something like economics, or if he's scientifically inclined physics, is a good all-round degree that opens up a lot of doors. I wish I'd done my degree the other way around, with physics as the main bulk and less chemistry but I guess it hasn't been a huge deal for me. My wife found that her 1st from UCL opened too few door outside of education and opted for a master's from Oxford at her own expense of £11k or something like that. In the end the gamble paid off as she's now a political risk analyst for a big hedge fund which is her dream job (the role, not the hedge fund).
Daughter gat first degree Psychology and Criminology went into cognitive behavioral therapy And has had to do MSc PGC mental health therapy,PGDip and now having to upgrade a PGDip just keep up.
Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.
Or that the disease is not that serious enough to warrant extreme measures like mask wearing in the first place
Or you could actually read the article and see why wearing one is a good thing and may lead to a faster end of the crisis and herd immunity without as many fatalities.
The article is paywalled in the Telegraph, but the case is made in this open access piece in the NEJM, Americas leading medical journal.
You could just as easily argue that cases have increased during the enforced mask wearing period (which they have) and reach a conclusion they are at best ineffective and at worst contributing to it
The obvious answer is that we’re detecting a far higher proportion of cases compared with April. It’s funny to read the mask fascists moving from “wear a mask to protect others” to “wear a mask to catch COVID a little bit”. As you say, the original line means that you shouldn’t be catching it in an environment where everyone is wearing a mask.
Nobody has ever said that masks prevent all transmission, which is partially why the WHO didn't recommend them from the start.
Perhaps not, but that Telegraph article is talking about masks helping the wearer.
And another thing. The evidence is that the virus is spreading in household settings, where people are not wearing masks.
I wonder if it`s possible that if one receives a low dose of the virus (perhaps via a mask) and then passes it on to someone whilst not wearing a mask (i.e. in the home) then does that person also receives a low dose?
I have been thinking about the polling a little more and what intrigues me most is not continuing Red Wall support for the Tories, which I would expect given that once you have convinced yourself to make the leap you are not going to change your mind without very good reason, but the ongoing backing the party gets from a portion of Remainers. I am genuinely interested in knowing what is keeping them onside right now. Surely, it is more than tribalism.
Back in the day voting Conservative used to be seen as a mark of personal success by certain types of people. It was a theme running through the Margot Leadbeater character in The Good Life, she was posh so she voted Conservative and voting Conservative confirmed she was posh. Not voting Conservative might be seen in these circles as an admission of failure.
The reality these days however is that the Conservative Party under McMillan or Heath shares very little with Johnson's party except for the name.
True enough, but then the party of Macmillan and Heath had little in common with the party of Salisbury and Balfour. The agenda moves on.
A section of upper middle class former Conservatives turned very hostile to the party under Thatcher, resulting in the loss of historic Conservative seats, even as gaining working class voters turned other seats blue.
Whereas I don't disagree with your assertion that agendas move on. The Labour Party of Blair retained the notion of social justice. For its embrace of market economics it retained the ideals of the Fabians. Some may argue that was a failing.
Johnson seems to have jettisoned anything to do with one nation conservatism. The notion of the pastoral feudal Tory has been hurled from the party. Mrs Thatcher couldn't abide the 'wets' but she allowed them to stay within her broad church.
On economics Boris is more one nation than Thatcher, hence the Tories now represent a lot of northern and midlands seats even Thatcher never won, from Stoke to Grimsby to West Bromwich and Sedgefield. He is only not one nation if you define being one nation as being pro EU, which is why strong Remain seats Thatcher won like Richmond Park, Oxford West and Abingdon, Bath, Kingston Upon Thames and St Albans now have LD MPs.
In other news, I wonder how many patriots out there realise that the Last Night of the Proms happened, er, last night. I wonder when the viewing figures are going to be published?
Some may have been occupied with finally watching their Gone With The Wind dvd.
Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.
Or that the disease is not that serious enough to warrant extreme measures like mask wearing in the first place
Or you could actually read the article and see why wearing one is a good thing and may lead to a faster end of the crisis and herd immunity without as many fatalities.
The article is paywalled in the Telegraph, but the case is made in this open access piece in the NEJM, Americas leading medical journal.
You could just as easily argue that cases have increased during the enforced mask wearing period (which they have) and reach a conclusion they are at best ineffective and at worst contributing to it
The obvious answer is that we’re detecting a far higher proportion of cases compared with April. It’s funny to read the mask fascists moving from “wear a mask to protect others” to “wear a mask to catch COVID a little bit”. As you say, the original line means that you shouldn’t be catching it in an environment where everyone is wearing a mask.
Nobody has ever said that masks prevent all transmission, which is partially why the WHO didn't recommend them from the start.
Perhaps not, but that Telegraph article is talking about masks helping the wearer.
And another thing. The evidence is that the virus is spreading in household settings, where people are not wearing masks.
Either situations where it is brought in from outside by one member, did they follow the rules when out, or visits by extended family where the urge to greet physically is automatic.
We've appointed an estate agent and the house goes on sale next week as we look to depart Teesside for Aberdeenshire. I've been fairly open about the struggles I had transitioning to this new virtual way of doing things but I have transitioned and it opens up all kinds of possibilities.
Fundamentally I can work from anywhere, and that is liberating. My wife's two years of study qualifies her for all kinds of education jobs and looking at where we are going job vacancies are there for the taking. There's also a reality check. I'm 44, my wife is 45, I have had two colleagues drop dead (not of the pox) this year with the second one my age. So the impetus is clear to not sit and wait for tomorrow but to get on with life before all of it passes me by.
I'm not the only person who's had a similar "oh shit" moment and is actively planning to do something about it (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-54028339) and the impacts onto how we all live, the economy and yes voting could be pretty profound. On balance 2020 has been an appalling year. But I can't remember being this motivated to get off my arse and suddenly here I am making big steps like move country and go self employed and start a business. So something has gone right...
Welcome to Scotland. I think that the enforced disruption of the last 6 months has forced many of us to reflect on what we do, how we do it and why we do it. Not all of this self reflection has been tremendously productive so kudos for getting something positive out of it.
I think there is a strong chance the election in November in the US will be the closest in the EC since Bush v Gore in 2000 and OT yes it could even be closer than that if 269 269 which is possible if Biden wins Michigan, Pennsylvania and Nebraska 02
There's support for that view from an interview in yesterday's FT. It is a fairly extensive piece on Kim Darroch, the former UK Ambassador to the US who was very publicly shafted by a leaker and had to resign. The whole interview is well worth a read but specifically on the election he obviously thinks it will be close and '...will get nasty on the streets whichever way it goes.'
I have been thinking about the polling a little more and what intrigues me most is not continuing Red Wall support for the Tories, which I would expect given that once you have convinced yourself to make the leap you are not going to change your mind without very good reason, but the ongoing backing the party gets from a portion of Remainers. I am genuinely interested in knowing what is keeping them onside right now. Surely, it is more than tribalism.
Back in the day voting Conservative used to be seen as a mark of personal success by certain types of people. It was a theme running through the Margot Leadbeater character in The Good Life, she was posh so she voted Conservative and voting Conservative confirmed she was posh. Not voting Conservative might be seen in these circles as an admission of failure.
The reality these days however is that the Conservative Party under McMillan or Heath shares very little with Johnson's party except for the name.
True enough, but then the party of Macmillan and Heath had little in common with the party of Salisbury and Balfour. The agenda moves on.
A section of upper middle class former Conservatives turned very hostile to the party under Thatcher, resulting in the loss of historic Conservative seats, even as gaining working class voters turned other seats blue.
Whereas I don't disagree with your assertion that agendas move on. The Labour Party of Blair retained the notion of social justice. For its embrace of market economics it retained the ideals of the Fabians. Some may argue that was a failing.
Johnson seems to have jettisoned anything to do with one nation conservatism. The notion of the pastoral feudal Tory has been hurled from the party. Mrs Thatcher couldn't abide the 'wets' but she allowed them to stay within her broad church.
On economics Boris is more one nation than Thatcher, hence the Tories now represent a lot of northern and midlands seats even Thatcher never won, from Stoke to Grimsby to West Bromwich and Sedgefield. He is only not one nation if you define being one nation as being pro EU, which is why strong Remain seats Thatcher won like Richmond Park, Oxford West and Abingdon, Bath, Kingston Upon Thames and St Albans now have LD MPs.
Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.
Or that the disease is not that serious enough to warrant extreme measures like mask wearing in the first place
Or you could actually read the article and see why wearing one is a good thing and may lead to a faster end of the crisis and herd immunity without as many fatalities.
The article is paywalled in the Telegraph, but the case is made in this open access piece in the NEJM, Americas leading medical journal.
You could just as easily argue that cases have increased during the enforced mask wearing period (which they have) and reach a conclusion they are at best ineffective and at worst contributing to it
The obvious answer is that we’re detecting a far higher proportion of cases compared with April. It’s funny to read the mask fascists moving from “wear a mask to protect others” to “wear a mask to catch COVID a little bit”. As you say, the original line means that you shouldn’t be catching it in an environment where everyone is wearing a mask.
Nobody has ever said that masks prevent all transmission, which is partially why the WHO didn't recommend them from the start.
Perhaps not, but that Telegraph article is talking about masks helping the wearer.
And another thing. The evidence is that the virus is spreading in household settings, where people are not wearing masks.
I wonder if it`s possible that if one receives a low dose of the virus (perhaps via a mask) and then passes it on to someone whilst not wearing a mask (i.e. in the home) then does that person also receives a low dose?
This may be shite - just asking.
So, how does the mask become a source of the virus? Presumably it has to stop you breathing the virus in, so it saved you then. The virus I believe lasts longest on hard surfaces and would die quicker on cloth. So you'd have to be really unlucky to get the virus from a mask and would have got it worse or sooner without one.
I have been thinking about the polling a little more and what intrigues me most is not continuing Red Wall support for the Tories, which I would expect given that once you have convinced yourself to make the leap you are not going to change your mind without very good reason, but the ongoing backing the party gets from a portion of Remainers. I am genuinely interested in knowing what is keeping them onside right now. Surely, it is more than tribalism.
Back in the day voting Conservative used to be seen as a mark of personal success by certain types of people. It was a theme running through the Margot Leadbeater character in The Good Life, she was posh so she voted Conservative and voting Conservative confirmed she was posh. Not voting Conservative might be seen in these circles as an admission of failure.
The reality these days however is that the Conservative Party under McMillan or Heath shares very little with Johnson's party except for the name.
True enough, but then the party of Macmillan and Heath had little in common with the party of Salisbury and Balfour. The agenda moves on.
A section of upper middle class former Conservatives turned very hostile to the party under Thatcher, resulting in the loss of historic Conservative seats, even as gaining working class voters turned other seats blue.
Whereas I don't disagree with your assertion that agendas move on. The Labour Party of Blair retained the notion of social justice. For its embrace of market economics it retained the ideals of the Fabians. Some may argue that was a failing.
Johnson seems to have jettisoned anything to do with one nation conservatism. The notion of the pastoral feudal Tory has been hurled from the party. Mrs Thatcher couldn't abide the 'wets' but she allowed them to stay within her broad church.
On economics Boris is more one nation than Thatcher, hence the Tories now represent a lot of northern and midlands seats even Thatcher never won, from Stoke to Grimsby to West Bromwich and Sedgefield. He is only not one nation if you define being one nation as being pro EU, which is why strong Remain seats Thatcher won like Richmond Park, Oxford West and Abingdon, Bath, Kingston Upon Thames and St Albans now have LD MPs.
On economics at the moment Johnson is more "one nation" than Corbyn!
I have been thinking about the polling a little more and what intrigues me most is not continuing Red Wall support for the Tories, which I would expect given that once you have convinced yourself to make the leap you are not going to change your mind without very good reason, but the ongoing backing the party gets from a portion of Remainers. I am genuinely interested in knowing what is keeping them onside right now. Surely, it is more than tribalism.
Back in the day voting Conservative used to be seen as a mark of personal success by certain types of people. It was a theme running through the Margot Leadbeater character in The Good Life, she was posh so she voted Conservative and voting Conservative confirmed she was posh. Not voting Conservative might be seen in these circles as an admission of failure.
The reality these days however is that the Conservative Party under McMillan or Heath shares very little with Johnson's party except for the name.
True enough, but then the party of Macmillan and Heath had little in common with the party of Salisbury and Balfour. The agenda moves on.
A section of upper middle class former Conservatives turned very hostile to the party under Thatcher, resulting in the loss of historic Conservative seats, even as gaining working class voters turned other seats blue.
Whereas I don't disagree with your assertion that agendas move on. The Labour Party of Blair retained the notion of social justice. For its embrace of market economics it retained the ideals of the Fabians. Some may argue that was a failing.
Johnson seems to have jettisoned anything to do with one nation conservatism. The notion of the pastoral feudal Tory has been hurled from the party. Mrs Thatcher couldn't abide the 'wets' but she allowed them to stay within her broad church.
"One nation" doesn't mean arch-Europhile. What one nation MPs have been thrown out for being one nation?
I have been thinking about the polling a little more and what intrigues me most is not continuing Red Wall support for the Tories, which I would expect given that once you have convinced yourself to make the leap you are not going to change your mind without very good reason, but the ongoing backing the party gets from a portion of Remainers. I am genuinely interested in knowing what is keeping them onside right now. Surely, it is more than tribalism.
Back in the day voting Conservative used to be seen as a mark of personal success by certain types of people. It was a theme running through the Margot Leadbeater character in The Good Life, she was posh so she voted Conservative and voting Conservative confirmed she was posh. Not voting Conservative might be seen in these circles as an admission of failure.
The reality these days however is that the Conservative Party under McMillan or Heath shares very little with Johnson's party except for the name.
True enough, but then the party of Macmillan and Heath had little in common with the party of Salisbury and Balfour. The agenda moves on.
A section of upper middle class former Conservatives turned very hostile to the party under Thatcher, resulting in the loss of historic Conservative seats, even as gaining working class voters turned other seats blue.
Whereas I don't disagree with your assertion that agendas move on. The Labour Party of Blair retained the notion of social justice. For its embrace of market economics it retained the ideals of the Fabians. Some may argue that was a failing.
Johnson seems to have jettisoned anything to do with one nation conservatism. The notion of the pastoral feudal Tory has been hurled from the party. Mrs Thatcher couldn't abide the 'wets' but she allowed them to stay within her broad church.
On economics Boris is more one nation than Thatcher, hence the Tories now represent a lot of northern and midlands seats even Thatcher never won, from Stoke to Grimsby to West Bromwich and Sedgefield. He is only not one nation if you define being one nation as being pro EU, which is why strong Remain seats Thatcher won like Richmond Park, Oxford West and Abingdon, Bath, Kingston Upon Thames and St Albans now have LD MPs.
On economics at the moment Johnson is more "one nation" than Corbyn!
He isn't, he has not nationalised utilities and rail as Corbyn wanted, nor put the top tax rate up to 50% though yes in other respects he is the most leftwing Tory leader on economics since probably Macmillan
To take an extreme example, Jochen Rindt died because he refused to wear his seatbelt properly. He was afraid if his car caught fire, he wouldn’t be able to remove his belt in time to jump out. As a result, he only attached half of it and it garrotted him when he crashed.
When I rolled my Mk.2 GTi (the full 720°) the chassis twisted and the seatbelt would not release. My mate (who was now missing 25-50% of his teeth, LOL) had to cut me out with a Stanley knife while bleeding all over me. I'd still rather be wearing one. Had airbag burns from the total destruction of a rented Passat in France as well.
I suspect that you are a character in a novel. Who is your author?
Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.
Or that the disease is not that serious enough to warrant extreme measures like mask wearing in the first place
Or you could actually read the article and see why wearing one is a good thing and may lead to a faster end of the crisis and herd immunity without as many fatalities.
The article is paywalled in the Telegraph, but the case is made in this open access piece in the NEJM, Americas leading medical journal.
You could just as easily argue that cases have increased during the enforced mask wearing period (which they have) and reach a conclusion they are at best ineffective and at worst contributing to it
The obvious answer is that we’re detecting a far higher proportion of cases compared with April. It’s funny to read the mask fascists moving from “wear a mask to protect others” to “wear a mask to catch COVID a little bit”. As you say, the original line means that you shouldn’t be catching it in an environment where everyone is wearing a mask.
Nobody has ever said that masks prevent all transmission, which is partially why the WHO didn't recommend them from the start.
Perhaps not, but that Telegraph article is talking about masks helping the wearer.
And another thing. The evidence is that the virus is spreading in household settings, where people are not wearing masks.
I wonder if it`s possible that if one receives a low dose of the virus (perhaps via a mask) and then passes it on to someone whilst not wearing a mask (i.e. in the home) then does that person also receives a low dose?
This may be shite - just asking.
So, how does the mask become a source of the virus? Presumably it has to stop you breathing the virus in, so it saved you then. The virus I believe lasts longest on hard surfaces and would die quicker on cloth. So you'd have to be really unlucky to get the virus from a mask and would have got it worse or sooner without one.
I`m referring back to the variolation hypothesis - that catching a virus while wearing a mask gives you a very low dose of virus which the body`s immune system can cope with - and this could be the reason why higher infections are not being accompanied by higher hospitalisations. Mask is not a source of the virus, but rather a imperfect filter (which may inadvertantly turn out to be a positive attribute).
I have been thinking about the polling a little more and what intrigues me most is not continuing Red Wall support for the Tories, which I would expect given that once you have convinced yourself to make the leap you are not going to change your mind without very good reason, but the ongoing backing the party gets from a portion of Remainers. I am genuinely interested in knowing what is keeping them onside right now. Surely, it is more than tribalism.
Back in the day voting Conservative used to be seen as a mark of personal success by certain types of people. It was a theme running through the Margot Leadbeater character in The Good Life, she was posh so she voted Conservative and voting Conservative confirmed she was posh. Not voting Conservative might be seen in these circles as an admission of failure.
The reality these days however is that the Conservative Party under McMillan or Heath shares very little with Johnson's party except for the name.
True enough, but then the party of Macmillan and Heath had little in common with the party of Salisbury and Balfour. The agenda moves on.
A section of upper middle class former Conservatives turned very hostile to the party under Thatcher, resulting in the loss of historic Conservative seats, even as gaining working class voters turned other seats blue.
Whereas I don't disagree with your assertion that agendas move on. The Labour Party of Blair retained the notion of social justice. For its embrace of market economics it retained the ideals of the Fabians. Some may argue that was a failing.
Johnson seems to have jettisoned anything to do with one nation conservatism. The notion of the pastoral feudal Tory has been hurled from the party. Mrs Thatcher couldn't abide the 'wets' but she allowed them to stay within her broad church.
On economics Boris is more one nation than Thatcher, hence the Tories now represent a lot of northern and midlands seats even Thatcher never won, from Stoke to Grimsby to West Bromwich and Sedgefield. He is only not one nation if you define being one nation as being pro EU, which is why strong Remain seats Thatcher won like Richmond Park, Oxford West and Abingdon, Bath, Kingston Upon Thames and St Albans now have LD MPs.
Surely a big part of being One Nation, is not dividing the country up into rival camps and making decisions on narrow short term electoral advantage in favour of a particular group, but you know, governing, for the whole "One Nation"?
Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.
Or that the disease is not that serious enough to warrant extreme measures like mask wearing in the first place
Or you could actually read the article and see why wearing one is a good thing and may lead to a faster end of the crisis and herd immunity without as many fatalities.
The article is paywalled in the Telegraph, but the case is made in this open access piece in the NEJM, Americas leading medical journal.
You could just as easily argue that cases have increased during the enforced mask wearing period (which they have) and reach a conclusion they are at best ineffective and at worst contributing to it
The obvious answer is that we’re detecting a far higher proportion of cases compared with April. It’s funny to read the mask fascists moving from “wear a mask to protect others” to “wear a mask to catch COVID a little bit”. As you say, the original line means that you shouldn’t be catching it in an environment where everyone is wearing a mask.
Nobody has ever said that masks prevent all transmission, which is partially why the WHO didn't recommend them from the start.
Perhaps not, but that Telegraph article is talking about masks helping the wearer.
And another thing. The evidence is that the virus is spreading in household settings, where people are not wearing masks.
I wonder if it`s possible that if one receives a low dose of the virus (perhaps via a mask) and then passes it on to someone whilst not wearing a mask (i.e. in the home) then does that person also receives a low dose?
This may be shite - just asking.
Don't think so. This is the whole problem of asymptomatic transmission. Asymptomatic cases may be linked to age and general health, but also probably significantly to viral load. But if they transmitted virus in low dose to others then the health response could have focussed mainly on symptomatic cases. Which is what happened originally and is widely believed to have been a big mistake.
Albeit there is also the "pre-symptomatic" element, so i may be getting confused.
Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.
Or that the disease is not that serious enough to warrant extreme measures like mask wearing in the first place
Or you could actually read the article and see why wearing one is a good thing and may lead to a faster end of the crisis and herd immunity without as many fatalities.
The article is paywalled in the Telegraph, but the case is made in this open access piece in the NEJM, Americas leading medical journal.
You could just as easily argue that cases have increased during the enforced mask wearing period (which they have) and reach a conclusion they are at best ineffective and at worst contributing to it
The obvious answer is that we’re detecting a far higher proportion of cases compared with April. It’s funny to read the mask fascists moving from “wear a mask to protect others” to “wear a mask to catch COVID a little bit”. As you say, the original line means that you shouldn’t be catching it in an environment where everyone is wearing a mask.
Nobody has ever said that masks prevent all transmission, which is partially why the WHO didn't recommend them from the start.
Perhaps not, but that Telegraph article is talking about masks helping the wearer.
And another thing. The evidence is that the virus is spreading in household settings, where people are not wearing masks.
I wonder if it`s possible that if one receives a low dose of the virus (perhaps via a mask) and then passes it on to someone whilst not wearing a mask (i.e. in the home) then does that person also receives a low dose?
This may be shite - just asking.
So, how does the mask become a source of the virus? Presumably it has to stop you breathing the virus in, so it saved you then. The virus I believe lasts longest on hard surfaces and would die quicker on cloth. So you'd have to be really unlucky to get the virus from a mask and would have got it worse or sooner without one.
The idea is not that masks are a source of the virus, but that if you catch the virus then the mask ensures you get it with a lower viral load than you would have been infected with if nobody was wearing a mask. Which gives your body time to develop antibodies and fight the infection off while asymptomatic or with mild symptoms.
I have been thinking about the polling a little more and what intrigues me most is not continuing Red Wall support for the Tories, which I would expect given that once you have convinced yourself to make the leap you are not going to change your mind without very good reason, but the ongoing backing the party gets from a portion of Remainers. I am genuinely interested in knowing what is keeping them onside right now. Surely, it is more than tribalism.
Back in the day voting Conservative used to be seen as a mark of personal success by certain types of people. It was a theme running through the Margot Leadbeater character in The Good Life, she was posh so she voted Conservative and voting Conservative confirmed she was posh. Not voting Conservative might be seen in these circles as an admission of failure.
The reality these days however is that the Conservative Party under McMillan or Heath shares very little with Johnson's party except for the name.
True enough, but then the party of Macmillan and Heath had little in common with the party of Salisbury and Balfour. The agenda moves on.
A section of upper middle class former Conservatives turned very hostile to the party under Thatcher, resulting in the loss of historic Conservative seats, even as gaining working class voters turned other seats blue.
Whereas I don't disagree with your assertion that agendas move on. The Labour Party of Blair retained the notion of social justice. For its embrace of market economics it retained the ideals of the Fabians. Some may argue that was a failing.
Johnson seems to have jettisoned anything to do with one nation conservatism. The notion of the pastoral feudal Tory has been hurled from the party. Mrs Thatcher couldn't abide the 'wets' but she allowed them to stay within her broad church.
On economics Boris is more one nation than Thatcher, hence the Tories now represent a lot of northern and midlands seats even Thatcher never won, from Stoke to Grimsby to West Bromwich and Sedgefield. He is only not one nation if you define being one nation as being pro EU, which is why strong Remain seats Thatcher won like Richmond Park, Oxford West and Abingdon, Bath, Kingston Upon Thames and St Albans now have LD MPs.
Surely a big part of being One Nation, is not dividing the country up into rival camps and making decisions on narrow short term electoral advantage in favour of a particular group, but you know, governing, for the whole "One Nation"?
:HYUFD seems to be using "One Nation" as a synonym for left wing. Hence "not as one nation as Corbyn because he hasn't nationalised anything".
Not as a strand of Conservatism going make centuries.
I have been thinking about the polling a little more and what intrigues me most is not continuing Red Wall support for the Tories, which I would expect given that once you have convinced yourself to make the leap you are not going to change your mind without very good reason, but the ongoing backing the party gets from a portion of Remainers. I am genuinely interested in knowing what is keeping them onside right now. Surely, it is more than tribalism.
Back in the day voting Conservative used to be seen as a mark of personal success by certain types of people. It was a theme running through the Margot Leadbeater character in The Good Life, she was posh so she voted Conservative and voting Conservative confirmed she was posh. Not voting Conservative might be seen in these circles as an admission of failure.
The reality these days however is that the Conservative Party under McMillan or Heath shares very little with Johnson's party except for the name.
True enough, but then the party of Macmillan and Heath had little in common with the party of Salisbury and Balfour. The agenda moves on.
A section of upper middle class former Conservatives turned very hostile to the party under Thatcher, resulting in the loss of historic Conservative seats, even as gaining working class voters turned other seats blue.
Whereas I don't disagree with your assertion that agendas move on. The Labour Party of Blair retained the notion of social justice. For its embrace of market economics it retained the ideals of the Fabians. Some may argue that was a failing.
Johnson seems to have jettisoned anything to do with one nation conservatism. The notion of the pastoral feudal Tory has been hurled from the party. Mrs Thatcher couldn't abide the 'wets' but she allowed them to stay within her broad church.
"One nation" doesn't mean arch-Europhile. What one nation MPs have been thrown out for being one nation?
While the polls show a 14% lead for the death penalty on the straight question, on the question "If you could choose between the following two approaches, which do you think is the better penalty for murder -- [ROTATED: the death penalty (or) life imprisonment, with absolutely no possibility of parole]?", the death penalty loses by 24 points (although 6 years ago it won by 5 points).
However they could make it more likely to pass by restricting it to murders of police officers and children.
Given where we were a few months ago this is a remarkable logistical achievement and our testing per million people is, according to Worldometer, second only to Israel in the world for medium to large countries.
I am driven to conclude that the good doctor has an agenda which may not have a lot to do with health.
Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.
Or that the disease is not that serious enough to warrant extreme measures like mask wearing in the first place
Or you could actually read the article and see why wearing one is a good thing and may lead to a faster end of the crisis and herd immunity without as many fatalities.
The article is paywalled in the Telegraph, but the case is made in this open access piece in the NEJM, Americas leading medical journal.
You could just as easily argue that cases have increased during the enforced mask wearing period (which they have) and reach a conclusion they are at best ineffective and at worst contributing to it
The obvious answer is that we’re detecting a far higher proportion of cases compared with April. It’s funny to read the mask fascists moving from “wear a mask to protect others” to “wear a mask to catch COVID a little bit”. As you say, the original line means that you shouldn’t be catching it in an environment where everyone is wearing a mask.
Nobody has ever said that masks prevent all transmission, which is partially why the WHO didn't recommend them from the start.
Perhaps not, but that Telegraph article is talking about masks helping the wearer.
And another thing. The evidence is that the virus is spreading in household settings, where people are not wearing masks.
I wonder if it`s possible that if one receives a low dose of the virus (perhaps via a mask) and then passes it on to someone whilst not wearing a mask (i.e. in the home) then does that person also receives a low dose?
This may be shite - just asking.
So, how does the mask become a source of the virus? Presumably it has to stop you breathing the virus in, so it saved you then. The virus I believe lasts longest on hard surfaces and would die quicker on cloth. So you'd have to be really unlucky to get the virus from a mask and would have got it worse or sooner without one.
I`m referring back to the variolation hypothesis - that catching a virus while wearing a mask gives you a very low dose of virus which the body`s immune sysytem can cope with - and this could be the reason why higher infections are not being accompanied by higher hospitalisations. Mask is not a source of the virus, but rather a imperfect filter (which may inadvertantly turn out to be a positive attribute).
The mask was never promoted as 100% effective rather that if infected and none infected both had masks it reduced the risk by 90%+ and if the infected didn’t wear a mask the risk reduction was significantly increased but still reduced over not wearing one.
Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.
Or that the disease is not that serious enough to warrant extreme measures like mask wearing in the first place
Or you could actually read the article and see why wearing one is a good thing and may lead to a faster end of the crisis and herd immunity without as many fatalities.
The article is paywalled in the Telegraph, but the case is made in this open access piece in the NEJM, Americas leading medical journal.
You could just as easily argue that cases have increased during the enforced mask wearing period (which they have) and reach a conclusion they are at best ineffective and at worst contributing to it
The obvious answer is that we’re detecting a far higher proportion of cases compared with April. It’s funny to read the mask fascists moving from “wear a mask to protect others” to “wear a mask to catch COVID a little bit”. As you say, the original line means that you shouldn’t be catching it in an environment where everyone is wearing a mask.
Nobody has ever said that masks prevent all transmission, which is partially why the WHO didn't recommend them from the start.
Perhaps not, but that Telegraph article is talking about masks helping the wearer.
And another thing. The evidence is that the virus is spreading in household settings, where people are not wearing masks.
I wonder if it`s possible that if one receives a low dose of the virus (perhaps via a mask) and then passes it on to someone whilst not wearing a mask (i.e. in the home) then does that person also receives a low dose?
This may be shite - just asking.
Don't think so. This is the whole problem of asymptomatic transmission. Asymptomatic cases may be linked to age and general health, but also probably significantly to viral load. But if they transmitted virus in low dose to others then the health response could have focussed mainly on symptomatic cases. Which is what happened originally and is widely believed to have been a big mistake.
Albeit there is also the "pre-symptomatic" element, so i may be getting confused.
One of the issues is sustained transmission even at low doses adds up. Hence why masks etc if routinely worn help to ensure the dose is low.
One of the key pieces of early evidence that viral load is a major issue with this virus was that partners of people who caught the infection were getting sicker than the partner who had originally caught it. Because eg if a wide had caught it with a relatively low viral load then she doesn't get particularly sick but she then spreads it to her husband who gets a lot of viral load from her in the time that she is contagious so he does get sick.
Given where we were a few months ago this is a remarkable logistical achievement and our testing per million people is, according to Worldometer, second only to Israel in the world for medium to large countries.
I am driven to conclude that the good doctor has an agenda which may not have a lot to do with health.
Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.
Or that the disease is not that serious enough to warrant extreme measures like mask wearing in the first place
Or you could actually read the article and see why wearing one is a good thing and may lead to a faster end of the crisis and herd immunity without as many fatalities.
The article is paywalled in the Telegraph, but the case is made in this open access piece in the NEJM, Americas leading medical journal.
You could just as easily argue that cases have increased during the enforced mask wearing period (which they have) and reach a conclusion they are at best ineffective and at worst contributing to it
The obvious answer is that we’re detecting a far higher proportion of cases compared with April. It’s funny to read the mask fascists moving from “wear a mask to protect others” to “wear a mask to catch COVID a little bit”. As you say, the original line means that you shouldn’t be catching it in an environment where everyone is wearing a mask.
Nobody has ever said that masks prevent all transmission, which is partially why the WHO didn't recommend them from the start.
Perhaps not, but that Telegraph article is talking about masks helping the wearer.
And another thing. The evidence is that the virus is spreading in household settings, where people are not wearing masks.
I wonder if it`s possible that if one receives a low dose of the virus (perhaps via a mask) and then passes it on to someone whilst not wearing a mask (i.e. in the home) then does that person also receives a low dose?
This may be shite - just asking.
So, how does the mask become a source of the virus? Presumably it has to stop you breathing the virus in, so it saved you then. The virus I believe lasts longest on hard surfaces and would die quicker on cloth. So you'd have to be really unlucky to get the virus from a mask and would have got it worse or sooner without one.
What? The hypothesis is that it is an imperfect filter, so it doesn't stop you breathing the virus in, it stops you breathing say 90% of the virus in. "Via" does not mean "from."
I have been thinking about the polling a little more and what intrigues me most is not continuing Red Wall support for the Tories, which I would expect given that once you have convinced yourself to make the leap you are not going to change your mind without very good reason, but the ongoing backing the party gets from a portion of Remainers. I am genuinely interested in knowing what is keeping them onside right now. Surely, it is more than tribalism.
Back in the day voting Conservative used to be seen as a mark of personal success by certain types of people. It was a theme running through the Margot Leadbeater character in The Good Life, she was posh so she voted Conservative and voting Conservative confirmed she was posh. Not voting Conservative might be seen in these circles as an admission of failure.
The reality these days however is that the Conservative Party under McMillan or Heath shares very little with Johnson's party except for the name.
True enough, but then the party of Macmillan and Heath had little in common with the party of Salisbury and Balfour. The agenda moves on.
A section of upper middle class former Conservatives turned very hostile to the party under Thatcher, resulting in the loss of historic Conservative seats, even as gaining working class voters turned other seats blue.
Whereas I don't disagree with your assertion that agendas move on. The Labour Party of Blair retained the notion of social justice. For its embrace of market economics it retained the ideals of the Fabians. Some may argue that was a failing.
Johnson seems to have jettisoned anything to do with one nation conservatism. The notion of the pastoral feudal Tory has been hurled from the party. Mrs Thatcher couldn't abide the 'wets' but she allowed them to stay within her broad church.
On economics Boris is more one nation than Thatcher, hence the Tories now represent a lot of northern and midlands seats even Thatcher never won, from Stoke to Grimsby to West Bromwich and Sedgefield. He is only not one nation if you define being one nation as being pro EU, which is why strong Remain seats Thatcher won like Richmond Park, Oxford West and Abingdon, Bath, Kingston Upon Thames and St Albans now have LD MPs.
Surely a big part of being One Nation, is not dividing the country up into rival camps and making decisions on narrow short term electoral advantage in favour of a particular group, but you know, governing, for the whole "One Nation"?
:HYUFD seems to be using "One Nation" as a synonym for left wing. Hence "not as one nation as Corbyn because he hasn't nationalised anything".
Not as a strand of Conservatism going make centuries.
If we are seeking to define the govt "popularist" is the best answer. It has many strands of the populist movement thats doing well across global democracies and chooses policies largely by opinion poll rather than any ideology.
Given where we were a few months ago this is a remarkable logistical achievement and our testing per million people is, according to Worldometer, second only to Israel in the world for medium to large countries.
I am driven to conclude that the good doctor has an agenda which may not have a lot to do with health.
David our testing regime may be better than some others but it’s still sh*te. If you’ve tried to use it in the last week you’d know.
I have been thinking about the polling a little more and what intrigues me most is not continuing Red Wall support for the Tories, which I would expect given that once you have convinced yourself to make the leap you are not going to change your mind without very good reason, but the ongoing backing the party gets from a portion of Remainers. I am genuinely interested in knowing what is keeping them onside right now. Surely, it is more than tribalism.
Back in the day voting Conservative used to be seen as a mark of personal success by certain types of people. It was a theme running through the Margot Leadbeater character in The Good Life, she was posh so she voted Conservative and voting Conservative confirmed she was posh. Not voting Conservative might be seen in these circles as an admission of failure.
The reality these days however is that the Conservative Party under McMillan or Heath shares very little with Johnson's party except for the name.
True enough, but then the party of Macmillan and Heath had little in common with the party of Salisbury and Balfour. The agenda moves on.
A section of upper middle class former Conservatives turned very hostile to the party under Thatcher, resulting in the loss of historic Conservative seats, even as gaining working class voters turned other seats blue.
Whereas I don't disagree with your assertion that agendas move on. The Labour Party of Blair retained the notion of social justice. For its embrace of market economics it retained the ideals of the Fabians. Some may argue that was a failing.
Johnson seems to have jettisoned anything to do with one nation conservatism. The notion of the pastoral feudal Tory has been hurled from the party. Mrs Thatcher couldn't abide the 'wets' but she allowed them to stay within her broad church.
On economics Boris is more one nation than Thatcher, hence the Tories now represent a lot of northern and midlands seats even Thatcher never won, from Stoke to Grimsby to West Bromwich and Sedgefield. He is only not one nation if you define being one nation as being pro EU, which is why strong Remain seats Thatcher won like Richmond Park, Oxford West and Abingdon, Bath, Kingston Upon Thames and St Albans now have LD MPs.
On economics at the moment Johnson is more "one nation" than Corbyn!
Because he faces a completely different situation. Corbyn wanted a massive increase in public spending because...well just because. He thought the government has much better ideas about how our wealth should be spent than we do.
Boris/Sunak have had a massive increase in public spending because we face a pandemic with horrendous economic consequences and it is necessary to mitigate the damage. It's not the same.
To take an extreme example, Jochen Rindt died because he refused to wear his seatbelt properly. He was afraid if his car caught fire, he wouldn’t be able to remove his belt in time to jump out. As a result, he only attached half of it and it garrotted him when he crashed.
When I rolled my Mk.2 GTi (the full 720°) the chassis twisted and the seatbelt would not release. My mate (who was now missing 25-50% of his teeth, LOL) had to cut me out with a Stanley knife while bleeding all over me. I'd still rather be wearing one. Had airbag burns from the total destruction of a rented Passat in France as well.
I suspect that you are a character in a novel. Who is your author?
Given where we were a few months ago this is a remarkable logistical achievement and our testing per million people is, according to Worldometer, second only to Israel in the world for medium to large countries.
I am driven to conclude that the good doctor has an agenda which may not have a lot to do with health.
Not bought your copy of the Times this morning?
Not yet, no. Heading to Tescos shortly and will get it then. But local failings do not change the overall picture which is that our testing regime is now amongst the best in the world, even if we want it to be better still (particularly faster).
I have been thinking about the polling a little more and what intrigues me most is not continuing Red Wall support for the Tories, which I would expect given that once you have convinced yourself to make the leap you are not going to change your mind without very good reason, but the ongoing backing the party gets from a portion of Remainers. I am genuinely interested in knowing what is keeping them onside right now. Surely, it is more than tribalism.
Back in the day voting Conservative used to be seen as a mark of personal success by certain types of people. It was a theme running through the Margot Leadbeater character in The Good Life, she was posh so she voted Conservative and voting Conservative confirmed she was posh. Not voting Conservative might be seen in these circles as an admission of failure.
The reality these days however is that the Conservative Party under McMillan or Heath shares very little with Johnson's party except for the name.
I'm not so sure I agree. On domestic policy I'd say it has a fair amont in common with MacM or Heath. Its plans to build huge numbers of houses, for example, are shared with Macmillian, while its corporatist and technocratic meddling in the economy is like post-Selsdon Heath.
Of course it is much more hostile to the Common Market than either of those PMs, but the EU has changed greatly since the 1960s and 1970s, and I'm not sure Macmillan would have supported joining the embryonic superstate we have today, though I've no doubt at all that Ted Heath would have.
Could explain why we're seeing a huge rise in cases but not a very big rise in hospitalisations. If it's true then the government should have tougher mask rules and more scenarios where they should be worn.
Or that the disease is not that serious enough to warrant extreme measures like mask wearing in the first place
So if car crashes kill 100,000 people a year, and the introduction of compulsory seat belts reduces that figure to 10 people a year, that proves that the risk of dying in a car crash was always too trivial to justify the extreme measure of compulsory seat belts.
But car seat belts have been proven to save lives .
Has there even been a double-blind randomized trial?
I presume your last sentence is a joke - after a lag of several weeks deaths are well up in Spain as the infections have speread beyond the young in fected first.
According to the government website daily testing processed is now at 227,465. This is admittedly significantly below the theoretical capacity of 374k and there are clearly logjams in the system, particularly at the labs, but I am very doubtful about these claims unless they are backed up by a similar level of data.
Given where we were a few months ago this is a remarkable logistical achievement and our testing per million people is, according to Worldometer, second only to Israel in the world for medium to large countries.
I am driven to conclude that the good doctor has an agenda which may not have a lot to do with health.
Not bought your copy of the Times this morning?
Not yet, no. Heading to Tescos shortly and will get it then. But local failings do not change the overall picture which is that our testing regime is now amongst the best in the world, even if we want it to be better still (particularly faster).
What a ridiculous statement to make on the available evidence.
Given where we were a few months ago this is a remarkable logistical achievement and our testing per million people is, according to Worldometer, second only to Israel in the world for medium to large countries.
I am driven to conclude that the good doctor has an agenda which may not have a lot to do with health.
200k effective tests a day would be great - but for a disease where the infectious period is on average 5 days it is pointless giving results 48 hours after a test, there is no value including those, we are just deceiving ourselves.
Day 1 - Start to feel unwell Day 2 - Book a test Day 3 - Take Test Day 6 - Receive test result Day 6 - Also stop being infectious
A post on here said only 25% of tests were being turned around in 24 hours, I dont know how accurate or reflective that is, but based on that I would be counting effective tests as those done in 24 hours or less, so 25% x 200k = 50k at the moment.
Comments
https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1305057841619832832
But that was in the days when a mahoosive Royal Navy somewhat deterred people whom the British had just shat all over from doing anything about it.
I don’t think that will bother the EU.
I’ll get my coat.
Have a good morning.
The original statement being that we would make an exception him as a person outside of WW1. The twist in the response being that he would be let off the hook.
But could be wrong...
I don't think you have any feel for the sheer shittiness of the right wing populist shits governing the country. Do you seriously think Cummings and Johnson wouldn't hold that referendum if they thought there was a GE victory in it? And they would win it like the last one: let's give all the money we spend on life imprisonment to the NHS. And that would be therwilloftherpeople established and we'd all have to pretend again that you can't be against shitty populist referendums without being against democraceee and of course you must respect the result if you don't agree with it.
https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1305059464991604736
We've appointed an estate agent and the house goes on sale next week as we look to depart Teesside for Aberdeenshire. I've been fairly open about the struggles I had transitioning to this new virtual way of doing things but I have transitioned and it opens up all kinds of possibilities.
Fundamentally I can work from anywhere, and that is liberating. My wife's two years of study qualifies her for all kinds of education jobs and looking at where we are going job vacancies are there for the taking. There's also a reality check. I'm 44, my wife is 45, I have had two colleagues drop dead (not of the pox) this year with the second one my age. So the impetus is clear to not sit and wait for tomorrow but to get on with life before all of it passes me by.
I'm not the only person who's had a similar "oh shit" moment and is actively planning to do something about it (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-54028339) and the impacts onto how we all live, the economy and yes voting could be pretty profound. On balance 2020 has been an appalling year. But I can't remember being this motivated to get off my arse and suddenly here I am making big steps like move country and go self employed and start a business. So something has gone right...
And another thing. The evidence is that the virus is spreading in household settings, where people are not wearing masks.
Plenty of historians also join the civil service or politics eg Gordon Brown or Michael Portillo.
You don't just have to teach history if you do a history degree
https://twitter.com/eliistender10/status/1304690533584056320
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1304945040389738496?s=20
Johnson seems to have jettisoned anything to do with one nation conservatism. The notion of the pastoral feudal Tory has been hurled from the party. Mrs Thatcher couldn't abide the 'wets' but she allowed them to stay within her broad church.
After that it become a lot murkier. If you try people for waging war, then argument of tu quoque applies.
This may be shite - just asking.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/polling-political-equality/
What's so "one nation conservative" about it?
Presumably it has to stop you breathing the virus in, so it saved you then. The virus I believe lasts longest on hard surfaces and would die quicker on cloth. So you'd have to be really unlucky to get the virus from a mask and would have got it worse or sooner without one.
Sir John Bell: “There’s going to be lots of this virus around for a long time, probably forever. It’ll likely mutate,” Sir John says. (Telegraph)
Now that is rich.
Albeit there is also the "pre-symptomatic" element, so i may be getting confused.
Not as a strand of Conservatism going make centuries.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1606/death-penalty.aspx
While the polls show a 14% lead for the death penalty on the straight question, on the question "If you could choose between the following two approaches, which do you think is the better penalty for murder -- [ROTATED: the death penalty (or) life imprisonment, with absolutely no possibility of parole]?", the death penalty loses by 24 points (although 6 years ago it won by 5 points).
However they could make it more likely to pass by restricting it to murders of police officers and children.
Given where we were a few months ago this is a remarkable logistical achievement and our testing per million people is, according to Worldometer, second only to Israel in the world for medium to large countries.
I am driven to conclude that the good doctor has an agenda which may not have a lot to do with health.
One of the key pieces of early evidence that viral load is a major issue with this virus was that partners of people who caught the infection were getting sicker than the partner who had originally caught it. Because eg if a wide had caught it with a relatively low viral load then she doesn't get particularly sick but she then spreads it to her husband who gets a lot of viral load from her in the time that she is contagious so he does get sick.
https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1305047756151627776
Boris/Sunak have had a massive increase in public spending because we face a pandemic with horrendous economic consequences and it is necessary to mitigate the damage. It's not the same.
France has 10,000
Germany has almost 20,000
Of course, nobody's dying......
https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1305066526718996482
Of course it is much more hostile to the Common Market than either of those PMs, but the EU has changed greatly since the 1960s and 1970s, and I'm not sure Macmillan would have supported joining the embryonic superstate we have today, though I've no doubt at all that Ted Heath would have.
--AS
Day 1 - Start to feel unwell
Day 2 - Book a test
Day 3 - Take Test
Day 6 - Receive test result
Day 6 - Also stop being infectious
A post on here said only 25% of tests were being turned around in 24 hours, I dont know how accurate or reflective that is, but based on that I would be counting effective tests as those done in 24 hours or less, so 25% x 200k = 50k at the moment.