Another repeated narrative is the breakdown in trust created by the controversy over Dominic Cummings’ trips to Durham and Barnard Castle. In the groups held shortly after the revelations, this received surprisingly little discussion and there was a fair degree of understanding of the circumstances. As time has passed, this gave way to a story that this is the point when everyone took it as a signal that Covid-19 was now a free-for-all.....
The moral authority of the government was lost not by the event itself, but through the retelling of the story and reflections on its implications. Following the initial two groups we ran the day after the story broke in the media, it came up unprompted in every group when people were asked what issues the current government was most and least trustworthy on
That as well. The narrative that it was a strong government showing it didn't give in to the changing winds of press pressure wasn't a totally malign one, or even a totally stupid one. But in that specific case, it was a colossal misjudgement of the situation, which had harmful political effects (has any party ever lost so much support so quickly?) and disastrous governmental effects (it cut off their ability to respond to Covid at the knees) which are still playing out.
Still, we've all been told. Not a story outside the Westminster bubble, and if it is, it's just deranged enemies of the people Brexit seeking to undermine the PM.
And entirely self inflicted. If Cummings had said "I was sick, I panicked and I was wrong, I apologise" the issue would have been buried overnight for all but partisan opponents - the public is a lot more forgiving of mistakes than politicians appear to believe. What really gets there goat is people who make mistakes then have the effrontery to maintain they hadn't.
Spector's data has been flagging the uptick in London for a while now. Only the SE, SW and Wales look OK right now, in terms of trend
Kids been back at school for two weeks. Three parents on the Scouts group WhatsApp have indicated their kids won't be going tonight because of illness. May well simply be colds, but certainly demonstrates how schools are vectors for transmission of infectious diseases.
Another repeated narrative is the breakdown in trust created by the controversy over Dominic Cummings’ trips to Durham and Barnard Castle. In the groups held shortly after the revelations, this received surprisingly little discussion and there was a fair degree of understanding of the circumstances. As time has passed, this gave way to a story that this is the point when everyone took it as a signal that Covid-19 was now a free-for-all.....
The moral authority of the government was lost not by the event itself, but through the retelling of the story and reflections on its implications. Following the initial two groups we ran the day after the story broke in the media, it came up unprompted in every group when people were asked what issues the current government was most and least trustworthy on
That as well. The narrative that it was a strong government showing it didn't give in to the changing winds of press pressure wasn't a totally malign one, or even a totally stupid one. But in that specific case, it was a colossal misjudgement of the situation, which had harmful political effects (has any party ever lost so much support so quickly?) and disastrous governmental effects (it cut off their ability to respond to Covid at the knees) which are still playing out.
Still, we've all been told. Not a story outside the Westminster bubble, and if it is, it's just deranged enemies of the people Brexit seeking to undermine the PM.
And entirely self inflicted. If Cummings had said "I was sick, I panicked and I was wrong, I apologise" the issue would have been buried overnight for all but partisan opponents - the public is a lot more forgiving of mistakes than politicians appear to believe. What really gets there goat is people who make mistakes then have the effrontery to maintain they hadn't.
There was about 5 ways it could have played out - all of which except for the one that actually occurred would have killed the story immediately.
>And entirely self inflicted. If Cummings had said "I was sick, I panicked and I was wrong, I apologise" the issue would have been buried overnight for all but partisan opponents - the public is a lot more forgiving of mistakes than politicians appear to believe. What really gets there goat is people who make mistakes then have the effrontery to maintain they hadn't.
Spector's data has been flagging the uptick in London for a while now. Only the SE, SW and Wales look OK right now, in terms of trend
Kids been back at school for two weeks. Three parents on the Scouts group WhatsApp have indicated their kids won't be going tonight because of illness. May well simply be colds, but certainly demonstrates how schools are vectors for transmission of infectious diseases.
The problem is that there is such a huge lack of education on the symptoms. By now it should be clear but it obviously isn't with kids being sent home for the sniffles and sneezing. There needs to be a huge education program on what the main symptoms are with blanket advertising so people finally understand that it's at a fever plus one or both of dry coughing and losing one's sense of taste/smell.
I agree with Richard (N) that May's deal was vastly preferable - but clearly unacceptable to the Brexiteers (for whatever reason - not sure they're in agreement on that themselves) - so we are where we are.
The EU have not been helpful at all (and neither have we) - but it's much harder to say that they have not negotiated in good faith.
They have been entirely consistent all along. Those comments by Barnier were absolutely clear, and remain valid today.
No the EU hasn't been consistent. The UK has offered standard terms time and again for a Canada style FTA but the EU keep trying to force the UK into dynamic alignment. It will lead to no deal.
What are the standard terms in a Canada-style trade agreement for UK lorry drivers to work in the EU27 countries?
Spector's data has been flagging the uptick in London for a while now. Only the SE, SW and Wales look OK right now, in terms of trend
Kids been back at school for two weeks. Three parents on the Scouts group WhatsApp have indicated their kids won't be going tonight because of illness. May well simply be colds, but certainly demonstrates how schools are vectors for transmission of infectious diseases.
The problem is that there is such a huge lack of education on the symptoms. By now it should be clear but it obviously isn't with kids being sent home for the sniffles and sneezing. There needs to be a huge education program on what the main symptoms are with blanket advertising so people finally understand that it's at a fever plus one or both of dry coughing and losing one's sense of taste/smell.
Sneezing means it is definitely NOT covid as I understand things.
Children usually present with a severe headache as first symptom seems to be fairly new research (can't recall where I read this). That would probably rule out a lot of sniffles and minor colds surely?
Another repeated narrative is the breakdown in trust created by the controversy over Dominic Cummings’ trips to Durham and Barnard Castle. In the groups held shortly after the revelations, this received surprisingly little discussion and there was a fair degree of understanding of the circumstances. As time has passed, this gave way to a story that this is the point when everyone took it as a signal that Covid-19 was now a free-for-all.....
The moral authority of the government was lost not by the event itself, but through the retelling of the story and reflections on its implications. Following the initial two groups we ran the day after the story broke in the media, it came up unprompted in every group when people were asked what issues the current government was most and least trustworthy on
That as well. The narrative that it was a strong government showing it didn't give in to the changing winds of press pressure wasn't a totally malign one, or even a totally stupid one. But in that specific case, it was a colossal misjudgement of the situation, which had harmful political effects (has any party ever lost so much support so quickly?) and disastrous governmental effects (it cut off their ability to respond to Covid at the knees) which are still playing out.
Still, we've all been told. Not a story outside the Westminster bubble, and if it is, it's just deranged enemies of the people Brexit seeking to undermine the PM.
And entirely self inflicted. If Cummings had said "I was sick, I panicked and I was wrong, I apologise" the issue would have been buried overnight for all but partisan opponents - the public is a lot more forgiving of mistakes than politicians appear to believe. What really gets there goat is people who make mistakes then have the effrontery to maintain they hadn't.
There was about 5 ways it could have played out - all of which except for the one that actually occurred would have killed the story immediately.
killing stories is for the little people. Not the New Elite.
When sticking to your principles in a pandemic is like shooting your bollocks off
The Parliament of Catalonia rejects military trackers. The plenary session of the Parliament has approved a resolution of the CUP in which the Government is urged to rule out in a "transparent way" the possibility of requesting military trackers because "it would be incoherent and absolutely contradictory with the various legislative initiatives that, in the field on the promotion of peace and on the demilitarization of Catalonia, have been approved for years in this Parliament ". The resolution has had the favorable vote of JxCat, ERC, the commons and the CUP itself, and the vote against the rest of the chamber.
>And entirely self inflicted. If Cummings had said "I was sick, I panicked and I was wrong, I apologise" the issue would have been buried overnight for all but partisan opponents - the public is a lot more forgiving of mistakes than politicians appear to believe. What really gets there goat is people who make mistakes then have the effrontery to maintain they hadn't.
He doesn't think he did make a mistake.
And BoZo agrees with him.
On rule for them, another for the rest of us.
That assumes that either of them accepts objective reality over whatever they project in their head.
I don't think either of them particularly care what the truth was. But Dom (at least) realised that admitting human fallibility would neuter him from the point of view of Getting Rid Of Failing Sir Humphries.
Spector's data has been flagging the uptick in London for a while now. Only the SE, SW and Wales look OK right now, in terms of trend
Kids been back at school for two weeks. Three parents on the Scouts group WhatsApp have indicated their kids won't be going tonight because of illness. May well simply be colds, but certainly demonstrates how schools are vectors for transmission of infectious diseases.
The problem is that there is such a huge lack of education on the symptoms. By now it should be clear but it obviously isn't with kids being sent home for the sniffles and sneezing. There needs to be a huge education program on what the main symptoms are with blanket advertising so people finally understand that it's at a fever plus one or both of dry coughing and losing one's sense of taste/smell.
Sneezing means it is definitely NOT covid as I understand things.
Children usually present with a severe headache as first symptom seems to be fairly new research (can't recall where I read this). That would probably rule out a lot of sniffles and minor colds surely?
Sneezing and general sniffles mean it definitely isn't as covid is a non-productive virus, there's no phlegm.
Obviously impossible to prove either way, but having experienced the 2010-2015 parliament, I'm fairly confident Thatcher would have won in 1983 or 1984 without the Falklands War.
I am pretty sure she wouldn't have been re-elected if we had lost in the FI; which we came within a gnat's twat hair of doing.
I heard anecdotally from an Officer down there at the time, had the Argentinians not surrendered when they did we would have waved the white flag within the following 24 hours as we had run out of everything.
I’d say Texas, Georgia and Ohio should be in his column . North Carolina is a toss up , Bloomberg is pumping 100 million dollars into Florida and I think Biden will edge that . Arizona seems to be moving away from Trump , latest NY Times Sienna Poll has Biden ahead by 9 points and I think that should be a Biden pick up also . That 7/4 for all 6 looks ridiculous!
Trump really can't afford to lose any of these. Perhaps Arizona if he's doing particularly well in the rustbelt. But that's an odd combo - it just just goes to show how good a bet Biden is right now.
Spector's data has been flagging the uptick in London for a while now. Only the SE, SW and Wales look OK right now, in terms of trend
Kids been back at school for two weeks. Three parents on the Scouts group WhatsApp have indicated their kids won't be going tonight because of illness. May well simply be colds, but certainly demonstrates how schools are vectors for transmission of infectious diseases.
The problem is that there is such a huge lack of education on the symptoms. By now it should be clear but it obviously isn't with kids being sent home for the sniffles and sneezing. There needs to be a huge education program on what the main symptoms are with blanket advertising so people finally understand that it's at a fever plus one or both of dry coughing and losing one's sense of taste/smell.
To be clear, none of the parents is saying their kid might have Covid. I was more struck at how immediately after schools go back a load of kids are poorly. Presumably because colds etc are circulating. If Covid is circulating too then they will catch it at school.
Spector's data has been flagging the uptick in London for a while now. Only the SE, SW and Wales look OK right now, in terms of trend
Kids been back at school for two weeks. Three parents on the Scouts group WhatsApp have indicated their kids won't be going tonight because of illness. May well simply be colds, but certainly demonstrates how schools are vectors for transmission of infectious diseases.
The problem is that there is such a huge lack of education on the symptoms. By now it should be clear but it obviously isn't with kids being sent home for the sniffles and sneezing. There needs to be a huge education program on what the main symptoms are with blanket advertising so people finally understand that it's at a fever plus one or both of dry coughing and losing one's sense of taste/smell.
To be clear, none of the parents is saying their kid might have Covid. I was more struck at how immediately after schools go back a load of kids are poorly. Presumably because colds etc are circulating. If Covid is circulating too then they will catch it at school.
The thing is that if their kids get COVID their parents probably wouldn't even know, it doesn't present symptoms in a vast, vast majority of cases in kids.
The dispute resolution process is for him to negotiate. Why would the UK unilaterally say what it will be?
We've offered the principle, he's not accepted it. If he accepts the principle but wants more specifics that's his job to negotiate.
They haven't rejected the principle, they've asked for full details before considering their response. The UK hasn't given that detail. Meanwhile time is running out (in many respects has already run out), but that's not the EU's fault, and nor is the fact that the government - with just weeks to go before the chaos starts - hasn't responded to their perfectly reasonable request.
Once again, our domestic regime has nothing to do with anything. The treaty will have its own state aid provisions enforced by a binding arbitration process. The EU has refused to engage on negotiating what those terms should be because they want to have a say on what our domestic regimes will be. That is an unacceptable loss of sovereignty and it will lead to no deal. Once again, the EU are are fault here, not the UK, at least until Boris decided to tear up the WA.
Whether it's an 'unacceptable loss of sovereignty' is a matter of opinion, but what is not a matter of opinion is that the EU has been crystal clear from the start that this was a red-line issue for them, and that they consider that not having such protection would be a breach of their most important sovereign right, which is to maintain the integrity of the Single Market. If we didn't want to accept that, we could have asked instead for an orderly transition to WTO rules, with the border down the Irish Sea which Boris has already signed up to. That would have been pretty disastrous for us, of course, but not as disastrous as the disorderly crash-out, breaking international law, which Boris seems to be leading us into.
It all comes back to the same thing as it has for four years: the UK has to choose. It is STILL trying to avoid choosing, despite the looming self-imposed deadline.
The dispute resolution process is for him to negotiate. Why would the UK unilaterally say what it will be?
We've offered the principle, he's not accepted it. If he accepts the principle but wants more specifics that's his job to negotiate.
They haven't rejected the principle, they've asked for full details before considering their response. The UK hasn't given that detail. Meanwhile time is running out (in many respects has already run out), but that's not the EU's fault, and nor is the fact that the government - with just weeks to go before the chaos starts - hasn't responded to their perfectly reasonable request.
The UK have given full details. They've proposed full details of a standard FTA LPF scheme.
If you mean they've not given full details of how state aid will operate within the UK then no - that is none of their business. That is for Parliament to determine. All that is relevant to them is the confines we agree within the Treaty, not how Parliament then intends to exercise its powers within those limits.
No-one else has commented on it and not heard it suggested elsewhere but I really think a planned regular scheduled lockdown is far superior to the plan of hoping its low and then introducing a sudden indefinite lockdown when the rates get out of hand.
Schedule a lockdown for 2 weeks in every 8 across the country. People and business can plan for it, it is less stressful, and can be stricter as everyone knows its only temporary.
The dispute resolution process is for him to negotiate. Why would the UK unilaterally say what it will be?
We've offered the principle, he's not accepted it. If he accepts the principle but wants more specifics that's his job to negotiate.
They haven't rejected the principle, they've asked for full details before considering their response. The UK hasn't given that detail. Meanwhile time is running out (in many respects has already run out), but that's not the EU's fault, and nor is the fact that the government - with just weeks to go before the chaos starts - hasn't responded to their perfectly reasonable request.
Once again, our domestic regime has nothing to do with anything. The treaty will have its own state aid provisions enforced by a binding arbitration process. The EU has refused to engage on negotiating what those terms should be because they want to have a say on what our domestic regimes will be. That is an unacceptable loss of sovereignty and it will lead to no deal. Once again, the EU are are fault here, not the UK, at least until Boris decided to tear up the WA.
Whether it's an 'unacceptable loss of sovereignty' is a matter of opinion, but what is not a matter of opinion is that the EU has been crystal clear from the start that this was a red-line issue for them, and that they consider that not having such protection would be a breach of their most important sovereign right, which is to maintain the integrity of the Single Market. If we didn't want to accept that, we could have asked instead for an orderly transition to WTO rules, with the border down the Irish Sea which Boris has already signed up to. That would have been pretty disastrous for us, of course, but not as disastrous as the disorderly crash-out, breaking international law, which Boris seems to be leading us into.
It all comes back to the same thing as it has for four years: the UK has to choose. It is STILL trying to avoid choosing, despite the looming self-imposed deadline.
Once again, having defined rules on state aid in the treaty was acceptable to them in basically every other trade agreement was fine but suddenly it's impossible for the UK. Pull the other one.
The UK will engage in negotiations on state aid rules for the trade treaty, it just did so with Japan and will do so with Canada and other trade partners when the time comes. The UK wants state aid rules to be defined in the trade treaty and to make it enforceable by binding independent arbitration.
The EU won't negotiate on it and wants the UK to define domestic policy and decide whether it feels domestic rules are acceptable and have a veto on the government making changes to them. I will keep using the term until it gets into your head, it is an unacceptable loss of sovereignty and the UK will never agree to it in practice or in principle. Unless the EU starts negotiating on a baseline to include in the treaty it will end in no deal.
What the UK has as its domestic regime is its own business.
The dispute resolution process is for him to negotiate. Why would the UK unilaterally say what it will be?
We've offered the principle, he's not accepted it. If he accepts the principle but wants more specifics that's his job to negotiate.
They haven't rejected the principle, they've asked for full details before considering their response. The UK hasn't given that detail. Meanwhile time is running out (in many respects has already run out), but that's not the EU's fault, and nor is the fact that the government - with just weeks to go before the chaos starts - hasn't responded to their perfectly reasonable request.
Once again, our domestic regime has nothing to do with anything. The treaty will have its own state aid provisions enforced by a binding arbitration process. The EU has refused to engage on negotiating what those terms should be because they want to have a say on what our domestic regimes will be. That is an unacceptable loss of sovereignty and it will lead to no deal. Once again, the EU are are fault here, not the UK, at least until Boris decided to tear up the WA.
Whether it's an 'unacceptable loss of sovereignty' is a matter of opinion, but what is not a matter of opinion is that the EU has been crystal clear from the start that this was a red-line issue for them, and that they consider that not having such protection would be a breach of their most important sovereign right, which is to maintain the integrity of the Single Market. If we didn't want to accept that, we could have asked instead for an orderly transition to WTO rules, with the border down the Irish Sea which Boris has already signed up to. That would have been pretty disastrous for us, of course, but not as disastrous as the disorderly crash-out, breaking international law, which Boris seems to be leading us into.
It all comes back to the same thing as it has for four years: the UK has to choose. It is STILL trying to avoid choosing, despite the looming self-imposed deadline.
The red line that was agreed was that there must be an LPF.
The UK has proposed an LPF. Not just any LPF, but the same LPF that the EU have already agreed with other nations.
No-one else has commented on it and not heard it suggested elsewhere but I really think a planned regular scheduled lockdown is far superior to the plan of hoping its low and then introducing a sudden indefinite lockdown when the rates get out of hand.
Schedule a lockdown for 2 weeks in every 8 across the country. People and business can plan for it, it is less stressful, and can be stricter as everyone knows its only temporary.
Obviously impossible to prove either way, but having experienced the 2010-2015 parliament, I'm fairly confident Thatcher would have won in 1983 or 1984 without the Falklands War.
I am pretty sure she wouldn't have been re-elected if we had lost in the FI; which we came within a gnat's twat hair of doing.
I heard anecdotally from an Officer down there at the time, had the Argentinians not surrendered when they did we would have waved the white flag within the following 24 hours as we had run out of everything.
(S)he who dares wins!
The advice Reagan had from the Pentagon was that it was militarily impossible to retake the FI. On the basis of the available evidence they should have been right but for several baffling and very poor decisions by the Argentineans. If they had put more aviation assets into Stanley and fully committed their navy they could have dragged it out a few more weeks into the middle of the winter and it would have been over. There was no logistics tail to the British operation. They had what they brought.
I’d say Texas, Georgia and Ohio should be in his column . North Carolina is a toss up , Bloomberg is pumping 100 million dollars into Florida and I think Biden will edge that . Arizona seems to be moving away from Trump , latest NY Times Sienna Poll has Biden ahead by 9 points and I think that should be a Biden pick up also . That 7/4 for all 6 looks ridiculous!
Trump really can't afford to lose any of these. Perhaps Arizona if he's doing particularly well in the rustbelt. But that's an odd combo - it just just goes to show how good a bet Biden is right now.
You know you really can be quite a twat sometimes Malcolm. Try showing a little more humility and tolerance.
When we were climbing Ben Lomond over the summer, my soft southern Jessie kids were moaning about the midges and how tired they were, and a Scottish gentleman of a certain age strode past us up the mountain. As he passed, he muttered gruffly in our general direction "the suffering makes you stronger." I like to think that if he was not Malcolm himself, he may have been a close acquaintance. PB is a better place for his caustic common sense. I should add that despite the constant whining the kids all made it to the top, even the seven year old, and were rewarded with a view that certainly shut them up!
I just find his thoughtless constant attacks on anything vaguely good or decent to be frustrating. All the more so because I agree with so much of what he wants. I want to agree with him and do so on the substance but the delivery is frankly offensive.
How can you equate Neil Oliver with what I want , other than tarring and feathering , I say again the man is a complete and utter *******.
Very Steep and Too High After going up Mount Snowdon by train in Wales I'd forgotten just how high some mountains can get. And they don't come much higher than this one - that's for sure. LOL! This was almost a FULL day's climbing and my girlfriend was crying at one point. When we did get to the top there was nothing there (Mount Snowdon has a pub, restaurant and toilets at its top). Luckily we had brought some sandwiches and drinks, so anyone else climbing this one - BE WARNED- there are NO facilities at the top. The climb basically went on for far too long and the last part was particularly steep and difficult. It was also cloudy at the top so the view was non-existant. The long walk back down was boring and again took too long. It was a great relief to get back to our B&B in Fort William for a hot soapy bath and the joys of a flushing toilet with soft toilet rolls. This attraction is free but I honestly couldn't imagine anyone - and I mean anyone - paying to climb this. https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowUserReviews-g186545-d194657-r235166198-Ben_Nevis-Fort_William_Lochaber_Scottish_Highlands_Scotland.html
The advice Reagan had from the Pentagon was that it was militarily impossible to retake the FI. On the basis of the available evidence they should have been right but for several baffling and very poor decisions by the Argentineans. If they had put more aviation assets into Stanley and fully committed their navy they could have dragged it out a few more weeks into the middle of the winter and it would have been over. There was no logistics tail to the British operation. They had what they brought.
The story I heard was that the Argies were largely inexperienced, some of whom didn't know they were on the Falklands. They climbed on a boat for a trip "up the coast" and couldn't understand why we were invading...
And some of them were shot in the legs by retreating officers to stop them leaving the trenches (which explains the fire in the Port Stanley post office at the end)
Apparently they had containers full of fine rations though, so once they surrendered our guys didn't starve.
You know you really can be quite a twat sometimes Malcolm. Try showing a little more humility and tolerance.
When we were climbing Ben Lomond over the summer, my soft southern Jessie kids were moaning about the midges and how tired they were, and a Scottish gentleman of a certain age strode past us up the mountain. As he passed, he muttered gruffly in our general direction "the suffering makes you stronger." I like to think that if he was not Malcolm himself, he may have been a close acquaintance. PB is a better place for his caustic common sense. I should add that despite the constant whining the kids all made it to the top, even the seven year old, and were rewarded with a view that certainly shut them up!
I just find his thoughtless constant attacks on anything vaguely good or decent to be frustrating. All the more so because I agree with so much of what he wants. I want to agree with him and do so on the substance but the delivery is frankly offensive.
He's been pretty rude to me in the past but I got over it. I thought in the specific example that so ired you that his response was appropriate, that tweet was the worst kind of pseudo profound drivel. Also, what the hell was "the coast guy" doing in Stirling anyway? Seems like he was miles off his reservation.
@Onlylivingboy Apologies if you thought I was rude to you in the past , I am blunt and too the point but do not set out to be rude.
Obviously impossible to prove either way, but having experienced the 2010-2015 parliament, I'm fairly confident Thatcher would have won in 1983 or 1984 without the Falklands War.
I am pretty sure she wouldn't have been re-elected if we had lost in the FI; which we came within a gnat's twat hair of doing.
Then someone came up with this mad idea, and managed to pull it off!
In case no-one else has posted this. "Is Trump Toast?" asks UnHerd. Useful roundup of opinions here, including mine which is that the market consensus - it will be close and Trump has a good chance - is irrational and will be proved wrong on 3/11.
Yesterday morning my kid woke with a slight fever and "new persistent cough". School guidelines are such that either he stays at home for 10 days or else provides a negative Covid test.
Booked online for a same day test about a 30 mins drive away. The negative result came back by SMS in 20 hours.
Just my experience. Overall a very slick experience.
Obviously impossible to prove either way, but having experienced the 2010-2015 parliament, I'm fairly confident Thatcher would have won in 1983 or 1984 without the Falklands War.
I am pretty sure she wouldn't have been re-elected if we had lost in the FI; which we came within a gnat's twat hair of doing.
I heard anecdotally from an Officer down there at the time, had the Argentinians not surrendered when they did we would have waved the white flag within the following 24 hours as we had run out of everything.
(S)he who dares wins!
The husband of a friend was there with 42 Commando who were shelling the positions at Port Stanley and he certainly said that at the point that the Argentines surrendered they were about to use their last shells. In fairness he also described being something of a zombie as they had been yomping, fighting and firing the artillery for more than 48 hours non stop at that point.
They're just being rationed to those who need them most and not anyone who wants one.
There are no tanks in Baghdad!
Test and Trace is running fine, or would be if it wasn't for those pesky patients...
Come on Foxy, you should know as well as anyone that's always been the case with the NHS!
There's always been rationing based upon clinical need for as long as I've been alive and in the UK. Suggesting that anyone should always, regardless of clinical need, be able to get a test and its results within 24 hours is about as reasonable as suggesting that anyone should always, regardless of clinical need, be able to book an appointinment to see a GP within the next 24 hours.
Blimey. Just read the Judith Wood's piece in Telegraph on Johnson's unsuitability under covid.
Both barrels and then a rocket launcher for good measure.
Fun bloke, great for a pint down the Duck and Dog but totally useless in our hour of need.
If this is an indication of where the wind is blowing in Tory land, then he wont make Xmas never mind next year's local elections.
Fraser nelson is even more brutal.
Nobody in Britain wants to be responsible for anything. Not for COVID deaths. Not for a cratering economy. Not for surging suicides and mushrooming undiagnosed cancers. Not for people being unable to say farewell to dying relatives or not being present at the birth of their children.
The ONS study is absolutely required reading for anyone wanting to understand the current Covid outbreak in the UK (it's for the week to 10 September 2020, but following the trends should give a good idea of the current position):
1) Infections are rising pretty quickly, but predominantly amongst younger people. The 17 to 24 and 25 to 35 groups are worst impacted - clearly the groups that will have been socialising in larger groups more often, but who are also not badly affected by the virus on average. It will be interesting as to how i) infection rates amongst younger children increase once schools have been back for a while; ii) the extent to which this filters through to the more at risk older groups.
2) It suggests London has a much higher infection rate than suggested by the regular testing data. If that is supported by more data in the coming weeks, local lockdown in the capital seems inevitable
Sadly, the report makes clear that the second wave of infections is upon us. We need to work out a strategy to stop this turning into a large second wave of deaths by protecting more vulnerable groups. I don't know what that should look like exactly, but if these young people are visiting their parents/grandparents regularly, then death rates will inevitably rise as well. Likewise with school children visiting grandparents during term time.
I think I understand why @Richard_Nabavi is getting confused about the LPF.
The idea of a standard LPF terms - as the EU has always agreed with other countries and as the UK is seeking is that all parties agree limits as to what can and can't be done and then countries choose how to operate within what is allowed. If there is a change of Government or change of priorities within Government they can change their policies within the limits agreed. Everything that is not forbidden is lawful.
What Barnier seems to want, which is unprecedented and which you seem to think is acceptable, is for the UK to commit to a certain scheme. Everything that is agreed is compulsory, everything else is forbidden.
That is unprecedented and unacceptable. It is appropriate to agree an LPF, but then how we operate within that is for us to decide and none of their business. It would be entirely acceptable and appropriate for the government not to release policies on that until next year, or to release some now and change them next year, or change them after the 2024 election etc - there is no reason to lock down something today. Independent countries don't do that.
Obviously impossible to prove either way, but having experienced the 2010-2015 parliament, I'm fairly confident Thatcher would have won in 1983 or 1984 without the Falklands War.
I am pretty sure she wouldn't have been re-elected if we had lost in the FI; which we came within a gnat's twat hair of doing.
I heard anecdotally from an Officer down there at the time, had the Argentinians not surrendered when they did we would have waved the white flag within the following 24 hours as we had run out of everything.
(S)he who dares wins!
The husband of a friend was there with 42 Commando who were shelling the positions at Port Stanley and he certainly said that at the point that the Argentines surrendered they were about to use their last shells. In fairness he also described being something of a zombie as they had been yomping, fighting and firing the artillery for more than 48 hours non stop at that point.
Well that really should be broken down into flu and corona. We are starting the flu season, after all.
Look at weeks 40 to 46 in 2019. That does not suggest that we are "starting the flu season" in week 38.
Its interesting because an analysis recommended by Heneghan says that 2019 was an exceptionally weak flu season historically, meaning much 'dry tinder' (not a nice expression, but accurate) for when coronavirus hit.
You guys may be right, but we would need to see the data much further back for a proper analysis.
Obviously impossible to prove either way, but having experienced the 2010-2015 parliament, I'm fairly confident Thatcher would have won in 1983 or 1984 without the Falklands War.
I am pretty sure she wouldn't have been re-elected if we had lost in the FI; which we came within a gnat's twat hair of doing.
I heard anecdotally from an Officer down there at the time, had the Argentinians not surrendered when they did we would have waved the white flag within the following 24 hours as we had run out of everything.
(S)he who dares wins!
The husband of a friend was there with 42 Commando who were shelling the positions at Port Stanley and he certainly said that at the point that the Argentines surrendered they were about to use their last shells. In fairness he also described being something of a zombie as they had been yomping, fighting and firing the artillery for more than 48 hours non stop at that point.
I’d say Texas, Georgia and Ohio should be in his column . North Carolina is a toss up , Bloomberg is pumping 100 million dollars into Florida and I think Biden will edge that . Arizona seems to be moving away from Trump , latest NY Times Sienna Poll has Biden ahead by 9 points and I think that should be a Biden pick up also . That 7/4 for all 6 looks ridiculous!
Trump really can't afford to lose any of these. Perhaps Arizona if he's doing particularly well in the rustbelt. But that's an odd combo - it just just goes to show how good a bet Biden is right now.
That lead is based on not just a 2016-non-voter Trump surge but also the complete elimination of the female vote premium.
If they are right then they are the greatest pollsters of all time.
'We found a substantial block of older, white, male voters without a college degree who plan to vote for Trump in 2020. Historically, female voters turnout at a higher rate than men; however this year looks like a 50%/50% split.
Also, we tend to believe many public polls are too narrowly defining who will be voting this year. Polls with tight or narrow likely voter screens or that rely on prior voter history to identify “likely voters” could be missing a block of older male voters who do not always show up on election day, but plan to this year.
....Biden leads by 10 points in urban/suburban areas of the country while Trump is up 40 points in exurban markets. Also, Trump is up nearly 7 points in the swing states, which account for almost a quarter of likely voters in this poll.
....We do see a bloc of male voters without a college degree, who are not regular voters, that are planning to vote this year. They appear to be older (45+), white, and do not have a college degree. To borrow a P. J. O'Rourke book title, many in this group could be described as the “Don't Vote, It Just Encourages the Bastards” voting bloc. Trump leads this group by 10 points (53%/43%), which is a lower margin than in 2016. However, this block only accounted for 16% of voters in 2016. In 2020, it appears they could make up around 25% of voters. Trump is also up 15 points among voters with household incomes of $100k or more, which account for over a third of likely voters at 34% and is up from 2016.
...Fears that we will not know the winner on election night probably have merit. Mail or absentee voting could account for 31% of total votes, including 30% of voters in the swing states. Nearly half (45%) of Biden voters indicate they plan to vote by mail. It could be a long November if things remain the same until election day.'
Using that theorem, jhb reckons that more than 90% of the positive cases showing up in the UK right now are false positives.
Just think about that for a moment.
Unless the answer is too complicated for a simpleton like me how does he get from 68% (which is horrendous enough) to 90%?
It doesn't.
And that's with a hypothetical false positivity rate of 10%. The tests accuracy is not 90%.
Plus the inaccuracy matters more on a micro than macro level.
The basement death and hospitalisation rates suggest that the true real rate of infection of the population is very very low.
When the 'real' rate is very very low, a false position rate of just 0.1% means 55% of all cases are falsies, according the Heneghan.
And that means that more than 1,500 of our 3000 cases are falsies whilst in France deaths are 50 despite 3,000 cases or more for two and half weeks at least.
France surely suggests there is a high false case count.
No-one else has commented on it and not heard it suggested elsewhere but I really think a planned regular scheduled lockdown is far superior to the plan of hoping its low and then introducing a sudden indefinite lockdown when the rates get out of hand.
Schedule a lockdown for 2 weeks in every 8 across the country. People and business can plan for it, it is less stressful, and can be stricter as everyone knows its only temporary.
That has more or less been the plan for the medium term since the very start, on-off supression at regular intervals triggered by hospital admission levels IIRC. Things like tracking, testing, case isolation, and quarantine continues throughout, but closures and increased social distancing are used only part of the time.
The ONS study is absolutely required reading for anyone wanting to understand the current Covid outbreak in the UK (it's for the week to 10 September 2020, but following the trends should give a good idea of the current position):
1) Infections are rising pretty quickly, but predominantly amongst younger people. The 17 to 24 and 25 to 35 groups are worst impacted - clearly the groups that will have been socialising in larger groups more often, but who are also not badly affected by the virus on average. It will be interesting as to how i) infection rates amongst younger children increase once schools have been back for a while; ii) the extent to which this filters through to the more at risk older groups.
2) It suggests London has a much higher infection rate than suggested by the regular testing data. If that is supported by more data in the coming weeks, local lockdown in the capital seems inevitable
Sadly, the report makes clear that the second wave of infections is upon us. We need to work out a strategy to stop this turning into a large second wave of deaths by protecting more vulnerable groups. I don't know what that should look like exactly, but if these young people are visiting their parents/grandparents regularly, then death rates will inevitably rise as well. Likewise with school children visiting grandparents during term time.
Like what happens everyday with grandparents picking up school children at home time.
Wow Liam Fox made it through to the next WTO round. He might actually bloody win.
Not sure how strong the competition is.
The other remaining candidates are:
Amina Mohamed of Kenya - a former cabinet minister, lawyer and diplomat. She was the chairwoman of the WTO's general council and is 11/4 favourite
Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala of Nigeria - an economist and expert in international development who worked at the World Bank and now sits on Twitter's board. She is a US citizen, having studied at Harvard and earned a PhD from MIT, and 2/1 second favourite
Yoo Myung-hee of the Republic of Korea - the first woman to be South Korea's trade secretary, she has focused her career on trade negotiations, and 6/1 with Ladbrokes
Mohammad Maziad Al-Tuwaijri of Saudi Arabia - a former minister and managing director for HSBC in the Middle East. He was a pilot in the Saudi Air Force during the First Gulf War and has worked in banking since 1995. An outsider at 10/1
The ONS study is absolutely required reading for anyone wanting to understand the current Covid outbreak in the UK (it's for the week to 10 September 2020, but following the trends should give a good idea of the current position):
1) Infections are rising pretty quickly, but predominantly amongst younger people. The 17 to 24 and 25 to 35 groups are worst impacted - clearly the groups that will have been socialising in larger groups more often, but who are also not badly affected by the virus on average. It will be interesting as to how i) infection rates amongst younger children increase once schools have been back for a while; ii) the extent to which this filters through to the more at risk older groups.
2) It suggests London has a much higher infection rate than suggested by the regular testing data. If that is supported by more data in the coming weeks, local lockdown in the capital seems inevitable
Sadly, the report makes clear that the second wave of infections is upon us. We need to work out a strategy to stop this turning into a large second wave of deaths by protecting more vulnerable groups. I don't know what that should look like exactly, but if these young people are visiting their parents/grandparents regularly, then death rates will inevitably rise as well. Likewise with school children visiting grandparents during term time.
Like what happens everyday with grandparents picking up school children at home time.
Surely this argues for a much more targeted approach to stop this kind of behaviour. Its better than having COVID marshals trying to coral p8ssed up and perfectly healthy young geordies on a night out at 10 pm. Have them at the school gates telling granny not to pick up junior.
I found it utterly astonishing that care homes were under pressure to take COVID positive patients (according to Channel 4).
Instead of throwing resources at the healthy, why not spend them on wrapping the elderly and vulnerab'e in cotton wool?
Madrid lock down and isolation getting closer I think as autonomous communities demand action.
The damage is already done - Andalucia running at 1500+ cases each day and all to allow a month on the coast in August! Frustratingly Andalucia asked for it themselves - we had some idiot in Almeria boasting yesterday how safe the beaches were this year.
Well that really should be broken down into flu and corona. We are starting the flu season, after all.
Look at weeks 40 to 46 in 2019. That does not suggest that we are "starting the flu season" in week 38.
Its interesting because an analysis recommended by Heneghan says that 2019 was an exceptionally weak flu season historically, meaning much 'dry tinder' (not a nice expression, but accurate) for when coronavirus hit.
You guys may be right, but we would need to see the data much further back for a proper analysis.
Not really convinced by that.
Far more than usual people I know had really horrible times in winter 2019 - involving a week or two off work or more. Maybe not flu though.
They seem to be doing flu vaccines early - mine is a month or more ahead of usual.
Wow Liam Fox made it through to the next WTO round. He might actually bloody win.
Not sure how strong the competition is.
The other remaining candidates are:
Amina Mohamed of Kenya - a former cabinet minister, lawyer and diplomat. She was the chairwoman of the WTO's general council and is 11/4 favourite
Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala of Nigeria - an economist and expert in international development who worked at the World Bank and now sits on Twitter's board. She is a US citizen, having studied at Harvard and earned a PhD from MIT, and 2/1 second favourite
Yoo Myung-hee of the Republic of Korea - the first woman to be South Korea's trade secretary, she has focused her career on trade negotiations, and 6/1 with Ladbrokes
Mohammad Maziad Al-Tuwaijri of Saudi Arabia - a former minister and managing director for HSBC in the Middle East. He was a pilot in the Saudi Air Force during the First Gulf War and has worked in banking since 1995. An outsider at 10/1
Wow Liam Fox made it through to the next WTO round. He might actually bloody win.
Not sure how strong the competition is.
The other remaining candidates are:
Amina Mohamed of Kenya - a former cabinet minister, lawyer and diplomat. She was the chairwoman of the WTO's general council and is 11/4 favourite
Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala of Nigeria - an economist and expert in international development who worked at the World Bank and now sits on Twitter's board. She is a US citizen, having studied at Harvard and earned a PhD from MIT, and 2/1 second favourite
Yoo Myung-hee of the Republic of Korea - the first woman to be South Korea's trade secretary, she has focused her career on trade negotiations, and 6/1 with Ladbrokes
Mohammad Maziad Al-Tuwaijri of Saudi Arabia - a former minister and managing director for HSBC in the Middle East. He was a pilot in the Saudi Air Force during the First Gulf War and has worked in banking since 1995. An outsider at 10/1
He's still an outsider but I could see him win based on not being the other candidates. I imagine the US group will have problems with the first two candidates who are indoctrinated into the the rules based system (WTO, world bank). If I had to bet I'd say the Korean candidate or Fox.
Wow Liam Fox made it through to the next WTO round. He might actually bloody win.
Not sure how strong the competition is.
The other remaining candidates are:
Amina Mohamed of Kenya - a former cabinet minister, lawyer and diplomat. She was the chairwoman of the WTO's general council and is 11/4 favourite
Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala of Nigeria - an economist and expert in international development who worked at the World Bank and now sits on Twitter's board. She is a US citizen, having studied at Harvard and earned a PhD from MIT, and 2/1 second favourite
Yoo Myung-hee of the Republic of Korea - the first woman to be South Korea's trade secretary, she has focused her career on trade negotiations, and 6/1 with Ladbrokes
Mohammad Maziad Al-Tuwaijri of Saudi Arabia - a former minister and managing director for HSBC in the Middle East. He was a pilot in the Saudi Air Force during the First Gulf War and has worked in banking since 1995. An outsider at 10/1
He's still an outsider but I could see him win based on not being the other candidates. I imagine the US group will have problems with the first two candidates who are indoctrinated into the the rules based system (WTO, world bank). If I had to bed I'd say the Korean candidate or Fox.
Using that theorem, jhb reckons that more than 90% of the positive cases showing up in the UK right now are false positives.
Just think about that for a moment.
Unless the answer is too complicated for a simpleton like me how does he get from 68% (which is horrendous enough) to 90%?
It doesn't.
And that's with a hypothetical false positivity rate of 10%. The tests accuracy is not 90%.
Plus the inaccuracy matters more on a micro than macro level.
Whether the last statement is true very much depends upon the level of inaccuracy. At 200k+ a day even a 1% inaccuracy would produce more than half our current infection rate which clearly has serious macro effects, not least localised lock downs. 0.1% would not be significant. I am struggling to find a reliable source that goes beyond "very accurate" on a quick google.
The ONS study is absolutely required reading for anyone wanting to understand the current Covid outbreak in the UK (it's for the week to 10 September 2020, but following the trends should give a good idea of the current position):
1) Infections are rising pretty quickly, but predominantly amongst younger people. The 17 to 24 and 25 to 35 groups are worst impacted - clearly the groups that will have been socialising in larger groups more often, but who are also not badly affected by the virus on average. It will be interesting as to how i) infection rates amongst younger children increase once schools have been back for a while; ii) the extent to which this filters through to the more at risk older groups.
2) It suggests London has a much higher infection rate than suggested by the regular testing data. If that is supported by more data in the coming weeks, local lockdown in the capital seems inevitable
Sadly, the report makes clear that the second wave of infections is upon us. We need to work out a strategy to stop this turning into a large second wave of deaths by protecting more vulnerable groups. I don't know what that should look like exactly, but if these young people are visiting their parents/grandparents regularly, then death rates will inevitably rise as well. Likewise with school children visiting grandparents during term time.
Like what happens everyday with grandparents picking up school children at home time.
Surely this argues for a much more targeted approach to stop this kind of behaviour. Its better than having COVID marshals trying to coral p8ssed up and perfectly healthy young geordies on a night out at 10 pm. Have them at the school gates telling granny not to pick up junior.
I found it utterly astonishing that care homes were under pressure to take COVID positive patients (according to Channel 4).
Instead of throwing resources at the healthy, why not spend them on wrapping the elderly and vulnerab'e in cotton wool?
I have thought this for some time.
Lockdown: no one gets to hug granny. Targeted lockdown: no one gets to hug granny.
Using that theorem, jhb reckons that more than 90% of the positive cases showing up in the UK right now are false positives.
Just think about that for a moment.
Whatever the exact figure is, there will be a very large proportion of false positives in the situation where the absoulute prevelence in the community is low. lets say under 2%, and random people are being tested. Thsi is typical for a screening programm such as smear tests.
With COV2 some people will be "randomly" tested, just because they want to be tested, but most people get tested because there is an increased risk, either because they have symptoms or they were in contact with someon who tested positive. So I think the 90% estimate of false positives will be too high.
The thing is, the false positive rate should be known by the testers, so the national number of positives can easily be adjusted for this. And the epidemiologists know this, they know it much better than you or me. When they are estimating the seriousness of the outbreak and advising the government, they are taking this effect into account. You can't however adjust for a false positive on the individual level. So someone who tests positive without symptoms today really should have another test in a few days time, to confirm the result.
This is another reason to follow the R statistic rather than the raw numbers. R (assuming it is properly computed) will not increase with a high level of false positives, because by definition a false positive cannot go on and infect anyone else.
Spain has had 3,000 cases a or more since early August. Number of deaths yesterday?
162
About one tenth of the number from cancer/heart disease....??
The death rates are rising though - despite improvements in treatments and care - especially as the second wave slowly spreads from younger to older, more vulnerable groups. I'm not at all convinced by the idea that it's become a relatively mild disease. Mask wearers [ the majority here in Spain] may also be helping to stem the fatalities. Truth is we don't really know yet. There is unlikely to be a national lockdown here but selective ones are increasingly common and it may well be imminent in Madrid.
Obviously impossible to prove either way, but having experienced the 2010-2015 parliament, I'm fairly confident Thatcher would have won in 1983 or 1984 without the Falklands War.
I am pretty sure she wouldn't have been re-elected if we had lost in the FI; which we came within a gnat's twat hair of doing.
I heard anecdotally from an Officer down there at the time, had the Argentinians not surrendered when they did we would have waved the white flag within the following 24 hours as we had run out of everything.
(S)he who dares wins!
That's extensively covered in Max Hastings' book on the conflict. Had there been better trained troops rather than callow conscripts to put up at least a token defence of Stanley then it would have gone the other way. Our supply lines had pretty much collapsed by then.
The ONS study is absolutely required reading for anyone wanting to understand the current Covid outbreak in the UK (it's for the week to 10 September 2020, but following the trends should give a good idea of the current position):
1) Infections are rising pretty quickly, but predominantly amongst younger people. The 17 to 24 and 25 to 35 groups are worst impacted - clearly the groups that will have been socialising in larger groups more often, but who are also not badly affected by the virus on average. It will be interesting as to how i) infection rates amongst younger children increase once schools have been back for a while; ii) the extent to which this filters through to the more at risk older groups.
2) It suggests London has a much higher infection rate than suggested by the regular testing data. If that is supported by more data in the coming weeks, local lockdown in the capital seems inevitable
Sadly, the report makes clear that the second wave of infections is upon us. We need to work out a strategy to stop this turning into a large second wave of deaths by protecting more vulnerable groups. I don't know what that should look like exactly, but if these young people are visiting their parents/grandparents regularly, then death rates will inevitably rise as well. Likewise with school children visiting grandparents during term time.
Like what happens everyday with grandparents picking up school children at home time.
Surely this argues for a much more targeted approach to stop this kind of behaviour. Its better than having COVID marshals trying to coral p8ssed up and perfectly healthy young geordies on a night out at 10 pm. Have them at the school gates telling granny not to pick up junior.
I found it utterly astonishing that care homes were under pressure to take COVID positive patients (according to Channel 4).
Instead of throwing resources at the healthy, why not spend them on wrapping the elderly and vulnerab'e in cotton wool?
I have thought this for some time.
Lockdown: no one gets to hug granny. Targeted lockdown: no one gets to hug granny.
Either way, sadly, granny doesn't get a hug.
But of the two the latter is the least damaging.
Why spend billions testing people who probably don't have the disease, have had it, or won;t be harmed if they get it.
It would probably be more cost-effective to build working moats and drawbridges around every care home in England, with turrets and slit windows for archers.
Wow Liam Fox made it through to the next WTO round. He might actually bloody win.
Not sure how strong the competition is.
The other remaining candidates are:
Amina Mohamed of Kenya - a former cabinet minister, lawyer and diplomat. She was the chairwoman of the WTO's general council and is 11/4 favourite
Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala of Nigeria - an economist and expert in international development who worked at the World Bank and now sits on Twitter's board. She is a US citizen, having studied at Harvard and earned a PhD from MIT, and 2/1 second favourite
Yoo Myung-hee of the Republic of Korea - the first woman to be South Korea's trade secretary, she has focused her career on trade negotiations, and 6/1 with Ladbrokes
Mohammad Maziad Al-Tuwaijri of Saudi Arabia - a former minister and managing director for HSBC in the Middle East. He was a pilot in the Saudi Air Force during the First Gulf War and has worked in banking since 1995. An outsider at 10/1
Not sure the hot topics of the day particularly help our Liam though - a UK/EU trade deal being the easiest to negotiate in history etc.
No-one else has commented on it and not heard it suggested elsewhere but I really think a planned regular scheduled lockdown is far superior to the plan of hoping its low and then introducing a sudden indefinite lockdown when the rates get out of hand.
Schedule a lockdown for 2 weeks in every 8 across the country. People and business can plan for it, it is less stressful, and can be stricter as everyone knows its only temporary.
That has more or less been the plan for the medium term since the very start, on-off supression at regular intervals triggered by hospital admission levels IIRC. Things like tracking, testing, case isolation, and quarantine continues throughout, but closures and increased social distancing are used only part of the time.
Maybe I didnt explain it very well as my suggestion is very different to the status quo.
Status quo has the intervals defined by current prevalence and hospital admissions as you say. That means its very hard for businesses to plan for as those numbers change rapidly, and once in it, it is psychologically difficult as you dont know when it will end.
My suggestion is a lockdown on predetermined dates, maybe set 3 months in advance on a rolling basis, almost regardless of current prevalence or hospital admissions (in the extreme further action may be required but mostly this will be sufficient). So today we might know that there will be a lockdown 28 Sept-11 October, then open again, then another lockdown 9-22 November etc. Businesses could plan shifts and stock in advance, employees would have more certainty, and the restrictions could be both quite strict but also less stressful as they only last a short period of time with a known end date.
The ONS study is absolutely required reading for anyone wanting to understand the current Covid outbreak in the UK (it's for the week to 10 September 2020, but following the trends should give a good idea of the current position):
1) Infections are rising pretty quickly, but predominantly amongst younger people. The 17 to 24 and 25 to 35 groups are worst impacted - clearly the groups that will have been socialising in larger groups more often, but who are also not badly affected by the virus on average. It will be interesting as to how i) infection rates amongst younger children increase once schools have been back for a while; ii) the extent to which this filters through to the more at risk older groups.
2) It suggests London has a much higher infection rate than suggested by the regular testing data. If that is supported by more data in the coming weeks, local lockdown in the capital seems inevitable
Sadly, the report makes clear that the second wave of infections is upon us. We need to work out a strategy to stop this turning into a large second wave of deaths by protecting more vulnerable groups. I don't know what that should look like exactly, but if these young people are visiting their parents/grandparents regularly, then death rates will inevitably rise as well. Likewise with school children visiting grandparents during term time.
Like what happens everyday with grandparents picking up school children at home time.
Surely this argues for a much more targeted approach to stop this kind of behaviour. Its better than having COVID marshals trying to coral p8ssed up and perfectly healthy young geordies on a night out at 10 pm. Have them at the school gates telling granny not to pick up junior.
I found it utterly astonishing that care homes were under pressure to take COVID positive patients (according to Channel 4).
Instead of throwing resources at the healthy, why not spend them on wrapping the elderly and vulnerab'e in cotton wool?
I have thought this for some time.
Lockdown: no one gets to hug granny. Targeted lockdown: no one gets to hug granny.
Either way, sadly, granny doesn't get a hug.
But of the two the latter is the least damaging.
Lockdown: no one gets to hug granny. Targetted lockdown: There is nobody to feed or wash granny.
I agree with Richard (N) that May's deal was vastly preferable - but clearly unacceptable to the Brexiteers (for whatever reason - not sure they're in agreement on that themselves) - so we are where we are.
The EU have not been helpful at all (and neither have we) - but it's much harder to say that they have not negotiated in good faith.
They have been entirely consistent all along. Those comments by Barnier were absolutely clear, and remain valid today.
No the EU hasn't been consistent. The UK has offered standard terms time and again for a Canada style FTA but the EU keep trying to force the UK into dynamic alignment. It will lead to no deal.
What are the standard terms in a Canada-style trade agreement for UK lorry drivers to work in the EU27 countries?
They will not be able to answer sensible questions, it will just work like magic , bit like the Irish Sea Border
Using that theorem, jhb reckons that more than 90% of the positive cases showing up in the UK right now are false positives.
Just think about that for a moment.
Unless the answer is too complicated for a simpleton like me how does he get from 68% (which is horrendous enough) to 90%?
It doesn't.
And that's with a hypothetical false positivity rate of 10%. The tests accuracy is not 90%.
Plus the inaccuracy matters more on a micro than macro level.
The basement death and hospitalisation rates suggest that the true real rate of infection of the population is very very low.
When the 'real' rate is very very low, a false position rate of just 0.1% means 55% of all cases are falsies, according the Heneghan.
And that means that more than 1,500 of our 3000 cases are falsies whilst in France deaths are 50 despite 3,000 cases or more for two and half weeks at least.
France surely suggests there is a high false case count.
If the false positive rate is 0.1% then, with less than 250,000 tests a day there will be less than 250 false positives a day.
How is that half of 3,000?
50 deaths from 3,000 cases is a case fatality rate of 1.7% That's a sign that they're not detecting all the cases, not that they're detecting false positives.
With improvements in treatment the infection fatality rate should be about 0.5% at my best guess, though obviously highly age-dependent.
I’d say Texas, Georgia and Ohio should be in his column . North Carolina is a toss up , Bloomberg is pumping 100 million dollars into Florida and I think Biden will edge that . Arizona seems to be moving away from Trump , latest NY Times Sienna Poll has Biden ahead by 9 points and I think that should be a Biden pick up also . That 7/4 for all 6 looks ridiculous!
Trump really can't afford to lose any of these. Perhaps Arizona if he's doing particularly well in the rustbelt. But that's an odd combo - it just just goes to show how good a bet Biden is right now.
That lead is based on not just a 2016-non-voter Trump surge but also the complete elimination of the female vote premium.
If they are right then they are the greatest pollsters of all time.
'We found a substantial block of older, white, male voters without a college degree who plan to vote for Trump in 2020. Historically, female voters turnout at a higher rate than men; however this year looks like a 50%/50% split.
Also, we tend to believe many public polls are too narrowly defining who will be voting this year. Polls with tight or narrow likely voter screens or that rely on prior voter history to identify “likely voters” could be missing a block of older male voters who do not always show up on election day, but plan to this year.
....Biden leads by 10 points in urban/suburban areas of the country while Trump is up 40 points in exurban markets. Also, Trump is up nearly 7 points in the swing states, which account for almost a quarter of likely voters in this poll.
....We do see a bloc of male voters without a college degree, who are not regular voters, that are planning to vote this year. They appear to be older (45+), white, and do not have a college degree. To borrow a P. J. O'Rourke book title, many in this group could be described as the “Don't Vote, It Just Encourages the Bastards” voting bloc. Trump leads this group by 10 points (53%/43%), which is a lower margin than in 2016. However, this block only accounted for 16% of voters in 2016. In 2020, it appears they could make up around 25% of voters. Trump is also up 15 points among voters with household incomes of $100k or more, which account for over a third of likely voters at 34% and is up from 2016.
...Fears that we will not know the winner on election night probably have merit. Mail or absentee voting could account for 31% of total votes, including 30% of voters in the swing states. Nearly half (45%) of Biden voters indicate they plan to vote by mail. It could be a long November if things remain the same until election day.'
Further to the above while there has been a swing to Biden amongst white men without a college degree who Trump won 71% to 23% in 2016 (though they may have a higher turnout) there has also been a swing to Trump amongst the the richest voters, in 2016 for example Trump led voters with incomes of $100-$199,999 by only 48% to 47%, voters earning $200 000 to $249 999 by only 49% to 48% and voters earning over $250 000 by only 48% to 46% for Hillary. Trump now leads voters earning over $100 000 a year by 15%.
Messages such as the below from the Biden campaign have clearly won over a few white working class males from Trump but at the cost of seeing some rich Hillary voters shifting to Trump as a result
Using that theorem, jhb reckons that more than 90% of the positive cases showing up in the UK right now are false positives.
Just think about that for a moment.
Whatever the exact figure is, there will be a very large proportion of false positives in the situation where the absoulute prevelence in the community is low. lets say under 2%, and random people are being tested. Thsi is typical for a screening programm such as smear tests.
With COV2 some people will be "randomly" tested, just because they want to be tested, but most people get tested because there is an increased risk, either because they have symptoms or they were in contact with someon who tested positive. So I think the 90% estimate of false positives will be too high.
The thing is, the false positive rate should be known by the testers, so the national number of positives can easily be adjusted for this. And the epidemiologists know this, they know it much better than you or me. When they are estimating the seriousness of the outbreak and advising the government, they are taking this effect into account. You can't however adjust for a false positive on the individual level. So someone who tests positive without symptoms today really should have another test in a few days time, to confirm the result.
This is another reason to follow the R statistic rather than the raw numbers. R (assuming it is properly computed) will not increase with a high level of false positives, because by definition a false positive cannot go on and infect anyone else.
Well they could if they think that they are now immune (because they think that they have had it), become careless as a result and then get infected.
Comments
And BoZo agrees with him.
On rule for them, another for the rest of us.
Children usually present with a severe headache as first symptom seems to be fairly new research (can't recall where I read this). That would probably rule out a lot of sniffles and minor colds surely?
The Parliament of Catalonia rejects military trackers. The plenary session of the Parliament has approved a resolution of the CUP in which the Government is urged to rule out in a "transparent way" the possibility of requesting military trackers because "it would be incoherent and absolutely contradictory with the various legislative initiatives that, in the field on the promotion of peace and on the demilitarization of Catalonia, have been approved for years in this Parliament ". The resolution has had the favorable vote of JxCat, ERC, the commons and the CUP itself, and the vote against the rest of the chamber.
I don't think either of them particularly care what the truth was. But Dom (at least) realised that admitting human fallibility would neuter him from the point of view of Getting Rid Of Failing Sir Humphries.
(S)he who dares wins!
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1306773821068902401?s=20
It all comes back to the same thing as it has for four years: the UK has to choose. It is STILL trying to avoid choosing, despite the looming self-imposed deadline.
If you mean they've not given full details of how state aid will operate within the UK then no - that is none of their business. That is for Parliament to determine. All that is relevant to them is the confines we agree within the Treaty, not how Parliament then intends to exercise its powers within those limits.
Schedule a lockdown for 2 weeks in every 8 across the country. People and business can plan for it, it is less stressful, and can be stricter as everyone knows its only temporary.
They seem mostly explained, for my location re-imposition of what was the case previous to 2/9, plus enforcement in pubs &c.
But I can see gaps - Wigan stands out as not mentioned in reports yet.
They're just being rationed to those who need them most and not anyone who wants one.
The UK will engage in negotiations on state aid rules for the trade treaty, it just did so with Japan and will do so with Canada and other trade partners when the time comes. The UK wants state aid rules to be defined in the trade treaty and to make it enforceable by binding independent arbitration.
The EU won't negotiate on it and wants the UK to define domestic policy and decide whether it feels domestic rules are acceptable and have a veto on the government making changes to them. I will keep using the term until it gets into your head, it is an unacceptable loss of sovereignty and the UK will never agree to it in practice or in principle. Unless the EU starts negotiating on a baseline to include in the treaty it will end in no deal.
What the UK has as its domestic regime is its own business.
The UK has proposed an LPF. Not just any LPF, but the same LPF that the EU have already agreed with other nations.
What are you struggling to understand with that?
So random, instant chaos it is...
https://twitter.com/DsRoland/status/1306922777069453312
If they are right then they are the greatest pollsters of all time.
Just think about that for a moment.
Very Steep and Too High
After going up Mount Snowdon by train in Wales I'd forgotten just how high some mountains can get. And they don't come much higher than this one - that's for sure. LOL! This was almost a FULL day's climbing and my girlfriend was crying at one point. When we did get to the top there was nothing there (Mount Snowdon has a pub, restaurant and toilets at its top). Luckily we had brought some sandwiches and drinks, so anyone else climbing this one - BE WARNED- there are NO facilities at the top.
The climb basically went on for far too long and the last part was particularly steep and difficult. It was also cloudy at the top so the view was non-existant. The long walk back down was boring and again took too long. It was a great relief to get back to our B&B in Fort William for a hot soapy bath and the joys of a flushing toilet with soft toilet rolls.
This attraction is free but I honestly couldn't imagine anyone - and I mean anyone - paying to climb this.
https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowUserReviews-g186545-d194657-r235166198-Ben_Nevis-Fort_William_Lochaber_Scottish_Highlands_Scotland.html
And some of them were shot in the legs by retreating officers to stop them leaving the trenches (which explains the fire in the Port Stanley post office at the end)
Apparently they had containers full of fine rations though, so once they surrendered our guys didn't starve.
Apologies if you thought I was rude to you in the past , I am blunt and too the point but do not set out to be rude.
https://unherd.com/2020/09/is-donald-trump-toast/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3
But people who matter are
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-isn-t-matt-hancock-taking-false-positive-tests-seriously-
Booked online for a same day test about a 30 mins drive away. The negative result came back by SMS in 20 hours.
Just my experience. Overall a very slick experience.
Test and Trace is running fine, or would be if it wasn't for those pesky patients...
Both barrels and then a rocket launcher for good measure.
Fun bloke, great for a pint down the Duck and Dog but totally useless in our hour of need.
If this is an indication of where the wind is blowing in Tory land, then he wont make Xmas never mind next year's local elections.
There's always been rationing based upon clinical need for as long as I've been alive and in the UK. Suggesting that anyone should always, regardless of clinical need, be able to get a test and its results within 24 hours is about as reasonable as suggesting that anyone should always, regardless of clinical need, be able to book an appointinment to see a GP within the next 24 hours.
Nobody in Britain wants to be responsible for anything. Not for COVID deaths. Not for a cratering economy. Not for surging suicides and mushrooming undiagnosed cancers. Not for people being unable to say farewell to dying relatives or not being present at the birth of their children.
Not for anything.
We have last years week 40 on the graph at the left.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/englandandwales18september2020
What do we know from it?
1) Infections are rising pretty quickly, but predominantly amongst younger people. The 17 to 24 and 25 to 35 groups are worst impacted - clearly the groups that will have been socialising in larger groups more often, but who are also not badly affected by the virus on average. It will be interesting as to how i) infection rates amongst younger children increase once schools have been back for a while; ii) the extent to which this filters through to the more at risk older groups.
2) It suggests London has a much higher infection rate than suggested by the regular testing data. If that is supported by more data in the coming weeks, local lockdown in the capital seems inevitable
Sadly, the report makes clear that the second wave of infections is upon us. We need to work out a strategy to stop this turning into a large second wave of deaths by protecting more vulnerable groups. I don't know what that should look like exactly, but if these young people are visiting their parents/grandparents regularly, then death rates will inevitably rise as well. Likewise with school children visiting grandparents during term time.
The idea of a standard LPF terms - as the EU has always agreed with other countries and as the UK is seeking is that all parties agree limits as to what can and can't be done and then countries choose how to operate within what is allowed. If there is a change of Government or change of priorities within Government they can change their policies within the limits agreed. Everything that is not forbidden is lawful.
What Barnier seems to want, which is unprecedented and which you seem to think is acceptable, is for the UK to commit to a certain scheme. Everything that is agreed is compulsory, everything else is forbidden.
That is unprecedented and unacceptable. It is appropriate to agree an LPF, but then how we operate within that is for us to decide and none of their business. It would be entirely acceptable and appropriate for the government not to release policies on that until next year, or to release some now and change them next year, or change them after the 2024 election etc - there is no reason to lock down something today. Independent countries don't do that.
And that's with a hypothetical false positivity rate of 10%. The tests accuracy is not 90%.
Plus the inaccuracy matters more on a micro than macro level.
You guys may be right, but we would need to see the data much further back for a proper analysis.
Spot the problem
https://twitter.com/SpeechUnion/status/1306935402285223937
It was quite a good letter, if slightly long.
'We found a substantial block of older, white, male voters without a college degree who plan to vote for Trump in 2020. Historically, female voters turnout at a higher rate than men; however this year looks like a 50%/50% split.
Also, we tend to believe many public polls are too narrowly defining who will be voting this year. Polls with tight or narrow likely voter screens or that rely on prior voter history to identify “likely voters” could be missing a block of older male voters who do not always show up on election day, but plan to this year.
....Biden leads by 10 points in urban/suburban areas of the country while Trump is up 40 points in exurban markets. Also, Trump is up nearly 7 points in the swing states, which account for almost a quarter of likely voters in this poll.
....We do see a bloc of male voters without a college degree, who are not regular voters, that are planning to vote this year. They appear to be older (45+), white, and do not have a college degree. To borrow a P. J. O'Rourke book title, many in this group could be described as the “Don't Vote, It Just Encourages the Bastards” voting bloc. Trump leads this group by 10 points (53%/43%), which is a lower margin than in 2016. However, this block only accounted for 16% of voters in 2016. In 2020, it appears they could make up around 25% of voters. Trump is also up 15 points among voters with household incomes of $100k or more, which account for over a third of likely voters at 34% and is up from 2016.
...Fears that we will not know the winner on election night probably have merit. Mail or absentee voting could account for 31% of total votes, including 30% of voters in the swing states. Nearly half (45%) of Biden voters indicate they plan to vote by mail. It could be a long November if things remain the same until election day.'
https://www.pollsmartmr.com/latest-polls-1/2020-presidential
When the 'real' rate is very very low, a false position rate of just 0.1% means 55% of all cases are falsies, according the Heneghan.
And that means that more than 1,500 of our 3000 cases are falsies whilst in France deaths are 50 despite 3,000 cases or more for two and half weeks at least.
France surely suggests there is a high false case count.
https://twitter.com/LiamFox/status/1306885382051692544?s=20
162
About one tenth of the number from cancer/heart disease....??
The other remaining candidates are:
Amina Mohamed of Kenya - a former cabinet minister, lawyer and diplomat. She was the chairwoman of the WTO's general council and is 11/4 favourite
Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala of Nigeria - an economist and expert in international development who worked at the World Bank and now sits on Twitter's board. She is a US citizen, having studied at Harvard and earned a PhD from MIT, and 2/1 second favourite
Yoo Myung-hee of the Republic of Korea - the first woman to be South Korea's trade secretary, she has focused her career on trade negotiations, and 6/1 with Ladbrokes
Mohammad Maziad Al-Tuwaijri of Saudi Arabia - a former minister and managing director for HSBC in the Middle East. He was a pilot in the Saudi Air Force during the First Gulf War and has worked in banking since 1995. An outsider at 10/1
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-54204929
I found it utterly astonishing that care homes were under pressure to take COVID positive patients (according to Channel 4).
Instead of throwing resources at the healthy, why not spend them on wrapping the elderly and vulnerab'e in cotton wool?
Far more than usual people I know had really horrible times in winter 2019 - involving a week or two off work or more. Maybe not flu though.
They seem to be doing flu vaccines early - mine is a month or more ahead of usual.
Lockdown: no one gets to hug granny.
Targeted lockdown: no one gets to hug granny.
Either way, sadly, granny doesn't get a hug.
But of the two the latter is the least damaging.
With COV2 some people will be "randomly" tested, just because they want to be tested, but most people get tested because there is an increased risk, either because they have symptoms or they were in contact with someon who tested positive. So I think the 90% estimate of false positives will be too high.
The thing is, the false positive rate should be known by the testers, so the national number of positives can easily be adjusted for this. And the epidemiologists know this, they know it much better than you or me. When they are estimating the seriousness of the outbreak and advising the government, they are taking this effect into account. You can't however adjust for a false positive on the individual level. So someone who tests positive without symptoms today really should have another test in a few days time, to confirm the result.
This is another reason to follow the R statistic rather than the raw numbers. R (assuming it is properly computed) will not increase with a high level of false positives, because by definition a false positive cannot go on and infect anyone else.
Our supply lines had pretty much collapsed by then.
It would probably be more cost-effective to build working moats and drawbridges around every care home in England, with turrets and slit windows for archers.
Status quo has the intervals defined by current prevalence and hospital admissions as you say. That means its very hard for businesses to plan for as those numbers change rapidly, and once in it, it is psychologically difficult as you dont know when it will end.
My suggestion is a lockdown on predetermined dates, maybe set 3 months in advance on a rolling basis, almost regardless of current prevalence or hospital admissions (in the extreme further action may be required but mostly this will be sufficient). So today we might know that there will be a lockdown 28 Sept-11 October, then open again, then another lockdown 9-22 November etc. Businesses could plan shifts and stock in advance, employees would have more certainty, and the restrictions could be both quite strict but also less stressful as they only last a short period of time with a known end date.
Targetted lockdown: There is nobody to feed or wash granny.
How is that half of 3,000?
50 deaths from 3,000 cases is a case fatality rate of 1.7% That's a sign that they're not detecting all the cases, not that they're detecting false positives.
With improvements in treatment the infection fatality rate should be about 0.5% at my best guess, though obviously highly age-dependent.
Whatever happened to him?
Messages such as the below from the Biden campaign have clearly won over a few white working class males from Trump but at the cost of seeing some rich Hillary voters shifting to Trump as a result
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1306734679601668098?s=20
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1306777461557022730?s=20
Mmm.