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.
It's not me you need to persuade. If the EU aren't happy with trusting Boris on this (and who could blame them for that?), then they aren't happy. Even if they are just pretending not to be happy, the fact still remains that in a few weeks' time, thanks entirely to Boris, we descend in to complete chaos if we don't get a deal (and no doubt some chaos even if we do),
Our negotiating position is incredibly weak, made weaker by Boris' Northern Ireland protocol which means the default is extremely unfavourable to us in the event of no deal - with EU state aid rules reaching into mainland Britain. They don't need to do anything except shrug their shoulders and put in place whatever mitigation measures they think are in their - not our - interests. Throwing our toys out of the pram, saying it's all unfair, and threatening to break a treaty we've already signed, is not going to get us anywhere.
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.
I imagine almost all battles are won or lost like that; Waterloo was not alone in being a damn close run thing. So this is probably both true, and less interesting than it sounds.
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
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....??
I remember when some chancer on here was talking about the number of death in the US being one-tenth the peak and that clearly Covid was over.
Whatever happened to him?
I remember some chancer predicting half a million deaths and then being caught screwing some other bloke's missus in open defiance of the laws he recommended for the rest of us, even as the true deaths were less than a tenth of what he predicted.
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....??
I remember when some chancer on here was talking about the number of death in the US being one-tenth the peak and that clearly Covid was over.
Whatever happened to him?
I remember some chancer predicting half a million deaths and then being caught screwing some other bloke's missus in open defiance of the laws he recommended for the rest of us, even as the true deaths were less than a tenth of what he predicted.
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....??
I remember when some chancer on here was talking about the number of death in the US being one-tenth the peak and that clearly Covid was over.
Whatever happened to him?
I remember some chancer predicting half a million deaths and then being caught screwing some other bloke's missus in open defiance of the laws he recommended for the rest of us, even as the true deaths were less than a tenth of what he predicted.
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....??
I remember when some chancer on here was talking about the number of death in the US being one-tenth the peak and that clearly Covid was over.
Whatever happened to him?
I remember some chancer predicting half a million deaths and then being caught screwing some other bloke's missus in open defiance of the laws he recommended for the rest of us, even as the true deaths were less than a tenth of what he predicted.
Now that's a chancer.
Incredible whataboutery.
Not to mention "Half a million deaths if we don't do something"
(We do the something and deaths are enormously reduced).
People spring up shouting "See - no half-million deaths."
I predict that if you jump out of a plane at 10,000 feet without a parachute, you will almost certainly die, so wear a parachute.
(wears parachute, jumps, and lands safely)
"You lied! You said I needed a parachute when I obviously didn't because I landed safely with the parachute..."
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.'
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
It does rather remind me of that superb video that said his educational establishments were both top of their States....geographically.
You don't need an Ivy league degree but you do need to be smart.
Interestingly Trump has an Ivy League Degree from the University of Pennsylvania, unlike Biden, this is probably the first Presidential election the Republican candidate has had a more prestigious college degree than the Democratic candidate since Yale postgrad Gerald Ford faced Georgia Institute of Technology graduate Jimmy Carter in 1976 (Trump and Hillary, Romney and Obama, Bush 43 and Gore and Kerry and Bush 41 and Clinton and Dukakis all had Ivy league degrees, McCain, Dole, Reagan and Mondale did not have Ivy League degrees)
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.
GOPers got really upset about the "1619 Project" in a way that is basically unfathomable.
Unfathomable but not unusual. Plenty of PB Tories get quite hot under the collar if you say anything nasty about Britain's inglorious past, too. But in my experience the average American could probably do with dialling down the mindless patriotism, which hardly suggests they are being taught wholesale to hate their country by liberal teachers. Bad news incidentally for the Anglosphere types on here if Americans do go even larger on the whole 1776 thing, since we were the bad guys in that story.
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....??
I remember when some chancer on here was talking about the number of death in the US being one-tenth the peak and that clearly Covid was over.
Whatever happened to him?
I remember some chancer predicting half a million deaths and then being caught screwing some other bloke's missus in open defiance of the laws he recommended for the rest of us, even as the true deaths were less than a tenth of what he predicted.
Now that's a chancer.
That was his prediction if we did nothing.
Look at the graphs.
Deaths were falling well before the lockdown had any chance to have an effect.
Compulsory masks were brought in well after deaths had flatlined.
As the noble lord Sumption tells us, there is no evidence that government intervention has any positive effect on Coroan when you look at the comparative positions of Sweden and Spain in the past and now. Indeed, you could argue that it has a deleterious effect
You guys just want to pretend it does, for whatever reason, I guess because you believe in big government.
Deaths were falling well before the lockdown had any chance to have an effect.
That's because lots of people were already taking action before lockdown. School trips being cancelled, foreign travel stopped by businesses, working form home, as well as the social distancinc, hand washing and so on that we were already doing.
Frankly though I realise I am wasting my time arguing with you.
Getting desperate I see, we will soon need Trump guidance on wall building
Scottish residents urged not to cross border unless ‘essential’ amidst English Covid-19 lockdown
Scottish Borders residents are being advised against all but essential travel across the border into neighbouring Northumberland after new restrictions were announced for the north east of England. NHS Borders director of public health, Dr Keith Allan said travel is only recommended for “essential purposes such as school or work”.
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....??
I remember when some chancer on here was talking about the number of death in the US being one-tenth the peak and that clearly Covid was over.
Whatever happened to him?
I remember some chancer predicting half a million deaths and then being caught screwing some other bloke's missus in open defiance of the laws he recommended for the rest of us, even as the true deaths were less than a tenth of what he predicted.
Now that's a chancer.
Incredible whataboutery.
Not to mention "Half a million deaths if we don't do something"
(We do the something and deaths are enormously reduced).
People spring up shouting "See - no half-million deaths."
I predict that if you jump out of a plane at 10,000 feet without a parachute, you will almost certainly die, so wear a parachute.
(wears parachute, jumps, and lands safely)
"You lied! You said I needed a parachute when I obviously didn't because I landed safely with the parachute..."
Look at the graphs. Deaths were falling well before the 'doing something could have any effect
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.
Targeted is just that.
If you are a key worker, then you don't go to the pub. But in a lockdown you don't go to the pub anyway.
Deaths were falling well before the lockdown had any chance to have an effect.
That's because lots of people were already taking action before lockdown. School trips being cancelled, foreign travel stopped by businesses, working form home, as well as the social distancinc, hand washing and so on that we were already doing.
Frankly though I realise I am wasting my time arguing with you.
Some people were taking limited action 10 days before lockdown, but the vast majority of people were not. Tubes and trains were still full, as were football stadiums. There was very limited working from home. I agree there was a partial lockdown beofre the offical lockdown, but it was limited and only for a few days. The biggest thing was social distancing and the washing of hands.
Deaths were falling well before the lockdown had any chance to have an effect.
That's because lots of people were already taking action before lockdown. School trips being cancelled, foreign travel stopped by businesses, working form home, as well as the social distancinc, hand washing and so on that we were already doing.
Frankly though I realise I am wasting my time arguing with you.
Its almost as if trusting the people was a much better solution that useless and heavy handed and ludicrously expensive government action.
Doesn't the rule of six apply everywhere including public places and venues.
It does, although the other evening the pub we went to wasn't too bothered about us sitting on adjacent tables in the garden and keeping a sensible distance between us.
Deaths were falling well before the lockdown had any chance to have an effect.
That's because lots of people were already taking action before lockdown. School trips being cancelled, foreign travel stopped by businesses, working form home, as well as the social distancinc, hand washing and so on that we were already doing.
Frankly though I realise I am wasting my time arguing with you.
Its almost as if trusting the people was a much better solution that useless and heavy handed and ludicrously expensive government action.
People have been trusted to follow a limited set of rules and have failed to do so, what makes you think that with no rules they would have behaved better?
Doesn't the rule of six apply everywhere including public places and venues.
It does, although the other evening the pub we went to wasn't too bothered about us sitting on adjacent tables in the garden and keeping a sensible distance between us.
It's actually a fairly notable shift – it was 67% as recently as recently as 31 August.
We are now more than 25% of the time from 31st August to 3rd November on and the polls are not shifting (much). Hopefully this will be one of these horseraces that turn out to have been a walkover all the time after the event.
Doesn't the rule of six apply everywhere including public places and venues.
Does anyone here know anyone who wouldnt have more than six members of their family round because the Govt told them they couldn't?
We have 3 kids. One thing that's not clear to me is whether we can have say another couple over after the kids are upstairs in bed. Maybe not within the letter of the rules but doesn't feel any more dangerous than meeting up with them in a pub.
Some fairly strong national polling for Biden today.
And the USC merry-go-round has seemingly begun its fortnight trend back to the Democrat as more blue votes come into the polling cohort – you can predict that particular tracker like clockwork.
Unless his parents live in some form of commune I am not clear why taking a grandchild to visit them breaks the rule of 6 or indeed any other rule.
Because the local rules across much of the North ban inter household visits. Although whether they are rules or guidance is difficult to keep up. Spent most of the morning trying to ascertain whether walking therapy is OK or not. Seems so but take a copy of the risk assessment to prove it is work if challenged is the Council advice.
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.
On a micro level for the individuals who get given the wrong results it absolutely matters but on a macro level for decision making it doesn't.
It's counterintuitive but if there were say a thousand false positives this week then there would have also been a thousand false positives last week and the week before so what difference does it make to policy?
Current concern is not because of the levels of infections but because the rate of infections is going up. That can't be explained by false positives. Had the infection rate fallen to what it is today, stayed there and wasn't moving there'd be less concern now even with the exact same infection rate, it is the change that is the worry.
Plus as level of infections go up there would be fewer false positives proportionally and proportionally more false negatives. So if you account for falseness on a macro level with cases rising that makes it more concerning not less. Counterintuitive as I said but that's the macro picture.
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.
The worldwide, but especially European and American, failure to prevent non-essential travel this year has been a huge contributor to the virus spread.
It's actually a fairly notable shift – it was 67% as recently as recently as 31 August.
Yes. The Economist is currently at 86%/13%, so 538 is converging on it. I think this might be because, once past Labor Day, Nate Silver's model factors in quite a big reduction in the uncertainty on how well opinion polls as at now forecast the final result.
If the government imposes another lock down without providing financial support as before, the fury in the Cyclefree household will be visible from space.
The previous support will have been for nothing, welfare costs will soar and there will be no taxpayers or businesses left to pay for anything.
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.
Targeted is just that.
If you are a key worker, then you don't go to the pub. But in a lockdown you don't go to the pub anyway.
Yes. This is it.
There was an audience member on QT last night who was the perfect archetype for the logical fallacy of total-lockdownism.
She said words to the effect of "I don't believe we should stop certain groups leaving their homes", implying that she preferred it that all groups are prevented from leaving their homes...
It's actually a fairly notable shift – it was 67% as recently as recently as 31 August.
We are now more than 25% of the time from 31st August to 3rd November on and the polls are not shifting (much). Hopefully this will be one of these horseraces that turn out to have been a walkover all the time after the event.
Some fairly strong national polling for Biden today.
And the USC merry-go-round has seemingly begun its fortnight trend back to the Democrat as more blue votes come into the polling cohort – you can predict that particular tracker like clockwork.
Doesn't the rule of six apply everywhere including public places and venues.
Does anyone here know anyone who wouldnt have more than six members of their family round because the Govt told them they couldn't?
We have 3 kids. One thing that's not clear to me is whether we can have say another couple over after the kids are upstairs in bed. Maybe not within the letter of the rules but doesn't feel any more dangerous than meeting up with them in a pub.
Presumably you can as your guests will not come into any contact with your children (or indeed be within two metres of them).
Some fairly strong national polling for Biden today.
And the USC merry-go-round has seemingly begun its fortnight trend back to the Democrat as more blue votes come into the polling cohort – you can predict that particular tracker like clockwork.
If the government imposes another lock down without providing financial support as before, the fury in the Cyclefree household will be visible from space.
The previous support will have been for nothing, welfare costs will soar and there will be no taxpayers or businesses left to pay for anything.
Read the economic runes in the Telegraph. Even what's being proposed now is going to shatter confidence is this already weakening recovery.
Sunak cannot provide more support because Andrew Bailey at the Bank of England has decided the grandchildren have been mortgaged enough. He won't turn up at gilt auctions and that is extremely dangerous for Sunak.
If I were Sunak, I would resign. The climate Johnson and co are providing is just about as bad as it could be for British business. He is going to end up owning the Johnson mega-catastrophe because Johnson will not take responsibility for anything
He has precisely zero say and precisely zero room to do anything. In three weeks, Sunak's career will be over.
Not socialising with other households either indoors or outdoors simply is a non-starter in a Northern village. I can't get to the end of the street without being assailed with conversation.
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.
Targeted is just that.
If you are a key worker, then you don't go to the pub. But in a lockdown you don't go to the pub anyway.
Yes. This is it.
There was an audience member on QT last night who was the perfect archetype for the logical fallacy of total-lockdownism.
She said words to the effect of "I don't believe we should stop certain groups leaving their homes", implying that she preferred it that all groups are prevented from leaving their homes...
Absolutely mental, at least it was just an audience member and not one of the politicians who can actually influence public policy.
It's actually a fairly notable shift – it was 67% as recently as recently as 31 August.
Yes. The Economist is currently at 86%/13%, so 538 is converging on it. I think this might be because, once past Labor Day, Nate Silver's model factors in quite a big reduction in the uncertainty on how well opinion polls as at now forecast the final result.
Indeed, remarkably there are only 46 days left until election day.
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....??
I remember when some chancer on here was talking about the number of death in the US being one-tenth the peak and that clearly Covid was over.
Whatever happened to him?
I remember some chancer predicting half a million deaths and then being caught screwing some other bloke's missus in open defiance of the laws he recommended for the rest of us, even as the true deaths were less than a tenth of what he predicted.
Now that's a chancer.
Incredible whataboutery.
Not to mention "Half a million deaths if we don't do something"
(We do the something and deaths are enormously reduced).
People spring up shouting "See - no half-million deaths."
I predict that if you jump out of a plane at 10,000 feet without a parachute, you will almost certainly die, so wear a parachute.
(wears parachute, jumps, and lands safely)
"You lied! You said I needed a parachute when I obviously didn't because I landed safely with the parachute..."
Look at the graphs. Deaths were falling well before the 'doing something could have any effect
Bollocks, they were. Maybe Alistair Hames could wrestle them into some form of made-up submission, but deaths weren't falling until after the effect of the restrictions introduced over 16-22 March, and the effect accelerated after the full lockdown on 23rd March.
Viruses are spread by human contact. It's not by some arcane magic, some dark winds, decisions of the gods, or black magic. There's no incantation or spell to use that would stop that.
Sometimes the fluids can be spread only by blood-to-blood contact, sometimes by sexual fluids, more often by saliva and mucus (by physical touch or aerosolised).
If you have greater human-to-human contact, you will have greater spread than otherwise. Let's get that out of the way first. Some modes of transmission and some environments are harder than others (eg we know that outside is less amenable to virus spreading than we first understood - although it's certainly not a blocker to it; just harder to spread). Others are easier (inside and less ventilated).
All of which means that if we increase human-to-human contact, virus transmission will increase beyond the levels it would if we didn't. Coming up with this name, that name, the other name doesn't change that.
So which restrictions would you have us lift to get transmission down? When you bang on about Sweden, or Gupta, or whatever - what exactly do you recommend?
Since coming out of lockdown we've removed the distance limit, reopened takeaways, reopened restaurants, reopened bars, reopened cinemas, got international travel going again, got sport moving again, reopened schools, reopened all shops, which is surely what you'd want? Yet somehow the spread has resumed.
What further openings would prevent this in your view? Or should we just incant some name or another to get the gods of disease on side?
Not socialising with other households either indoors or outdoors simply is a non-starter in a Northern village. I can't get to the end of the street without being assailed with conversation.
Well whippets, tripe, brass bands and rugby league are all fascinating topics.....
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.
Targeted is just that.
If you are a key worker, then you don't go to the pub. But in a lockdown you don't go to the pub anyway.
Yes. This is it.
There was an audience member on QT last night who was the perfect archetype for the logical fallacy of total-lockdownism.
She said words to the effect of "I don't believe we should stop certain groups leaving their homes", implying that she preferred it that all groups are prevented from leaving their homes...
Absolutely mental, at least it was just an audience member and not one of the politicians who can actually influence public policy.
I fear your statement requires a PB-esque: "Oh wait..." at the end of it.
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.
Targeted is just that.
If you are a key worker, then you don't go to the pub. But in a lockdown you don't go to the pub anyway.
Yes. This is it.
There was an audience member on QT last night who was the perfect archetype for the logical fallacy of total-lockdownism.
She said words to the effect of "I don't believe we should stop certain groups leaving their homes", implying that she preferred it that all groups are prevented from leaving their homes...
Absolutely mental, at least it was just an audience member and not one of the politicians who can actually influence public policy.
It's actually a fairly notable shift – it was 67% as recently as recently as 31 August.
Yes. The Economist is currently at 86%/13%, so 538 is converging on it. I think this might be because, once past Labor Day, Nate Silver's model factors in quite a big reduction in the uncertainty on how well opinion polls as at now forecast the final result.
Indeed, remarkably there are only 46 days left until election day.
(And some states are already voting of course).
If you have a postal vote given the current state of USPS it may take all 46 days for your posted vote to be returned.
It should, but I don't think it has sunk in yet. I posted yesterday, that when I was out and about yesterday, I am a load of pubs rammed...on a Thursday afternoon...
That's a simplistic take on things, the reason places like Liverpool (and Israel) are seeing surging cases is because they didn't see a huge number of cases in the first wave. There's no real immunity levels in the wider community so it's a perfect place for the virus to run wild.
The reason why London isn't having mass outbreaks is because of the people who go out an meet each other immunity is probably over 30% so the R value required for exponential growth is closer to 1.4 or 1.5, a good data modelling team would be able to give the government likely areas of outbreak based on previous infection data fairly easily but with the likes of Harding in charge we'll never get there.
@isam is a fine chap, but I have to say that 'country gent' isn't the description which immediately springs to mind.
Well it worked for Guy Ritchie...
Isn't Guy Richie a posho that pretended to be gangsta, before returning to being a country posho. I am sure his parents/ step parents were landed gentry.
Deaths were falling well before the lockdown had any chance to have an effect.
That's because lots of people were already taking action before lockdown. School trips being cancelled, foreign travel stopped by businesses, working form home, as well as the social distancinc, hand washing and so on that we were already doing.
Frankly though I realise I am wasting my time arguing with you.
Some people were taking limited action 10 days before lockdown, but the vast majority of people were not. Tubes and trains were still full, as were football stadiums. There was very limited working from home. I agree there was a partial lockdown beofre the offical lockdown, but it was limited and only for a few days. The biggest thing was social distancing and the washing of hands.
The tube was under 50% utilisation by the 18th of March.
Doesn't the rule of six apply everywhere including public places and venues.
Does anyone here know anyone who wouldnt have more than six members of their family round because the Govt told them they couldn't?
We have 3 kids. One thing that's not clear to me is whether we can have say another couple over after the kids are upstairs in bed. Maybe not within the letter of the rules but doesn't feel any more dangerous than meeting up with them in a pub.
Presumably you can as your guests will not come into any contact with your children (or indeed be within two metres of them).
That is my assumption, but if Pritti Patel the Nosy Neighbour lived next door we might get reported to the rozzers.
Unless his parents live in some form of commune I am not clear why taking a grandchild to visit them breaks the rule of 6 or indeed any other rule.
Households must not meet other households (unless in a support bubble).
The sort of thing you are cheering to the rafters, David.
I'm not sure Wakefield is affected, though of course the grandparents could live inside.
Again, I can't see an official announcement on the gov.uk local restrictions page, just the filter of the news websites, and some things don't make sense to me. e.g. Wigan's status as mentioned.
Hancock stood before the house and made a clear statement on the NE yesterday. Why did he not just announce all these lockdowns in that statement, why phase them?
That's a simplistic take on things, the reason places like Liverpool (and Israel) are seeing surging cases is because they didn't see a huge number of cases in the first wave. There's no real immunity levels in the wider community so it's a perfect place for the virus to run wild.
The reason why London isn't having mass outbreaks is because of the people who go out an meet each other immunity is probably over 30% so the R value required for exponential growth is closer to 1.4 or 1.5, a good data modelling team would be able to give the government likely areas of outbreak based on previous infection data fairly easily but with the likes of Harding in charge we'll never get there.
Be interesting to see if places like the SW can escape the 2nd wave like they did the first. I have to say I was surprised places like Bristol and Bath didn't get hit harder. Bristol especially, is diverse, densely populated, two unis and not far from Cardiff where there was a big outbreak. Bath loads of people commute to London or Bristol for work, and definitely plenty of the types that do the old skiing and again two unis.
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.
The worldwide, but especially European and American, failure to prevent non-essential travel this year has been a huge contributor to the virus spread.
I simply cannot comprehend the urgency to have a foreign holiday in the current situation. It betrays a degree of selfish childishness which has been sad to witness. My own little area went from near zero to several hundred cases in just a few weeks .. and the figures keep growing. For several weeks the hospitals and morgues stayed relatively empty but both are steadily getting busier now and in our area summer will last another 4-6 weeks yet before you need long trousers!
That's a simplistic take on things, the reason places like Liverpool (and Israel) are seeing surging cases is because they didn't see a huge number of cases in the first wave. There's no real immunity levels in the wider community so it's a perfect place for the virus to run wild.
The reason why London isn't having mass outbreaks is because of the people who go out an meet each other immunity is probably over 30% so the R value required for exponential growth is closer to 1.4 or 1.5, a good data modelling team would be able to give the government likely areas of outbreak based on previous infection data fairly easily but with the likes of Harding in charge we'll never get there.
Following their death stats nonsense where there woukd just carry on annoucing 100+ deaths a day when the real figure was 5-10 I do not believe a single stat from PHE.
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.
The worldwide, but especially European and American, failure to prevent non-essential travel this year has been a huge contributor to the virus spread.
The go on your summer holidays / airbridge bollocks was insane. The UK could have said no, said in the UK, bolster the UK economy all summer. And then for those who did have to travel, have airport testing, quarantine and a follow up test i.e. like Iceland.
Instead it was go to Spain, France, Greece, mix with 1000s of other people from all over Europe and come back untested. Shock horror, we have more than likely imported 1000s and 1000s of new cases....just like March.
@isam is a fine chap, but I have to say that 'country gent' isn't the description which immediately springs to mind.
Well it worked for Guy Ritchie...
Isn't Guy Richie a posho that pretended to be gangsta, before returning to being a country posho. I am sure his parents/ step parents were landed gentry.
@isam is a fine chap, but I have to say that 'country gent' isn't the description which immediately springs to mind.
Well it worked for Guy Ritchie...
Isn't Guy Richie a posho that pretended to be gangsta, before returning to being a country posho. I am sure his parents/ step parents were landed gentry.
Actually that's a good point yes he was.
I did enjoy his latest film The Gentlemen though, about poshos running the weed growing business, by using landed gentry estates to grow it, even if one the main characters was bloody Hugh Grant...2hrs of sillyness with a good few twists and turns.
50% cross immunity would be more helpful than 20% to put it mildly. 20% would be good mind
Unfortunately it seems this isn't being checked:
Theoretically, the placebo arm of a covid-19 vaccine trial could provide a straightforward way to carry out such a study, by comparing the clinical outcomes of people with versus those without pre-existing T cell reactivity to SARS-CoV-2. A review by The BMJ of all primary and secondary outcome measures being studied in the two large ongoing, placebo controlled phase III trials, however, suggests that no such analysis is being done
You've got to err on the precautionary side outwith a trial testing.
That's a simplistic take on things, the reason places like Liverpool (and Israel) are seeing surging cases is because they didn't see a huge number of cases in the first wave. There's no real immunity levels in the wider community so it's a perfect place for the virus to run wild.
The reason why London isn't having mass outbreaks is because of the people who go out an meet each other immunity is probably over 30% so the R value required for exponential growth is closer to 1.4 or 1.5, a good data modelling team would be able to give the government likely areas of outbreak based on previous infection data fairly easily but with the likes of Harding in charge we'll never get there.
Explain Madrid then!
Didn't the Madrid stats show a much lower level of antibody presence than London, like 5% vs almost 20% in London.
Also from what I've read the Spanish outbreak has been worse in care homes where building up immunity is less useful from a public health perspective than in the wider community, especially younger people who interact with each other. I think in this wave it's probably a similar outbreak to London's first wave which will give much better herd immunity and hopefully make it more difficult for third and fourth waves to really become a disaster before a vaccine is available.
Ultimately there doesn't seem to be any way around some level of community infection without completely sacrificing the economy, especially the part of economy that young people depend on. Across all of Europe we need to have a grown up conversation about risk segmentation or young people are going to suffer severely reduced life chances and our nations will all suffer in the longer term.
Hancock stood before the house and made a clear statement on the NE yesterday. Why did he not just announce all these lockdowns in that statement, why phase them?
Because he doesn't know what he's doing from one minute to the next?
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.
The worldwide, but especially European and American, failure to prevent non-essential travel this year has been a huge contributor to the virus spread.
I simply cannot comprehend the urgency to have a foreign holiday in the current situation. It betrays a degree of selfish childishness which has been sad to witness. My own little area went from near zero to several hundred cases in just a few weeks .. and the figures keep growing. For several weeks the hospitals and morgues stayed relatively empty but both are steadily getting busier now and in our area summer will last another 4-6 weeks yet before you need long trousers!
Our holiday season is dominated by the Spanish, it’s a lot quieter now and the focus is on the return to school. Not sure why Murcia, just a few kilometers away is showing more infections, although Murcia city is probably driving it. We’re lucky in that the late night life was minimal But the problem will be complacency amongst the immigrant Brits As they let their guard down.
Following their death stats nonsense where there woukd just carry on annoucing 100+ deaths a day when the real figure was 5-10 I do not believe a single stat from PHE.
Just because their figures included historic deaths when they should have been dropping doesn't mean that figures showing increases can be ignored in the same way.
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.
The worldwide, but especially European and American, failure to prevent non-essential travel this year has been a huge contributor to the virus spread.
The go on your summer holidays / airbridge bollocks was insane. The UK could have said no, said in the UK, bolster the UK economy all summer. And then for those who did have to travel, have airport testing, quarantine and a follow up test i.e. like Iceland.
Instead it was go to Spain, France, Greece, mix with 1000s of other people from all over Europe and come back untested. Shock horror, we have more than likely imported 1000s and 1000s of new cases....just like March.
No the issue isn't holidays to Europe, it's continually importing cases from red list countries with basically no real quarantine in place. We shouldn't be allowing flights from India to land in the UK, among other countries.
Comments
Our negotiating position is incredibly weak, made weaker by Boris' Northern Ireland protocol which means the default is extremely unfavourable to us in the event of no deal - with EU state aid rules reaching into mainland Britain. They don't need to do anything except shrug their shoulders and put in place whatever mitigation measures they think are in their - not our - interests. Throwing our toys out of the pram, saying it's all unfair, and threatening to break a treaty we've already signed, is not going to get us anywhere.
You don't need an Ivy league degree but you do need to be smart.
Now that's a chancer.
(We do the something and deaths are enormously reduced).
People spring up shouting "See - no half-million deaths."
I predict that if you jump out of a plane at 10,000 feet without a parachute, you will almost certainly die, so wear a parachute.
(wears parachute, jumps, and lands safely)
"You lied! You said I needed a parachute when I obviously didn't because I landed safely with the parachute..."
He said their job was to call in the artillery on target from forward OP
Yale postgrad Gerald Ford faced Georgia Institute of Technology graduate Jimmy Carter in 1976 (Trump and Hillary, Romney and Obama, Bush 43 and Gore and Kerry and Bush 41 and Clinton and Dukakis all had Ivy league degrees, McCain, Dole, Reagan and Mondale did not have Ivy League degrees)
Bad news incidentally for the Anglosphere types on here if Americans do go even larger on the whole 1776 thing, since we were the bad guys in that story.
Deaths were falling well before the lockdown had any chance to have an effect.
Compulsory masks were brought in well after deaths had flatlined.
As the noble lord Sumption tells us, there is no evidence that government intervention has any positive effect on Coroan when you look at the comparative positions of Sweden and Spain in the past and now. Indeed, you could argue that it has a deleterious effect
You guys just want to pretend it does, for whatever reason, I guess because you believe in big government.
https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1306937775543988224
Frankly though I realise I am wasting my time arguing with you.
Scottish residents urged not to cross border unless ‘essential’ amidst English Covid-19 lockdown
Scottish Borders residents are being advised against all but essential travel across the border into neighbouring Northumberland after new restrictions were announced for the north east of England.
NHS Borders director of public health, Dr Keith Allan said travel is only recommended for “essential purposes such as school or work”.
If you are a key worker, then you don't go to the pub. But in a lockdown you don't go to the pub anyway.
And the USC merry-go-round has seemingly begun its fortnight trend back to the Democrat as more blue votes come into the polling cohort – you can predict that particular tracker like clockwork.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/
Although whether they are rules or guidance is difficult to keep up.
Spent most of the morning trying to ascertain whether walking therapy is OK or not.
Seems so but take a copy of the risk assessment to prove it is work if challenged is the Council advice.
It's counterintuitive but if there were say a thousand false positives this week then there would have also been a thousand false positives last week and the week before so what difference does it make to policy?
Current concern is not because of the levels of infections but because the rate of infections is going up. That can't be explained by false positives. Had the infection rate fallen to what it is today, stayed there and wasn't moving there'd be less concern now even with the exact same infection rate, it is the change that is the worry.
Plus as level of infections go up there would be fewer false positives proportionally and proportionally more false negatives. So if you account for falseness on a macro level with cases rising that makes it more concerning not less. Counterintuitive as I said but that's the macro picture.
The previous support will have been for nothing, welfare costs will soar and there will be no taxpayers or businesses left to pay for anything.
A dozen people turning into ISAM Towers' drive off a country lane, less so.
There was an audience member on QT last night who was the perfect archetype for the logical fallacy of total-lockdownism.
She said words to the effect of "I don't believe we should stop certain groups leaving their homes", implying that she preferred it that all groups are prevented from leaving their homes...
The sort of thing you are cheering to the rafters, David.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1306952859364331527?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1306947970223534080?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1306946335195770881?s=20
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
There was a pollster yesterday that had a two-point gap.
Nothing today that I can see.
Sunak cannot provide more support because Andrew Bailey at the Bank of England has decided the grandchildren have been mortgaged enough. He won't turn up at gilt auctions and that is extremely dangerous for Sunak.
If I were Sunak, I would resign. The climate Johnson and co are providing is just about as bad as it could be for British business. He is going to end up owning the Johnson mega-catastrophe because Johnson will not take responsibility for anything
He has precisely zero say and precisely zero room to do anything. In three weeks, Sunak's career will be over.
I can't get to the end of the street without being assailed with conversation.
https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1306915314559520774?s=20
Indeed, remarkably there are only 46 days left until election day.
(And some states are already voting of course).
Viruses are spread by human contact. It's not by some arcane magic, some dark winds, decisions of the gods, or black magic. There's no incantation or spell to use that would stop that.
Sometimes the fluids can be spread only by blood-to-blood contact, sometimes by sexual fluids, more often by saliva and mucus (by physical touch or aerosolised).
If you have greater human-to-human contact, you will have greater spread than otherwise. Let's get that out of the way first. Some modes of transmission and some environments are harder than others (eg we know that outside is less amenable to virus spreading than we first understood - although it's certainly not a blocker to it; just harder to spread). Others are easier (inside and less ventilated).
All of which means that if we increase human-to-human contact, virus transmission will increase beyond the levels it would if we didn't. Coming up with this name, that name, the other name doesn't change that.
So which restrictions would you have us lift to get transmission down? When you bang on about Sweden, or Gupta, or whatever - what exactly do you recommend?
Since coming out of lockdown we've removed the distance limit, reopened takeaways, reopened restaurants, reopened bars, reopened cinemas, got international travel going again, got sport moving again, reopened schools, reopened all shops, which is surely what you'd want? Yet somehow the spread has resumed.
What further openings would prevent this in your view? Or should we just incant some name or another to get the gods of disease on side?
Reminds me of that Eddie Izzard sketch.
The reason why London isn't having mass outbreaks is because of the people who go out an meet each other immunity is probably over 30% so the R value required for exponential growth is closer to 1.4 or 1.5, a good data modelling team would be able to give the government likely areas of outbreak based on previous infection data fairly easily but with the likes of Harding in charge we'll never get there.
Again, I can't see an official announcement on the gov.uk local restrictions page, just the filter of the news websites, and some things don't make sense to me. e.g. Wigan's status as mentioned.
Hancock stood before the house and made a clear statement on the NE yesterday. Why did he not just announce all these lockdowns in that statement, why phase them?
https://twitter.com/RajeevJayadevan/status/1305454586744860674
They are getting a bit defensive. On the eve of the election in 2020 they had Hilary just over Trump.
Which, in raw votes terms, wasn't far off.
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563.full
https://youtu.be/G0ZZJXw4MTA
Instead it was go to Spain, France, Greece, mix with 1000s of other people from all over Europe and come back untested. Shock horror, we have more than likely imported 1000s and 1000s of new cases....just like March.
Unfortunately it seems this isn't being checked:
Theoretically, the placebo arm of a covid-19 vaccine trial could provide a straightforward way to carry out such a study, by comparing the clinical outcomes of people with versus those without pre-existing T cell reactivity to SARS-CoV-2. A review by The BMJ of all primary and secondary outcome measures being studied in the two large ongoing, placebo controlled phase III trials, however, suggests that no such analysis is being done
You've got to err on the precautionary side outwith a trial testing.
Also from what I've read the Spanish outbreak has been worse in care homes where building up immunity is less useful from a public health perspective than in the wider community, especially younger people who interact with each other. I think in this wave it's probably a similar outbreak to London's first wave which will give much better herd immunity and hopefully make it more difficult for third and fourth waves to really become a disaster before a vaccine is available.
Ultimately there doesn't seem to be any way around some level of community infection without completely sacrificing the economy, especially the part of economy that young people depend on. Across all of Europe we need to have a grown up conversation about risk segmentation or young people are going to suffer severely reduced life chances and our nations will all suffer in the longer term.