Lockdown again is a waste of time. Compliance will be nowhere near what it was in the last one. That much is obvious from one weekend of the North East “lockdown”. Everyone is just getting on with it, ignoring the rules but being careful.
My impression is that those who follow the rules are following them. Those that aren't aren't. The followers are hurting the economy, the non-followers are spreading the disease just as before. So the only effect really has been to keep the compliant away from spending any money. If they want to stop the disease then it is those who won't comply who need dealing with. As I said that is a choice.
That’s not my experience. My anecdotal experience is that those who were very strict in following the rules the first time round are now not quite so strict.
Can those people who want a lockdown say what level of covid infections and deaths they are prepared to accept ?
Wrong question to ask of something that increases, especially when the rate of increase also increases.
Sooner or later, you have to slam on the brakes, unless you adopt a "let this thing wash over us" strategy. And while it might come to that, may the gods have mercy on our leaders if it does.
And if you are going to slam on the brakes, you might as well do it now, because the extra week of freedom now costs more (longer lockdown, more health pressure) later.
To adapt the Mckawberism, R<1 ( from whatever distancing and contact tracing you devise) equals happiness, R>1 equals misery. It's pretty clear that the UK needs to do something, because this thing doesn't just fizzle out of its own accord.
Only a proportion of the North needs to say "fuck the Tories", ignore the rules and you get cases rising.
I would be astonished if it's not a factor
I doubt it, the biggest rise is actually amongst under 34s and in areas with big cities nearby containing lots of young people eg Newcastle, Manchester, London etc and because they are very unlikely to die from Covid if they were they would not be going out whether the Tories were in power or not
Only a proportion of the North needs to say "fuck the Tories", ignore the rules and you get cases rising.
I would be astonished if it's not a factor
I doubt it, the biggest rise is actually amongst under 34s and in areas with big cities nearby containing lots of young people eg Newcastle, Manchester, London etc and because they are very unlikely to die from Covid if they were they would not be going out whether the Tories were in power or not
Amongst under 34s, I can imagine "fuck the Tories" absolutely being a factor
I wonder if in the North theres a "fuck the Tories" attitude to not following the rules
Unlikely. Especially since the North voted Tory only last year.
Things change. Cummings can't have helped.
Most people I know are more worried about giving the virus to their relatives and loved ones than Cummings.
The government have really missed the messaging getting bogged down with grass up your neighbour and there could be a big fine if you are naughty.
The messaging should be focused on do this otherwise your loved ones will suffer horribly and might well die...insert videos of people struggling to breath, crying relatives and recovered people who still look like a ghost.
The people being affected tend to be the old and the sick.
The further you are from those groups the less you have to fear and the more the restrictions affect you.
Ultimately people will make their own risk/reward decisions.
Only a proportion of the North needs to say "fuck the Tories", ignore the rules and you get cases rising.
I would be astonished if it's not a factor
I doubt it, the biggest rise is actually amongst under 34s and in areas with big cities nearby containing lots of young people eg Newcastle, Manchester, London etc and because they are very unlikely to die from Covid if they were they would not be going out whether the Tories were in power or not
Amongst under 34s, I can imagine "fuck the Tories" absolutely being a factor
The fact they have a less than 0.5% death rate compared to an almost 20% death rate amongst over 80s is the factor, if under 34s had the same Covid death rate as over 80s they would not be going out whoever is in power
Only a proportion of the North needs to say "fuck the Tories", ignore the rules and you get cases rising.
I would be astonished if it's not a factor
I doubt it, the biggest rise is actually amongst under 34s and in areas with big cities nearby containing lots of young people eg Newcastle, Manchester, London etc and because they are very unlikely to die from Covid if they were they would not be going out whether the Tories were in power or not
Amongst under 34s, I can imagine "fuck the Tories" absolutely being a factor
How many under 34s do you know whom might have been worried about ensuring Nanna and Granddad didn't die, but then think "fuck the Tories" so act with disregard because of that?
Only a proportion of the North needs to say "fuck the Tories", ignore the rules and you get cases rising.
I would be astonished if it's not a factor
I doubt it, the biggest rise is actually amongst under 34s and in areas with big cities nearby containing lots of young people eg Newcastle, Manchester, London etc and because they are very unlikely to die from Covid if they were they would not be going out whether the Tories were in power or not
Amongst under 34s, I can imagine "fuck the Tories" absolutely being a factor
Lockdown again is a waste of time. Compliance will be nowhere near what it was in the last one. That much is obvious from one weekend of the North East “lockdown”. Everyone is just getting on with it, ignoring the rules but being careful.
My impression is that those who follow the rules are following them. Those that aren't aren't. The followers are hurting the economy, the non-followers are spreading the disease just as before. So the only effect really has been to keep the compliant away from spending any money. If they want to stop the disease then it is those who won't comply who need dealing with. As I said that is a choice.
That’s not my experience. My anecdotal experience is that those who were very strict in following the rules the first time round are now not quite so strict.
It's not really the "Not so strict" that are the problem though. It's the ones who egregiously insist on acting as if there is no problem, or can't be arsed, or who don't believe in it, or who are just too ignorant to cope with it all.
Only a proportion of the North needs to say "fuck the Tories", ignore the rules and you get cases rising.
I would be astonished if it's not a factor
I doubt it, the biggest rise is actually amongst under 34s and in areas with big cities nearby containing lots of young people eg Newcastle, Manchester, London etc and because they are very unlikely to die from Covid if they were they would not be going out whether the Tories were in power or not
Amongst under 34s, I can imagine "fuck the Tories" absolutely being a factor
How many under 34s do you know whom might have been worried about ensuring Nanna and Granddad didn't die, but then think "fuck the Tories" so act with disregard because of that?
Only a proportion of the North needs to say "fuck the Tories", ignore the rules and you get cases rising.
I would be astonished if it's not a factor
I doubt it, the biggest rise is actually amongst under 34s and in areas with big cities nearby containing lots of young people eg Newcastle, Manchester, London etc and because they are very unlikely to die from Covid if they were they would not be going out whether the Tories were in power or not
Amongst under 34s, I can imagine "fuck the Tories" absolutely being a factor
I doubt it.
They just have their own risk/reward decisions to make and the young are at very low risk.
I wonder if in the North theres a "fuck the Tories" attitude to not following the rules
Unlikely. Especially since the North voted Tory only last year.
Things change. Cummings can't have helped.
That must be why the lockdown failed to work after the story broke.
Oh wait, the exact opposite happened, despite all the predictions on here.
Deny it all you want but the Cummings story did cut through, and it very much seemed to be the trigger point for people starting to more liberally interpret the rules.
Did infections fall drastically during the lockdown after the Cummings story broke? I think you know they did - I've still got Malmesbury's charts to prove it - so why try to maintain this bollocks narrative? If people are being more liberal now, it's because we're more than 6 months into this thing, and naturally sick of it.
Ironically, given the rise of the sceptic tendency, if Cummings did the same thing again today he'd be treated like a hero by them!
I take it "BluestBlue" is the colour people can get in the face trying to explain correlation, causation and confounding factors to you, without getting through?
That is an interesting poll. It tends to confirm the belief that perceived blatant unfairness often transcends voters’ political affiliation.
Rather surprised at this. The vacancy is there to be filled now, it isn't meant to be an additional prize in the election. The GOP were deeply cynical and wrong to make up non-existent rules so as not to even give Garland a hearing (when they could simply have followed procedure and then voted against him) but they are perfectly within their rights to fill the seat before January if they can.
I suspect Collins is toast no matter what she does.
Lockdown again is a waste of time. Compliance will be nowhere near what it was in the last one. That much is obvious from one weekend of the North East “lockdown”. Everyone is just getting on with it, ignoring the rules but being careful.
My impression is that those who follow the rules are following them. Those that aren't aren't. The followers are hurting the economy, the non-followers are spreading the disease just as before. So the only effect really has been to keep the compliant away from spending any money. If they want to stop the disease then it is those who won't comply who need dealing with. As I said that is a choice.
That’s not my experience. My anecdotal experience is that those who were very strict in following the rules the first time round are now not quite so strict.
It's not really the "Not so strict" that are the problem though. It's the ones who egregiously insist on acting as if there is no problem, or can't be arsed, or who don't believe in it, or who are just too ignorant to cope with it all.
And people who can't be arsed to follow one guideline rarely can be arsed to follow others.
So the people who go on holiday to a high risk country are more likely to ignore social distancing and then to go on a pub crawl when they should be in quarantine.
I wonder if in the North theres a "fuck the Tories" attitude to not following the rules
Unlikely. Especially since the North voted Tory only last year.
Things change. Cummings can't have helped.
That must be why the lockdown failed to work after the story broke.
Oh wait, the exact opposite happened, despite all the predictions on here.
Deny it all you want but the Cummings story did cut through, and it very much seemed to be the trigger point for people starting to more liberally interpret the rules.
Did infections fall drastically during the lockdown after the Cummings story broke? I think you know they did - I've still got Malmesbury's charts to prove it - so why try to maintain this bollocks narrative? If people are being more liberal now, it's because we're more than 6 months into this thing, and naturally sick of it.
Ironically, given the rise of the sceptic tendency, if Cummings did the same thing again today he'd be treated like a hero by them!
I take it "BluestBlue" is the colour people can get in the face trying to explain correlation, causation and confounding factors to you, without getting through?
I already replied to you at length over your other question - I don't have the energy to debate this bollocks with you as well.
Those Republican Senators who won't support an appointment before November 3rd are not likely to support a Trump nominee afterwards if Trump loses.
On the other hand if Trump wins, why rush?
So yes, I think the appointment takes place after inauguration, whatever the election outcome.
The only problem there is that the Senate numbers will change.
So it might be impossible to get a conservative judge even if Trump did win.
Of course almost any judge would be more conservative than RBG was but I suspect some Republicans are hoping for someone fully to their liking.
Saw an article mentioning that the Dems may try to impeach Trump (again!) if he loses in November but still tries to force the nomination through. Presumably the idea is that there would have to be another trial which would run down the clock until the new Senate sits on 3rd Jan. No idea how credible this is.
Lockdown again is a waste of time. Compliance will be nowhere near what it was in the last one. That much is obvious from one weekend of the North East “lockdown”. Everyone is just getting on with it, ignoring the rules but being careful.
My impression is that those who follow the rules are following them. Those that aren't aren't. The followers are hurting the economy, the non-followers are spreading the disease just as before. So the only effect really has been to keep the compliant away from spending any money. If they want to stop the disease then it is those who won't comply who need dealing with. As I said that is a choice.
That’s not my experience. My anecdotal experience is that those who were very strict in following the rules the first time round are now not quite so strict.
It's not really the "Not so strict" that are the problem though. It's the ones who egregiously insist on acting as if there is no problem, or can't be arsed, or who don't believe in it, or who are just too ignorant to cope with it all.
The “not so strict” people occasionally going to see their friends or family without social distancing because “what’s the harm?” or “f*ck it” will be having an impact, and I include myself in that category.
That is an interesting poll. It tends to confirm the belief that perceived blatant unfairness often transcends voters’ political affiliation.
Rather surprised at this. The vacancy is there to be filled now, it isn't meant to be an additional prize in the election. The GOP were deeply cynical and wrong to make up non-existent rules so as not to even give Garland a hearing (when they could simply have followed procedure and then voted against him) but they are perfectly within their rights to fill the seat before January if they can.
I suspect Collins is toast no matter what she does.
Just because they are “in their rights” doesn’t mean it’s politically a good idea to do it. If the position is filled and the democrats win big then there will likely be scorched earth retribution, perhaps expanding the size of the Supreme Court. Do GOP senators really want that?
Lockdown again is a waste of time. Compliance will be nowhere near what it was in the last one. That much is obvious from one weekend of the North East “lockdown”. Everyone is just getting on with it, ignoring the rules but being careful.
My impression is that those who follow the rules are following them. Those that aren't aren't. The followers are hurting the economy, the non-followers are spreading the disease just as before. So the only effect really has been to keep the compliant away from spending any money. If they want to stop the disease then it is those who won't comply who need dealing with. As I said that is a choice.
That’s not my experience. My anecdotal experience is that those who were very strict in following the rules the first time round are now not quite so strict.
It's not really the "Not so strict" that are the problem though. It's the ones who egregiously insist on acting as if there is no problem, or can't be arsed, or who don't believe in it, or who are just too ignorant to cope with it all.
The “not so strict” people occasionally going to see their friends or family without social distancing because “what’s the harm?” or “f*ck it” will be having an impact, and I include myself in that category.
Then I would not include you in the "Not so strict" group.
Those Republican Senators who won't support an appointment before November 3rd are not likely to support a Trump nominee afterwards if Trump loses.
On the other hand if Trump wins, why rush?
So yes, I think the appointment takes place after inauguration, whatever the election outcome.
The only problem there is that the Senate numbers will change.
So it might be impossible to get a conservative judge even if Trump did win.
Of course almost any judge would be more conservative than RBG was but I suspect some Republicans are hoping for someone fully to their liking.
Saw an article mentioning that the Dems may try to impeach Trump (again!) if he loses in November but still tries to force the nomination through. Presumably the idea is that there would have to be another trial which would run down the clock until the new Senate sits on 3rd Jan. No idea how credible this is.
Its not.
It would need to get through the House (doable) and then the Senate. The Senate majority would determine when to schedule it though, they can't before the House have acted and it doesn't take priority over other votes the Senate want to schedule first. So realistically the clock would run out before inauguration day anyway.
I wonder if in the North theres a "fuck the Tories" attitude to not following the rules
Unlikely. Especially since the North voted Tory only last year.
Things change. Cummings can't have helped.
That must be why the lockdown failed to work after the story broke.
Oh wait, the exact opposite happened, despite all the predictions on here.
Deny it all you want but the Cummings story did cut through, and it very much seemed to be the trigger point for people starting to more liberally interpret the rules.
Did infections fall drastically during the lockdown after the Cummings story broke? I think you know they did - I've still got Malmesbury's charts to prove it - so why try to maintain this bollocks narrative? If people are being more liberal now, it's because we're more than 6 months into this thing, and naturally sick of it.
Ironically, given the rise of the sceptic tendency, if Cummings did the same thing again today he'd be treated like a hero by them!
I take it "BluestBlue" is the colour people can get in the face trying to explain correlation, causation and confounding factors to you, without getting through?
I already replied to you at length over your other question - I don't have the energy to debate this bollocks with you as well.
I can promise you it's not lack of energy which fatally compromises your debating skill.
Lockdown again is a waste of time. Compliance will be nowhere near what it was in the last one. That much is obvious from one weekend of the North East “lockdown”. Everyone is just getting on with it, ignoring the rules but being careful.
My impression is that those who follow the rules are following them. Those that aren't aren't. The followers are hurting the economy, the non-followers are spreading the disease just as before. So the only effect really has been to keep the compliant away from spending any money. If they want to stop the disease then it is those who won't comply who need dealing with. As I said that is a choice.
That’s not my experience. My anecdotal experience is that those who were very strict in following the rules the first time round are now not quite so strict.
It's not really the "Not so strict" that are the problem though. It's the ones who egregiously insist on acting as if there is no problem, or can't be arsed, or who don't believe in it, or who are just too ignorant to cope with it all.
The “not so strict” people occasionally going to see their friends or family without social distancing because “what’s the harm?” or “f*ck it” will be having an impact, and I include myself in that category.
Then I would not include you in the "Not so strict" group.
What does that mean? I know many people who last time wouldn’t even entertain the idea of seeing their friends or family who now are happy to have a coffee with a small group of their closest friends, or their close family, regardless of what the rules say.
I wonder if in the North theres a "fuck the Tories" attitude to not following the rules
Unlikely. Especially since the North voted Tory only last year.
Things change. Cummings can't have helped.
That must be why the lockdown failed to work after the story broke.
Oh wait, the exact opposite happened, despite all the predictions on here.
Deny it all you want but the Cummings story did cut through, and it very much seemed to be the trigger point for people starting to more liberally interpret the rules.
Did infections fall drastically during the lockdown after the Cummings story broke? I think you know they did - I've still got Malmesbury's charts to prove it - so why try to maintain this bollocks narrative? If people are being more liberal now, it's because we're more than 6 months into this thing, and naturally sick of it.
Ironically, given the rise of the sceptic tendency, if Cummings did the same thing again today he'd be treated like a hero by them!
I take it "BluestBlue" is the colour people can get in the face trying to explain correlation, causation and confounding factors to you, without getting through?
I already replied to you at length over your other question - I don't have the energy to debate this bollocks with you as well.
I can promise you it's not lack of energy which fatally compromises your debating skill.
And I can assure you that it's not an overabundance of wit that buttresses yours.
Lockdown again is a waste of time. Compliance will be nowhere near what it was in the last one. That much is obvious from one weekend of the North East “lockdown”. Everyone is just getting on with it, ignoring the rules but being careful.
My impression is that those who follow the rules are following them. Those that aren't aren't. The followers are hurting the economy, the non-followers are spreading the disease just as before. So the only effect really has been to keep the compliant away from spending any money. If they want to stop the disease then it is those who won't comply who need dealing with. As I said that is a choice.
That’s not my experience. My anecdotal experience is that those who were very strict in following the rules the first time round are now not quite so strict.
It's not really the "Not so strict" that are the problem though. It's the ones who egregiously insist on acting as if there is no problem, or can't be arsed, or who don't believe in it, or who are just too ignorant to cope with it all.
The “not so strict” people occasionally going to see their friends or family without social distancing because “what’s the harm?” or “f*ck it” will be having an impact, and I include myself in that category.
Then I would not include you in the "Not so strict" group.
What does that mean? I know many people who last time wouldn’t even entertain the idea of seeing their friends or family who now are happy to have a coffee with a small group of their closest friends, or their close family, regardless of what the rules say.
Which I imagine is because they're more confident/less afraid than they were months ago.
Can those people who want a lockdown say what level of covid infections and deaths they are prepared to accept ?
Wrong question to ask of something that increases, especially when the rate of increase also increases.
Sooner or later, you have to slam on the brakes, unless you adopt a "let this thing wash over us" strategy. And while it might come to that, may the gods have mercy on our leaders if it does.
And if you are going to slam on the brakes, you might as well do it now, because the extra week of freedom now costs more (longer lockdown, more health pressure) later.
To adapt the Mckawberism, R<1 ( from whatever distancing and contact tracing you devise) equals happiness, R>1 equals misery. It's pretty clear that the UK needs to do something, because this thing doesn't just fizzle out of its own accord.
That assumes that R will continue to be over 1 and that a lockdown would reduce it to below 1.
And the assumption that the rate of increase also increases is even more dubious.
So the question comes back to what level of infections and deaths are deemed acceptable.
And the corresponding question of what level of damage to the economy, society in general and people's health which would result from a lockdown are deemed acceptable.
Lockdown again is a waste of time. Compliance will be nowhere near what it was in the last one. That much is obvious from one weekend of the North East “lockdown”. Everyone is just getting on with it, ignoring the rules but being careful.
My impression is that those who follow the rules are following them. Those that aren't aren't. The followers are hurting the economy, the non-followers are spreading the disease just as before. So the only effect really has been to keep the compliant away from spending any money. If they want to stop the disease then it is those who won't comply who need dealing with. As I said that is a choice.
That’s not my experience. My anecdotal experience is that those who were very strict in following the rules the first time round are now not quite so strict.
It's not really the "Not so strict" that are the problem though. It's the ones who egregiously insist on acting as if there is no problem, or can't be arsed, or who don't believe in it, or who are just too ignorant to cope with it all.
The “not so strict” people occasionally going to see their friends or family without social distancing because “what’s the harm?” or “f*ck it” will be having an impact, and I include myself in that category.
Then I would not include you in the "Not so strict" group.
What does that mean? I know many people who last time wouldn’t even entertain the idea of seeing their friends or family who now are happy to have a coffee with a small group of their closest friends, or their close family, regardless of what the rules say.
Which I imagine is because they're more confident/less afraid than they were months ago.
I can imagine thats is certainly a big factor yeah.
Lockdown again is a waste of time. Compliance will be nowhere near what it was in the last one. That much is obvious from one weekend of the North East “lockdown”. Everyone is just getting on with it, ignoring the rules but being careful.
My impression is that those who follow the rules are following them. Those that aren't aren't. The followers are hurting the economy, the non-followers are spreading the disease just as before. So the only effect really has been to keep the compliant away from spending any money. If they want to stop the disease then it is those who won't comply who need dealing with. As I said that is a choice.
That’s not my experience. My anecdotal experience is that those who were very strict in following the rules the first time round are now not quite so strict.
It's not really the "Not so strict" that are the problem though. It's the ones who egregiously insist on acting as if there is no problem, or can't be arsed, or who don't believe in it, or who are just too ignorant to cope with it all.
The “not so strict” people occasionally going to see their friends or family without social distancing because “what’s the harm?” or “f*ck it” will be having an impact, and I include myself in that category.
Then I would not include you in the "Not so strict" group.
What does that mean? I know many people who last time wouldn’t even entertain the idea of seeing their friends or family who now are happy to have a coffee with a small group of their closest friends, or their close family, regardless of what the rules say.
What it means is that this is how the virus is being spread. IF the government want to prevent this then it needs to take action, because imploring clearly isn't working. But we have no idea what the strategy is, or the aims are, because there haven't been any since Protect the NHS. Maybe we will know more tomorrow.
Lockdown again is a waste of time. Compliance will be nowhere near what it was in the last one. That much is obvious from one weekend of the North East “lockdown”. Everyone is just getting on with it, ignoring the rules but being careful.
My impression is that those who follow the rules are following them. Those that aren't aren't. The followers are hurting the economy, the non-followers are spreading the disease just as before. So the only effect really has been to keep the compliant away from spending any money. If they want to stop the disease then it is those who won't comply who need dealing with. As I said that is a choice.
That’s not my experience. My anecdotal experience is that those who were very strict in following the rules the first time round are now not quite so strict.
It's not really the "Not so strict" that are the problem though. It's the ones who egregiously insist on acting as if there is no problem, or can't be arsed, or who don't believe in it, or who are just too ignorant to cope with it all.
The “not so strict” people occasionally going to see their friends or family without social distancing because “what’s the harm?” or “f*ck it” will be having an impact, and I include myself in that category.
Then I would not include you in the "Not so strict" group.
What does that mean? I know many people who last time wouldn’t even entertain the idea of seeing their friends or family who now are happy to have a coffee with a small group of their closest friends, or their close family, regardless of what the rules say.
Which I imagine is because they're more confident/less afraid than they were months ago.
I can imagine thats is certainly a big factor yeah.
50% of the population smoked quite recently. You can get quite confident about a really massive health threat when you find it doesn't kill you immediately (or your gran who smoked 60 capstan a day till her 100th birthday).
The virus is back. What we about it now is a choice. But wishing it hadn't returned and then clutching at straws to prove one's desired situation just clouds the real issue. Which is what do we do about it.
Risk segmentation.
Protect the vulnerable.
Other groups be vigilant but to a greater or lesser degree continue with their lives.
The virus is back. What we about it now is a choice. But wishing it hadn't returned and then clutching at straws to prove one's desired situation just clouds the real issue. Which is what do we do about it.
Risk segmentation.
Protect the vulnerable.
Other groups be vigilant but to a greater or lesser degree continue with their lives.
That is certainly one logical strategy. One more than the government has had since July
Lockdown again is a waste of time. Compliance will be nowhere near what it was in the last one. That much is obvious from one weekend of the North East “lockdown”. Everyone is just getting on with it, ignoring the rules but being careful.
My impression is that those who follow the rules are following them. Those that aren't aren't. The followers are hurting the economy, the non-followers are spreading the disease just as before. So the only effect really has been to keep the compliant away from spending any money. If they want to stop the disease then it is those who won't comply who need dealing with. As I said that is a choice.
That’s not my experience. My anecdotal experience is that those who were very strict in following the rules the first time round are now not quite so strict.
It's not really the "Not so strict" that are the problem though. It's the ones who egregiously insist on acting as if there is no problem, or can't be arsed, or who don't believe in it, or who are just too ignorant to cope with it all.
The “not so strict” people occasionally going to see their friends or family without social distancing because “what’s the harm?” or “f*ck it” will be having an impact, and I include myself in that category.
Then I would not include you in the "Not so strict" group.
What does that mean? I know many people who last time wouldn’t even entertain the idea of seeing their friends or family who now are happy to have a coffee with a small group of their closest friends, or their close family, regardless of what the rules say.
Which I imagine is because they're more confident/less afraid than they were months ago.
I can imagine thats is certainly a big factor yeah.
50% of the population smoked quite recently. You can get quite confident about a really massive health threat when you find it doesn't kill you immediately (or your gran who smoked 60 capstan a day till her 100th birthday).
Which explains why all the people I know who smoke are young.
That is an interesting poll. It tends to confirm the belief that perceived blatant unfairness often transcends voters’ political affiliation.
Rather surprised at this. The vacancy is there to be filled now, it isn't meant to be an additional prize in the election. The GOP were deeply cynical and wrong to make up non-existent rules so as not to even give Garland a hearing (when they could simply have followed procedure and then voted against him) but they are perfectly within their rights to fill the seat before January if they can.
I suspect Collins is toast no matter what she does.
Just because they are “in their rights” doesn’t mean it’s politically a good idea to do it. If the position is filled and the democrats win big then there will likely be scorched earth retribution, perhaps expanding the size of the Supreme Court. Do GOP senators really want that?
At this time, with the pandemic, a big fight over abortion isn't what the voters want. If the GOP trips all over itself to do this, without a new stimulus bill, it's an easy win for the Dems.
Lockdown again is a waste of time. Compliance will be nowhere near what it was in the last one. That much is obvious from one weekend of the North East “lockdown”. Everyone is just getting on with it, ignoring the rules but being careful.
My impression is that those who follow the rules are following them. Those that aren't aren't. The followers are hurting the economy, the non-followers are spreading the disease just as before. So the only effect really has been to keep the compliant away from spending any money. If they want to stop the disease then it is those who won't comply who need dealing with. As I said that is a choice.
That’s not my experience. My anecdotal experience is that those who were very strict in following the rules the first time round are now not quite so strict.
It's not really the "Not so strict" that are the problem though. It's the ones who egregiously insist on acting as if there is no problem, or can't be arsed, or who don't believe in it, or who are just too ignorant to cope with it all.
The “not so strict” people occasionally going to see their friends or family without social distancing because “what’s the harm?” or “f*ck it” will be having an impact, and I include myself in that category.
Then I would not include you in the "Not so strict" group.
What does that mean? I know many people who last time wouldn’t even entertain the idea of seeing their friends or family who now are happy to have a coffee with a small group of their closest friends, or their close family, regardless of what the rules say.
Which I imagine is because they're more confident/less afraid than they were months ago.
I can imagine thats is certainly a big factor yeah.
Only 307 healthy under 60s have died in England from Covid. My sense is that most people’s perceptions of the risk were orders of magnitude out at the start of the summer, but are coming slowly into line now, which would account for the decline In fearfulness.
I think Dodds is going to have to go. She was a poor pick, even if intellectually she's good she just doesn't have the big hitter status that's needed.
Ed M, Reeves or Cooper would be all better choices.
Not that I think it will actually make a difference to Labour currently - which is maybe why she's there - but in the longer term they need somebody with more reach
The virus is back. What we about it now is a choice. But wishing it hadn't returned and then clutching at straws to prove one's desired situation just clouds the real issue. Which is what do we do about it.
Risk segmentation.
Protect the vulnerable.
Other groups be vigilant but to a greater or lesser degree continue with their lives.
That is certainly one logical strategy. One more than the government has had since July
Isn't that the policy the government wanted to follow, but everyone (the Press, opposition parties and many here) said was stupid so the government pivoted to lockdown.
My 90 y.o. parents think the elderly and those with co-morbidities should be supported to shelter but accept that there will be risks - and everyone else should get on with it. I hesitate because I'm worried for them, but am concerned that the economic hit of another lockdown is just too high.
That is an interesting poll. It tends to confirm the belief that perceived blatant unfairness often transcends voters’ political affiliation.
Rather surprised at this. The vacancy is there to be filled now, it isn't meant to be an additional prize in the election. The GOP were deeply cynical and wrong to make up non-existent rules so as not to even give Garland a hearing (when they could simply have followed procedure and then voted against him) but they are perfectly within their rights to fill the seat before January if they can.
I suspect Collins is toast no matter what she does.
Just because they are “in their rights” doesn’t mean it’s politically a good idea to do it. If the position is filled and the democrats win big then there will likely be scorched earth retribution, perhaps expanding the size of the Supreme Court. Do GOP senators really want that?
FDR couldn't manage it and would just lead to tit for tat court stacking, probably doubling its size within ten years.
That is an interesting poll. It tends to confirm the belief that perceived blatant unfairness often transcends voters’ political affiliation.
Rather surprised at this. The vacancy is there to be filled now, it isn't meant to be an additional prize in the election. The GOP were deeply cynical and wrong to make up non-existent rules so as not to even give Garland a hearing (when they could simply have followed procedure and then voted against him) but they are perfectly within their rights to fill the seat before January if they can.
I suspect Collins is toast no matter what she does.
Just because they are “in their rights” doesn’t mean it’s politically a good idea to do it. If the position is filled and the democrats win big then there will likely be scorched earth retribution, perhaps expanding the size of the Supreme Court. Do GOP senators really want that?
I think the obvious play is just to name a pick but leave it until the lame duck session and spare Collins etc a tough pre-election vote.
If Trump holds on then there's no problem. If he doesn't it's not a slam-dunk that the Dems will take back the Senate, and if they don't then they won't even have the power to go scorched earth, so confirm the nominee then.
If the Dems get both the presidency and the Senate then the GOP have a dilemma whether to take what they can and risk retribution or pivot to "bipartisan civility" and "respect senate traditions", but they can also offer a deal and blame the situation on the Dems if they don't take it, which will look better for them - eg say they're suspending their time-honoured principle of letting the new president make the pick because Biden won't promise not to blow up the filibuster.
The virus is back. What we about it now is a choice. But wishing it hadn't returned and then clutching at straws to prove one's desired situation just clouds the real issue. Which is what do we do about it.
Risk segmentation.
Protect the vulnerable.
Other groups be vigilant but to a greater or lesser degree continue with their lives.
That is certainly one logical strategy. One more than the government has had since July
Isn't that the policy the government wanted to follow, but everyone (the Press, opposition parties and many here) said was stupid so the government pivoted to lockdown.
My 90 y.o. parents think the elderly and those with co-morbidities should be supported to shelter but accept that there will be risks - and everyone else should get on with it. I hesitate because I'm worried for them, but am concerned that the economic hit of another lockdown is just too high.
So perhaps Sweden are right?
Governments lead. An 80 seat majority means it is no excuse what any bugger said. Their decision.
That is an interesting poll. It tends to confirm the belief that perceived blatant unfairness often transcends voters’ political affiliation.
Rather surprised at this. The vacancy is there to be filled now, it isn't meant to be an additional prize in the election. The GOP were deeply cynical and wrong to make up non-existent rules so as not to even give Garland a hearing (when they could simply have followed procedure and then voted against him) but they are perfectly within their rights to fill the seat before January if they can.
I suspect Collins is toast no matter what she does.
Just because they are “in their rights” doesn’t mean it’s politically a good idea to do it. If the position is filled and the democrats win big then there will likely be scorched earth retribution, perhaps expanding the size of the Supreme Court. Do GOP senators really want that?
I think the obvious play is just to name a pick but leave it until the lame duck session and spare Collins etc a tough pre-election vote.
If Trump holds on then there's no problem. If he doesn't it's not a slam-dunk that the Dems will take back the Senate, and if they don't then they won't even have the power to go scorched earth, so confirm the nominee then.
If the Dems get both the presidency and the Senate then the GOP have a dilemma whether to take what they can and risk retribution or pivot to "bipartisan civility" and "respect senate traditions", but they can also offer a deal and blame the situation on the Dems if they don't take it, which will look better for them - eg say they're suspending their time-honoured principle of letting the new president make the pick because Biden won't promise not to blow up the filibuster.
Not in Biden’s power to keep or not keep the filibuster. The new Senate decides which existing procedural rules to keep or not.
That is an interesting poll. It tends to confirm the belief that perceived blatant unfairness often transcends voters’ political affiliation.
Rather surprised at this. The vacancy is there to be filled now, it isn't meant to be an additional prize in the election. The GOP were deeply cynical and wrong to make up non-existent rules so as not to even give Garland a hearing (when they could simply have followed procedure and then voted against him) but they are perfectly within their rights to fill the seat before January if they can.
I suspect Collins is toast no matter what she does.
Just because they are “in their rights” doesn’t mean it’s politically a good idea to do it. If the position is filled and the democrats win big then there will likely be scorched earth retribution, perhaps expanding the size of the Supreme Court. Do GOP senators really want that?
FDR couldn't manage it and would just lead to tit for tat court stacking, probably doubling its size within ten years.
There is precedence for doing it ... And it would alreadg be tit for tat for the way the GOP denied Obama his pick then rushed through a replacement for RBG if it happens.
That is an interesting poll. It tends to confirm the belief that perceived blatant unfairness often transcends voters’ political affiliation.
Rather surprised at this. The vacancy is there to be filled now, it isn't meant to be an additional prize in the election. The GOP were deeply cynical and wrong to make up non-existent rules so as not to even give Garland a hearing (when they could simply have followed procedure and then voted against him) but they are perfectly within their rights to fill the seat before January if they can.
I suspect Collins is toast no matter what she does.
Just because they are “in their rights” doesn’t mean it’s politically a good idea to do it. If the position is filled and the democrats win big then there will likely be scorched earth retribution, perhaps expanding the size of the Supreme Court. Do GOP senators really want that?
I think the obvious play is just to name a pick but leave it until the lame duck session and spare Collins etc a tough pre-election vote.
If Trump holds on then there's no problem. If he doesn't it's not a slam-dunk that the Dems will take back the Senate, and if they don't then they won't even have the power to go scorched earth, so confirm the nominee then.
If the Dems get both the presidency and the Senate then the GOP have a dilemma whether to take what they can and risk retribution or pivot to "bipartisan civility" and "respect senate traditions", but they can also offer a deal and blame the situation on the Dems if they don't take it, which will look better for them - eg say they're suspending their time-honoured principle of letting the new president make the pick because Biden won't promise not to blow up the filibuster.
Not in Biden’s power to keep or not keep the filibuster. The new Senate decides which existing procedural rules to keep or not.
Well, the actual negotiation would be with Biden, maybe Harris, the incoming Dem majority leader, and potentially some key red-state Dems like Joe Manchin. But as far as the voters concerned the Democrats are led by Joe Biden, they don't know who all the other players are.
That is an interesting poll. It tends to confirm the belief that perceived blatant unfairness often transcends voters’ political affiliation.
Rather surprised at this. The vacancy is there to be filled now, it isn't meant to be an additional prize in the election. The GOP were deeply cynical and wrong to make up non-existent rules so as not to even give Garland a hearing (when they could simply have followed procedure and then voted against him) but they are perfectly within their rights to fill the seat before January if they can.
I suspect Collins is toast no matter what she does.
Just because they are “in their rights” doesn’t mean it’s politically a good idea to do it. If the position is filled and the democrats win big then there will likely be scorched earth retribution, perhaps expanding the size of the Supreme Court. Do GOP senators really want that?
FDR couldn't manage it and would just lead to tit for tat court stacking, probably doubling its size within ten years.
The GOP can't do that until they simultaneously get all three branches of government back, that may not even happen in 10 years.
However you're right that it would likely happen sooner or later, and I wonder if the optimal course for a Democratic Party with the votes to do it isn't to threaten to pack the court (or actually do it first) then ask the GOP to join them in a constitutional amendment to either depoliticize the courts or create a process that leads to compromises candidates that both sides can live with.
From a political perspective - why would Trump want to fill the SC vacancy before the election? Leaving it unfilled is a huge benefit; it gives conservatives who dislike him a reason to vote Republican, out of fear that Biden will appoint someone more liberal. What would filling it do for him? Are there any voters who are currently thinking of voting for Biden who will vote Trump in November because he's rushed through a conservative SC judge?
Perhaps at least one of the journalists can ask them what the FPR (False Positive) rate is for the PCR test they are using in the 100,000s?
The public needs to know the answer.
An open discussion with issues around false positively with the government scientists would indeed be very useful at this stage.
However, we all know with absolute certainty, that the journalists sent to the briefing are going be a bunch of Lobby hacks with barely an O-level in anything scientific between them, and an inane ability to ask the dumbest questions of some of the most intelligent people around.
There must be conservatives on the supreme court who are worried that the majority of americans lose all faith in the supreme court as an institution who must be against pushing through a nomination.
Lockdown again is a waste of time. Compliance will be nowhere near what it was in the last one. That much is obvious from one weekend of the North East “lockdown”. Everyone is just getting on with it, ignoring the rules but being careful.
My impression is that those who follow the rules are following them. Those that aren't aren't. The followers are hurting the economy, the non-followers are spreading the disease just as before. So the only effect really has been to keep the compliant away from spending any money. If they want to stop the disease then it is those who won't comply who need dealing with. As I said that is a choice.
That’s not my experience. My anecdotal experience is that those who were very strict in following the rules the first time round are now not quite so strict.
It's not really the "Not so strict" that are the problem though. It's the ones who egregiously insist on acting as if there is no problem, or can't be arsed, or who don't believe in it, or who are just too ignorant to cope with it all.
The “not so strict” people occasionally going to see their friends or family without social distancing because “what’s the harm?” or “f*ck it” will be having an impact, and I include myself in that category.
Then I would not include you in the "Not so strict" group.
What does that mean? I know many people who last time wouldn’t even entertain the idea of seeing their friends or family who now are happy to have a coffee with a small group of their closest friends, or their close family, regardless of what the rules say.
Which I imagine is because they're more confident/less afraid than they were months ago.
I can imagine thats is certainly a big factor yeah.
50% of the population smoked quite recently. You can get quite confident about a really massive health threat when you find it doesn't kill you immediately (or your gran who smoked 60 capstan a day till her 100th birthday).
Which explains why all the people I know who smoke are young.
Those of us who aren’t young can surely still remember that sense of invincibility, the endlessness of time, and the curability of any problem that the young have? It isn’t until some life event comes along - such as the death of someone close, or the first time you pick up a medical condition that you are stuck with for life, that you start to think about your long term health.
Lockdown again is a waste of time. Compliance will be nowhere near what it was in the last one. That much is obvious from one weekend of the North East “lockdown”. Everyone is just getting on with it, ignoring the rules but being careful.
My impression is that those who follow the rules are following them. Those that aren't aren't. The followers are hurting the economy, the non-followers are spreading the disease just as before. So the only effect really has been to keep the compliant away from spending any money. If they want to stop the disease then it is those who won't comply who need dealing with. As I said that is a choice.
That’s not my experience. My anecdotal experience is that those who were very strict in following the rules the first time round are now not quite so strict.
It's not really the "Not so strict" that are the problem though. It's the ones who egregiously insist on acting as if there is no problem, or can't be arsed, or who don't believe in it, or who are just too ignorant to cope with it all.
The “not so strict” people occasionally going to see their friends or family without social distancing because “what’s the harm?” or “f*ck it” will be having an impact, and I include myself in that category.
Then I would not include you in the "Not so strict" group.
What does that mean? I know many people who last time wouldn’t even entertain the idea of seeing their friends or family who now are happy to have a coffee with a small group of their closest friends, or their close family, regardless of what the rules say.
Which I imagine is because they're more confident/less afraid than they were months ago.
I can imagine thats is certainly a big factor yeah.
Only 307 healthy under 60s have died in England from Covid. My sense is that most people’s perceptions of the risk were orders of magnitude out at the start of the summer, but are coming slowly into line now, which would account for the decline In fearfulness.
Of course, because it was new and scary, no-one knew the true facts or risks, and there were people like Sean (and the ‘experts‘ he was forever quoting) going round talking about millions of dead and bodies piling up at the end of the street.
Time and experience helps most people put things into proportion. And it is an unavoidable fact that, for everyone except the elderly and ill, this virus on average tends not to be a big deal. It’s a big deal for society as a whole.
One of the best factoids came quite early from R4 More or Less, which is that the virus roughly doubles the chances you already had of dying during 2020.
From a political perspective - why would Trump want to fill the SC vacancy before the election? Leaving it unfilled is a huge benefit; it gives conservatives who dislike him a reason to vote Republican, out of fear that Biden will appoint someone more liberal. What would filling it do for him? Are there any voters who are currently thinking of voting for Biden who will vote Trump in November because he's rushed through a conservative SC judge?
The really smart thing to do would be to propose someone really conservative, and allow Collins, Murkowski and Gardner to torpedo them, prior to the election.
There must be conservatives on the supreme court who are worried that the majority of americans lose all faith in the supreme court as an institution who must be against pushing through a nomination.
There is one - Roberts. Thomas and Alito ? You’re joking. Kavanaugh clearly doesn’t give much of a damn about public opinion; Gorsuch, unlikely, but time will tell.
If the Republicans seat another Justice after what they pulled with Garland, because it’s ‘within their rights’, I think it almost certain a Democratic Senate majority will expand the court, since that is equally ‘within their rights’.
From a political perspective - why would Trump want to fill the SC vacancy before the election? Leaving it unfilled is a huge benefit; it gives conservatives who dislike him a reason to vote Republican, out of fear that Biden will appoint someone more liberal. What would filling it do for him? Are there any voters who are currently thinking of voting for Biden who will vote Trump in November because he's rushed through a conservative SC judge?
The really smart thing to do would be to propose someone really conservative, and allow Collins, Murkowski and Gardner to torpedo them, prior to the election.
Would it ? Think that one through, and how it would play out.
Journalists shocked as man who likes parties goes to a party.
I mean, there are lots of reasons to criticise Johnson, but this is not going to make any difference with people who like him.
It might, or should, make a difference if he is shown to have lied about it.
Why should another lie make any difference? He's well known for it.
Not a good way to start a Monday morning, but I don't feel very cheerful this morning. In spite of having quite a good weekend.
As Foxy pointed out, if the Italian sightings are accurate, it would mean that the story of the private no photos christening of his new child was made up (or at least its date was) and given to the Sun as cover for his little trip.
It is just as well the PM isn’t also at risk from anything we can’t talk about.
There must be conservatives on the supreme court who are worried that the majority of americans lose all faith in the supreme court as an institution who must be against pushing through a nomination.
There is one - Roberts. Thomas and Alito ? You’re joking. Kavanaugh clearly doesn’t give much of a damn about public opinion; Gorsuch, unlikely, but time will tell.
If the Republicans seat another Justice after what they pulled with Garland, because it’s ‘within their rights’, I think it almost certain a Democratic Senate majority will expand the court, since that is equally ‘within their rights’.
Journalists shocked as man who likes parties goes to a party.
I mean, there are lots of reasons to criticise Johnson, but this is not going to make any difference with people who like him.
It might, or should, make a difference if he is shown to have lied about it.
Why should another lie make any difference? He's well known for it.
Not a good way to start a Monday morning, but I don't feel very cheerful this morning. In spite of having quite a good weekend.
As Foxy pointed out, if the Italian sightings are accurate, it would mean that the story of the private no photos christening of his new child was made up (or at least its date was) and given to the Sun as cover for his little trip.
It is just as well the PM isn’t also at risk from anything we can’t talk about.
Where was that? I mean Dr F's comment. I knew the child was (supposed to have been?) christened about 10 days ago.
Journalists shocked as man who likes parties goes to a party.
I mean, there are lots of reasons to criticise Johnson, but this is not going to make any difference with people who like him.
It might, or should, make a difference if he is shown to have lied about it.
Why should another lie make any difference? He's well known for it.
Not a good way to start a Monday morning, but I don't feel very cheerful this morning. In spite of having quite a good weekend.
As Foxy pointed out, if the Italian sightings are accurate, it would mean that the story of the private no photos christening of his new child was made up (or at least its date was) and given to the Sun as cover for his little trip.
It is just as well the PM isn’t also at risk from anything we can’t talk about.
Where was that? I mean Dr F's comment. I knew the child was (supposed to have been?) christened about 10 days ago.
Do the math, as the Americans say.
And in the worst case, deliberately misleading the press about the date of a family christening would surely indicate a desire to hide his other activity.
We do need to support our own tech sector and grow our own tech giants. Palantir is yet another case study: access to venture capital; build up on sweet, sweet US government contracts, then expand to the commercial and foreign sectors like, as noted in the video, Britain's NHS. Good luck landing an equivalent American government body on a British system.
This morning the country’s chief medical officer, Chris Whitty, and chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, will appeal directly to the public in a rare televised address at around 11am, warning that a “critical point has been reached” with coronavirus. The pair are expected to warn of a “very challenging winter period” and urge people to exercise caution. They are likely to compare the UK to France and Spain, which have seen a surge in cases translate into increasing hospitalisations and deaths.
...
The crisis has also deepened concerns among Tories about the quality of the ministers in the cabinet. One former minister said that what was needed now was “the A team”, but that this was not what Johnson had appointed. “We have got a very inexperienced cabinet dealing with problems the like of which nobody has ever seen before,” he said. “A lot of them are not up to much and none of them are fantastic, not any of them. When Johnson came in, they put the A team on the backbenches.”
There must be conservatives on the supreme court who are worried that the majority of americans lose all faith in the supreme court as an institution who must be against pushing through a nomination.
There is one - Roberts. Thomas and Alito ? You’re joking. Kavanaugh clearly doesn’t give much of a damn about public opinion; Gorsuch, unlikely, but time will tell.
If the Republicans seat another Justice after what they pulled with Garland, because it’s ‘within their rights’, I think it almost certain a Democratic Senate majority will expand the court, since that is equally ‘within their rights’.
Journalists shocked as man who likes parties goes to a party.
I mean, there are lots of reasons to criticise Johnson, but this is not going to make any difference with people who like him.
It might, or should, make a difference if he is shown to have lied about it.
Why should another lie make any difference? He's well known for it.
Not a good way to start a Monday morning, but I don't feel very cheerful this morning. In spite of having quite a good weekend.
As Foxy pointed out, if the Italian sightings are accurate, it would mean that the story of the private no photos christening of his new child was made up (or at least its date was) and given to the Sun as cover for his little trip.
It is just as well the PM isn’t also at risk from anything we can’t talk about.
Where was that? I mean Dr F's comment. I knew the child was (supposed to have been?) christened about 10 days ago.
Do the math, as the Americans say.
And in the worst case, deliberately misleading the press about the date of a family christening would surely indicate a desire to hide his other activity.
Scanned back through some newspaper sites and see what you mean. Could argue they're misleading photos in the Mirror, too. Could have been taken any time. Why would the Italian airport people lie; he must have had some security around him, I suppose the question is, which priest did the christening, although I believe such a ceremony doesn't actually need an ordained minister.
From a political perspective - why would Trump want to fill the SC vacancy before the election? Leaving it unfilled is a huge benefit; it gives conservatives who dislike him a reason to vote Republican, out of fear that Biden will appoint someone more liberal. What would filling it do for him? Are there any voters who are currently thinking of voting for Biden who will vote Trump in November because he's rushed through a conservative SC judge?
The really smart thing to do would be to propose someone really conservative, and allow Collins, Murkowski and Gardner to torpedo them, prior to the election.
Agreed - that will really fire up the QAnon idiots, and also increase the chances of Collins/Gardner clinging on, though they are probably both toast.
There must be conservatives on the supreme court who are worried that the majority of americans lose all faith in the supreme court as an institution who must be against pushing through a nomination.
There is one - Roberts. Thomas and Alito ? You’re joking. Kavanaugh clearly doesn’t give much of a damn about public opinion; Gorsuch, unlikely, but time will tell.
If the Republicans seat another Justice after what they pulled with Garland, because it’s ‘within their rights’, I think it almost certain a Democratic Senate majority will expand the court, since that is equally ‘within their rights’.
Journalists shocked as man who likes parties goes to a party.
I mean, there are lots of reasons to criticise Johnson, but this is not going to make any difference with people who like him.
It might, or should, make a difference if he is shown to have lied about it.
Why should another lie make any difference? He's well known for it.
Not a good way to start a Monday morning, but I don't feel very cheerful this morning. In spite of having quite a good weekend.
As Foxy pointed out, if the Italian sightings are accurate, it would mean that the story of the private no photos christening of his new child was made up (or at least its date was) and given to the Sun as cover for his little trip.
It is just as well the PM isn’t also at risk from anything we can’t talk about.
Where was that? I mean Dr F's comment. I knew the child was (supposed to have been?) christened about 10 days ago.
Do the math, as the Americans say.
And in the worst case, deliberately misleading the press about the date of a family christening would surely indicate a desire to hide his other activity.
Scanned back through some newspaper sites and see what you mean. Could argue they're misleading photos in the Mirror, too. Could have been taken any time. Why would the Italian airport people lie; he must have had some security around him, I suppose the question is, which priest did the christening, although I believe such a ceremony doesn't actually need an ordained minister.
There aren’t any photos (the ones used a library ones), that’s the point. Which is a little odd from a PM hardly shy of publicity including using his new baby to issue clearly staged photos of the happy couple during their Scottish holiday.
As far as I can see, either the Italian source with two separate sightings is a mistake (or mendacious), or there was something fishy going on that weekend. I guess some top journalists will get on the case.
Apparently he has travelled off without security before. Funnily enough I believe once such instance was RyanAir to Perugia.
Even with near empty planes it seems odd that there aren’t any fellow passengers and the like who could confirm, or otherwise.
There must be conservatives on the supreme court who are worried that the majority of americans lose all faith in the supreme court as an institution who must be against pushing through a nomination.
There is one - Roberts. Thomas and Alito ? You’re joking. Kavanaugh clearly doesn’t give much of a damn about public opinion; Gorsuch, unlikely, but time will tell.
If the Republicans seat another Justice after what they pulled with Garland, because it’s ‘within their rights’, I think it almost certain a Democratic Senate majority will expand the court, since that is equally ‘within their rights’.
Doubt Dems would get 50 senators lined up on that.
I think it's a pretty simple decision for a man with no scruples. Mitch is going to make sure there's a conservative majority.
Why do you doubt that? Seems to be an increasingly mainstream view in the Democratic Party. The GOP has been trampling on conventions for years, now its time for the Dems to play dirty otherwise their legislative agenda will just be picked apart by the court for years to come.
Journalists shocked as man who likes parties goes to a party.
I mean, there are lots of reasons to criticise Johnson, but this is not going to make any difference with people who like him.
It might, or should, make a difference if he is shown to have lied about it.
Why should another lie make any difference? He's well known for it.
Not a good way to start a Monday morning, but I don't feel very cheerful this morning. In spite of having quite a good weekend.
As Foxy pointed out, if the Italian sightings are accurate, it would mean that the story of the private no photos christening of his new child was made up (or at least its date was) and given to the Sun as cover for his little trip.
It is just as well the PM isn’t also at risk from anything we can’t talk about.
Where was that? I mean Dr F's comment. I knew the child was (supposed to have been?) christened about 10 days ago.
Do the math, as the Americans say.
And in the worst case, deliberately misleading the press about the date of a family christening would surely indicate a desire to hide his other activity.
Scanned back through some newspaper sites and see what you mean. Could argue they're misleading photos in the Mirror, too. Could have been taken any time. Why would the Italian airport people lie; he must have had some security around him, I suppose the question is, which priest did the christening, although I believe such a ceremony doesn't actually need an ordained minister.
Whilst anyone can do an emergency baptism, emergency basically means the person being baptised might well die before a proper minister can be found. No way this qualifies.
CNN: A woman suspected of sending a letter containing the poison ricin to President Donald Trump was arrested as she tried to enter the US from Canada at a border crossing in New York state, a US law enforcement official said.
These people using the post often seem to get caught surprisingly quickly.
Journalists shocked as man who likes parties goes to a party.
I mean, there are lots of reasons to criticise Johnson, but this is not going to make any difference with people who like him.
It might, or should, make a difference if he is shown to have lied about it.
Why should another lie make any difference? He's well known for it.
Not a good way to start a Monday morning, but I don't feel very cheerful this morning. In spite of having quite a good weekend.
As Foxy pointed out, if the Italian sightings are accurate, it would mean that the story of the private no photos christening of his new child was made up (or at least its date was) and given to the Sun as cover for his little trip.
It is just as well the PM isn’t also at risk from anything we can’t talk about.
Where was that? I mean Dr F's comment. I knew the child was (supposed to have been?) christened about 10 days ago.
Do the math, as the Americans say.
And in the worst case, deliberately misleading the press about the date of a family christening would surely indicate a desire to hide his other activity.
Scanned back through some newspaper sites and see what you mean. Could argue they're misleading photos in the Mirror, too. Could have been taken any time. Why would the Italian airport people lie; he must have had some security around him, I suppose the question is, which priest did the christening, although I believe such a ceremony doesn't actually need an ordained minister.
There aren’t any photos (the ones used a library ones), that’s the point. Which is a little odd from a PM hardly shy of publicity including using his new baby to issue clearly staged photos of the happy couple during their Scottish holiday.
As far as I can see, either the Italian source with two separate sightings is a mistake (or mendacious), or there was something fishy going on that weekend. I guess some top journalists will get on the case.
Apparently he has travelled off without security before. Funnily enough I believe once such instance was RyanAir to Perugia.
Even with near empty planes it seems odd that there aren’t any fellow passengers and the like who could confirm, or otherwise.
As you say, a journalist, perhaps with deep pockets, ought to be able to discover something. Why should, for example, Ryanair staff keep schtum about a passenger like that.
Ministers today ended rail franchising after 24 years as the first step in bringing Britain’s fragmented network back together.
The new system will create a simpler, more effective structure and will take shape over the coming months. The first stage, today, is moving operators onto transitional contracts to prepare the ground for the new railway.
BBC reporting that the government has agreed to carry on with the current emergency funding for 18 months,
This piece by Dr Michael Yeadon is absolutely devastating, if correct. It utterly blows the current covid panic and crisis completely and utterly out of the water. We are being deluged with case figures and scary graphs showing huge leaps and seeing demands for lockdown 2.0, when
"The likelihood of an apparently positive case being a false positive is between 89-94%, or near-certainty."
I'm really hoping some other scientists can show the flaw in his workings, because if not then we are living through easily the biggest public policy disaster since the War. We are about to cause more untold misery, mental health breakdowns, smashing our economy to pieces and killing many through neglect and lack of normal NHS treatment based on numbers that are a false. Not by a bit, but massively, massively wrong.
What tests are they using in other countries?
I want to see a public debate on this next week. I want MPs demanding answers from Hancock on this.
Looks like some of these false positives are finding themselves in ICU.
How many are have been admitted to ICU in say, the last week? He's not saying there are no + cases. Just that the real number is ≈10x less than the number Huw Edwards tells us at 10pm every night.
Is there any mechanism by which the claims of the lockdown sceptics are falsifiable? For instance, if we do nothing and there's a large rise in hospitalizations and deaths, will that be proof that the cases were real after all, and what responsibility would the sceptics take for such an outcome?
The "false positive" theory is falsifiable by looking at the positivity rate.
If there was a high(ish) false positive rate then that should be a baseline from which the false positives should form thus the net cases would be the difference above that. The positivity rate then would vary very limitedly.
EG the link hypothesises a 0.8% false positive rate and a 0.85% positivity rate thus a 0.05% real positive rate. So far so good. But then if we go from that to a 1.1% positive rate then we have seen a 0.25% increase in the positivity rate. If there is not a major false positive issue then that is a 30% increase in cases. If there is that hypothesised false positive scenario then that is a 500% increase in cases. A 500% increase in cases is far, far worse than a 30% increase in cases.
EDIT: See the changing positivity rate here.
Well, the good news then is that we went to zero-covid in the early part of July. Positive results were under 0.8% of tests for a week or two. Yet, mysteriously, hospital admissions and deaths continued as if the results were real, and we’ve surged upwards as if they were real.
Comments
I would be astonished if it's not a factor
Weekending 16th August
1,122 tests
32 positive cases
Weekending 30th August
34,187 tests
31 positive cases
The False Positive test theory falls apart. Utterly destroyed.
Sooner or later, you have to slam on the brakes, unless you adopt a "let this thing wash over us" strategy. And while it might come to that, may the gods have mercy on our leaders if it does.
And if you are going to slam on the brakes, you might as well do it now, because the extra week of freedom now costs more (longer lockdown, more health pressure) later.
To adapt the Mckawberism, R<1 ( from whatever distancing and contact tracing you devise) equals happiness, R>1 equals misery. It's pretty clear that the UK needs to do something, because this thing doesn't just fizzle out of its own accord.
I am a Northerner and don't know a single person whom I can think of that would jeopardise their families life because they think "fuck the Tories".
How many people do you know that act like that for that reason?
The further you are from those groups the less you have to fear and the more the restrictions affect you.
Ultimately people will make their own risk/reward decisions.
This photo is now the more clear.
Mature.
It's the ones who egregiously insist on acting as if there is no problem, or can't be arsed, or who don't believe in it, or who are just too ignorant to cope with it all.
They just have their own risk/reward decisions to make and the young are at very low risk.
Gut feel says no but, tactically, the best thing would be to name a nominee, start the process but not have it finished by Election Day.
There is a risk here for Biden as well in that, if someone is nominated, he will come under mounting pressure to state his own list of SC judges
I wonder if we should read anything into the fact the eggheads are doing the warning and not a politician.
I suspect Collins is toast no matter what she does.
So the people who go on holiday to a high risk country are more likely to ignore social distancing and then to go on a pub crawl when they should be in quarantine.
It would need to get through the House (doable) and then the Senate. The Senate majority would determine when to schedule it though, they can't before the House have acted and it doesn't take priority over other votes the Senate want to schedule first. So realistically the clock would run out before inauguration day anyway.
And the assumption that the rate of increase also increases is even more dubious.
So the question comes back to what level of infections and deaths are deemed acceptable.
And the corresponding question of what level of damage to the economy, society in general and people's health which would result from a lockdown are deemed acceptable.
But we have no idea what the strategy is, or the aims are, because there haven't been any since Protect the NHS.
Maybe we will know more tomorrow.
Protect the vulnerable.
Other groups be vigilant but to a greater or lesser degree continue with their lives.
One more than the government has had since July
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-14/chinese-data-leak-linked-to-military-names-australians/12656668
BBC News - FinCEN Files: Tory donor Lubov Chernukhin linked to $8m Putin ally funding
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54228079
Well this is interesting
Ed M, Reeves or Cooper would be all better choices.
My 90 y.o. parents think the elderly and those with co-morbidities should be supported to shelter but accept that there will be risks - and everyone else should get on with it. I hesitate because I'm worried for them, but am concerned that the economic hit of another lockdown is just too high.
So perhaps Sweden are right?
If Trump holds on then there's no problem. If he doesn't it's not a slam-dunk that the Dems will take back the Senate, and if they don't then they won't even have the power to go scorched earth, so confirm the nominee then.
If the Dems get both the presidency and the Senate then the GOP have a dilemma whether to take what they can and risk retribution or pivot to "bipartisan civility" and "respect senate traditions", but they can also offer a deal and blame the situation on the Dems if they don't take it, which will look better for them - eg say they're suspending their time-honoured principle of letting the new president make the pick because Biden won't promise not to blow up the filibuster.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LQCsPbA6rU
However you're right that it would likely happen sooner or later, and I wonder if the optimal course for a Democratic Party with the votes to do it isn't to threaten to pack the court (or actually do it first) then ask the GOP to join them in a constitutional amendment to either depoliticize the courts or create a process that leads to compromises candidates that both sides can live with.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/26/boris-johnson-security-evgeny-lebedev-perugia-party
I mean, there are lots of reasons to criticise Johnson, but this is not going to make any difference with people who like him.
However, we all know with absolute certainty, that the journalists sent to the briefing are going be a bunch of Lobby hacks with barely an O-level in anything scientific between them, and an inane ability to ask the dumbest questions of some of the most intelligent people around.
Time and experience helps most people put things into proportion. And it is an unavoidable fact that, for everyone except the elderly and ill, this virus on average tends not to be a big deal. It’s a big deal for society as a whole.
One of the best factoids came quite early from R4 More or Less, which is that the virus roughly doubles the chances you already had of dying during 2020.
Thomas and Alito ? You’re joking. Kavanaugh clearly doesn’t give much of a damn about public opinion; Gorsuch, unlikely, but time will tell.
If the Republicans seat another Justice after what they pulled with Garland, because it’s ‘within their rights’, I think it almost certain a Democratic Senate majority will expand the court, since that is equally ‘within their rights’.
Not a good way to start a Monday morning, but I don't feel very cheerful this morning. In spite of having quite a good weekend.
Think that one through, and how it would play out.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/
It is just as well the PM isn’t also at risk from anything we can’t talk about.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/for-mitch-mcconnell-keeping-his-senate-majority-matters-more-than-the-supreme-court
... Senator Tim Kaine, of Virginia, who is ordinarily a mainstream Democrat, has said he could support enlarging the court as a tactic, if the Republicans force a confirmation vote...
And in the worst case, deliberately misleading the press about the date of a family christening would surely indicate a desire to hide his other activity.
We do need to support our own tech sector and grow our own tech giants. Palantir is yet another case study: access to venture capital; build up on sweet, sweet US government contracts, then expand to the commercial and foreign sectors like, as noted in the video, Britain's NHS. Good luck landing an equivalent American government body on a British system.
...
The crisis has also deepened concerns among Tories about the quality of the ministers in the cabinet. One former minister said that what was needed now was “the A team”, but that this was not what Johnson had appointed. “We have got a very inexperienced cabinet dealing with problems the like of which nobody has ever seen before,” he said. “A lot of them are not up to much and none of them are fantastic, not any of them. When Johnson came in, they put the A team on the backbenches.”
Why would the Italian airport people lie; he must have had some security around him, I suppose the question is, which priest did the christening, although I believe such a ceremony doesn't actually need an ordained minister.
I think it's a pretty simple decision for a man with no scruples. Mitch is going to make sure there's a conservative majority.
As far as I can see, either the Italian source with two separate sightings is a mistake (or mendacious), or there was something fishy going on that weekend. I guess some top journalists will get on the case.
Apparently he has travelled off without security before. Funnily enough I believe once such instance was RyanAir to Perugia.
Even with near empty planes it seems odd that there aren’t any fellow passengers and the like who could confirm, or otherwise.
If he has been honest he'd probably would have been able to do it given his popularity.
These people using the post often seem to get caught surprisingly quickly.
Why should, for example, Ryanair staff keep schtum about a passenger like that.
Ministers today ended rail franchising after 24 years as the first step in bringing Britain’s fragmented network back together.
The new system will create a simpler, more effective structure and will take shape over the coming months. The first stage, today, is moving operators onto transitional contracts to prepare the ground for the new railway.
BBC reporting that the government has agreed to carry on with the current emergency funding for 18 months,
Yet, mysteriously, hospital admissions and deaths continued as if the results were real, and we’ve surged upwards as if they were real.
"It's probably the fastest selling flight in Qantas history," the airline's CEO, Alan Joyce, said in a statement.
https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/flights-to-nowhere-qantas/index.html
Move along, nothing to see.