Anyway, presumably all McDonald’s restaurants closing from Friday? It’s the table service rules that will really hurt in the immediate future, not the curfew.
Curfew will hit profits, but is easy to implement. Many pubs and restaurants operating model will not allow implementation of table service I think.
Why has masks when not seated not been offered as an alternative?
I ate in McDonalds on Saturday. They did table service and it worked fine.
You'll be cancelled for that.
Might as well come out in favour of Brexit, now.
On a serious note, what is interesting in this crisis, to me, is the way that some organisations and people have simply stepped up. What can we do? How can we do it? Others have just curled up in a ball.
Further, this doesn't seem to go by profession. I have seen brilliant responses from building companies, school administrators and GPs. I have seen utterly crap responses by building companies, school administrators and GPs.
Solicitors seems fairly uniformly not to have done very well; accountants more or less to have taken it in stride.
Great. Pubs lose business; people lose jobs. But people carry on mixing in far less safe environments and the virus continues spreading. Just fucking great.
Is there no end to this government's uselessness?
It doesn't seem like it. Literally everyone said the same thing last night as well. Why not just keep the pubs open?
Last night on the BBC, I saw a load of amateur footballers all in a big huddle hugging each other after winning a penalty shootout in the first round qualifying round of the FA Cup. The crowd were also all together, hugging one another.
Yes but on that basis only if Trump nominates a moderate Justice which he won't because if he does and does not nominate a staunch conservative then pro life evangelicals will stay home in November and not bother to vote for him
I think you fail to understand Republican talking points. That statement means he’ll vote to conform anyone Trump nominates.
No it says he will not vote for anyone who legislates from the bench ie he will not vote for a staunch pro life conservative activist judge and if Trump does not nominate a staunch pro life conservative activist judge then evangelicals will stay home in November.
Evangelicals have no loyalty to Trump as a person, many find his personal life distasteful, they only back him so long as he supports a staunch conservative agenda, if he abandons that for some evangelicals it would be better for Trump to lose and then try and get Pence in as President in 2024 than for Trump to win and likely then be followed by Democrats after 2024 for years
"And evidence that Cheltenham did cause some spreading."
I have heard this repeatedly on here but despite asking several times for evidence I have seen none. Do you have any? I am particularly interested because I attended and live in the area.
The town of Cheltenham, in common with the Cotswolds and Gloucestershire generally, have very low Covid numbers now. If there was a Festival spike the region has certainly recovered well.
I am not sure whether it was ‘proven’ (nor that it ever could be, or disproven) but there was this:
The absence of hard numbers or of local reporting is making me a little sceptical. In hindsight, the Government should have banned the event and I shouldn't have gone but I suspect we just about got away with it.
If anyone can produce any relevant figures I will be grateful.
It seems like 8 million have antibodies in this country . If you take that to be more or less who has had Covid-19 then even accepting 45K have died because of Coivd-19 (rather than with it) that has a mortality rate of 0.5% - given that some of those deaths will have being caused by other factors (most of the dead are very very old) then I would say that a mortality rate of 0.2% is not far from the truth - A lot closer than your 1% and the absurd official 10% and its worrying that the government with ll its resources are still making ruinous decisions based on too high fatiality rates
The estimate I read was 3.4mn people in the UK having had it. You see similar estimates of the fatality rate from other countries. 1% seems to be the number. So not 10% but not 0.2% either.
I also wonder if the first wave took a lot of the driest timber and whether we will see a reduction in the death rate as this goes on. Clearly better medical treatments through ameliorating drugs, much more caution about the use of ventilators etc will help too.
The most difficult bit is that 1% varies from about 0.01 for the very young to over 20% for the very old. Surely our policies should focus on the implications of that rather than hitting our entire society and economy with a sledgehammer.
I think it was Prof Carl Heneghan who suggested that we went into Covid with 15K people clinging to life by their fingernails, because of below average deaths last year.
It would also be probable that at care homes, for example, both staff and inhabitants are taking things much, much more seriously.
One would assume the government won't decant a load of Covid patients into them again either.
Sounds like Boris big address to the nation will be a load of half arsed measures and a repeat like March of please use common sense otherwise we will have to be stricter.
And in two weeks he will be back on again, to tell us too many people have ignored his pleas and virus has got out of hand and now its lockdown harder, the sequel.
Given the coverage of tomorrow's announcement in the press and on Twitter, we clearly still have government policies being leaked out to the favoured press in dribs and drabs, despite the Speaker insisting that such announcements should be made in the House of Commons. I wonder what the source of the leaks is? It's a poor way to govern, whatever. They (the government and advisors) should shut up until BJ addresses the Commons and then has his press conference in the evening.
Those actually involved won’t be the ones leaking, it’ll be those who hear about things from the inside and are opposed to the measures, whether they be ministers, spads or civil servants.
We are in agreement that the media would be best shutting up about things that haven’t been announced formally by the appropriate minister, this is not a time for politics as usual and the general public - people who need clarity - are instead being deliberately confused.
CNN says it is all ” according to a Downing Street statement ahead of the speech.”
The problem is that they’re surrounding the No.10 briefing with a bunch other unfounded speculation and opinion from all over the place.
That said, I’d rather government didn’t brief stuff ahead of time, these things should really be presented to Parliament first.
Last night on the BBC, I saw a load of amateur footballers all in a big huddle hugging each other after winning a penalty shootout in the first round qualifying round of the FA Cup. The crowd were also all together, hugging one another.
Great. Pubs lose business; people lose jobs. But people carry on mixing in far less safe environments and the virus continues spreading. Just fucking great.
Is there no end to this government's uselessness?
Is he also not wrong about this unless the 6 friends come from only 2 households?
Yes he is. And it's unenforceable as well. So good pubs who follow the rules (like my daughter's) will be checked and those at home who ignore the rules will not. It's absurd.
"And evidence that Cheltenham did cause some spreading."
I have heard this repeatedly on here but despite asking several times for evidence I have seen none. Do you have any? I am particularly interested because I attended and live in the area.
The town of Cheltenham, in common with the Cotswolds and Gloucestershire generally, have very low Covid numbers now. If there was a Festival spike the region has certainly recovered well.
I am not sure whether it was ‘proven’ (nor that it ever could be, or disproven) but there was this:
The absence of hard numbers or of local reporting is making me a little sceptical. In hindsight, the Government should have banned the event and I shouldn't have gone but I suspect we just about got away with it.
If anyone can produce any relevant figures I will be grateful.
It seems like 8 million have antibodies in this country . If you take that to be more or less who has had Covid-19 then even accepting 45K have died because of Coivd-19 (rather than with it) that has a mortality rate of 0.5% - given that some of those deaths will have being caused by other factors (most of the dead are very very old) then I would say that a mortality rate of 0.2% is not far from the truth - A lot closer than your 1% and the absurd official 10% and its worrying that the government with ll its resources are still making ruinous decisions based on too high fatiality rates
The estimate I read was 3.4mn people in the UK having had it. You see similar estimates of the fatality rate from other countries. 1% seems to be the number. So not 10% but not 0.2% either.
I also wonder if the first wave took a lot of the driest timber and whether we will see a reduction in the death rate as this goes on. Clearly better medical treatments through ameliorating drugs, much more caution about the use of ventilators etc will help too.
The most difficult bit is that 1% varies from about 0.01 for the very young to over 20% for the very old. Surely our policies should focus on the implications of that rather than hitting our entire society and economy with a sledgehammer.
I think it was Prof Carl Heneghan who suggested that we went into Covid with 15K people clinging to life by their fingernails, because of below average deaths last year.
It would also be probable that at care homes, for example, both staff and inhabitants are taking things much, much more seriously.
One would assume the government won't decant a load of Covid patients into them again either.
Great. Pubs lose business; people lose jobs. But people carry on mixing in far less safe environments and the virus continues spreading. Just fucking great.
Is there no end to this government's uselessness?
There will likely be more than 6 in a pub on different tables, only 6 in one house socially distanced is fine
"only 6 in one house socially distanced" - are you for real? Socially distanced drinking buddies in a house?
Great. Pubs lose business; people lose jobs. But people carry on mixing in far less safe environments and the virus continues spreading. Just fucking great.
Is there no end to this government's uselessness?
Is he also not wrong about this unless the 6 friends come from only 2 households?
No, at least not in England. There's no two household limit here.
It's not very Christian to not want to help those less fortunate than yourself.
I've long been convinced that American Evangelical "christians" are nothing of the sort. They have a Bible consisting of half of Genesis, the most Gilead bits of Leviticus and Revelations. And thats it.
Great. Pubs lose business; people lose jobs. But people carry on mixing in far less safe environments and the virus continues spreading. Just fucking great.
Is there no end to this government's uselessness?
Is he also not wrong about this unless the 6 friends come from only 2 households?
No, at least not in England. There's no two household limit here.
I think the rule is that you can only meet up with 6 people (ie you & 5) from no more than 2 households. Even in England.
Given the coverage of tomorrow's announcement in the press and on Twitter, we clearly still have government policies being leaked out to the favoured press in dribs and drabs, despite the Speaker insisting that such announcements should be made in the House of Commons. I wonder what the source of the leaks is? It's a poor way to govern, whatever. They (the government and advisors) should shut up until BJ addresses the Commons and then has his press conference in the evening.
Those actually involved won’t be the ones leaking, it’ll be those who hear about things from the inside and are opposed to the measures, whether they be ministers, spads or civil servants.
We are in agreement that the media would be best shutting up about things that haven’t been announced formally by the appropriate minister, this is not a time for politics as usual and the general public - people who need clarity - are instead being deliberately confused.
CNN says it is all ” according to a Downing Street statement ahead of the speech.”
The problem is that they’re surrounding the No.10 briefing with a bunch other unfounded speculation and opinion from all over the place.
That said, I’d rather government didn’t brief stuff ahead of time, these things should really be presented to Parliament first.
They keep doing this, leaving way too much time between making it clear something big is about to happen, actually announcing it and for it to come into place.
We know all the decisions were made at the weekend.
The amusing subtext of those trying to rush a Trump nominee through before Nov 3rd is the implication that they don't think Trump will be President afterwards.
This all smacks of Last Rites.
The less amusing text is that despite winning a majority of the popular vote in six out of the last seven presidential elections, Democrats will see a 6-3 partisan court which they’ll be able to do little to change for the next decade, even if they win the next three elections.
And the three most recent justices will have been confirmed by senators representing about 40% of the electorate.
The other day we were discussing constitutionalism - I used to believe in it.
The problem is that a constitution is of no use, if the society and government don;'t believe in it. 1930s Germany, Soviet Russia etc all had magnificent constitutions. Protections for all.. And this is not uncommon. Dictators seem to like having such constitutions as a fig leaf.
What they uniformly do, is control the courts with their own brand of activist judge, who twists the law as required.
Someone, (I think Cyclefree) asked, what if, in the case of a government without a constitution to limit it, a persecution of a minority was attempted. My answer, sadly, is that history tells us that genocides have happened where every individual crime was illegal....
Which brings us to the US. The current system is no longer truly a constitution. Both sides are trying to rule, partially, by a selected oligarchy... The Supreme Court. Get "your people" on it, and rule for 50 years. Elections be damned.
The effect on civil society is obvious.
My cure? - well, look at Switzerland. The important thing is that constitutions change, frequently, and that the power to do so resides with the voters.
"And evidence that Cheltenham did cause some spreading."
I have heard this repeatedly on here but despite asking several times for evidence I have seen none. Do you have any? I am particularly interested because I attended and live in the area.
The town of Cheltenham, in common with the Cotswolds and Gloucestershire generally, have very low Covid numbers now. If there was a Festival spike the region has certainly recovered well.
I am not sure whether it was ‘proven’ (nor that it ever could be, or disproven) but there was this:
The absence of hard numbers or of local reporting is making me a little sceptical. In hindsight, the Government should have banned the event and I shouldn't have gone but I suspect we just about got away with it.
If anyone can produce any relevant figures I will be grateful.
It seems like 8 million have antibodies in this country . If you take that to be more or less who has had Covid-19 then even accepting 45K have died because of Coivd-19 (rather than with it) that has a mortality rate of 0.5% - given that some of those deaths will have being caused by other factors (most of the dead are very very old) then I would say that a mortality rate of 0.2% is not far from the truth - A lot closer than your 1% and the absurd official 10% and its worrying that the government with ll its resources are still making ruinous decisions based on too high fatiality rates
The estimate I read was 3.4mn people in the UK having had it. You see similar estimates of the fatality rate from other countries. 1% seems to be the number. So not 10% but not 0.2% either.
I also wonder if the first wave took a lot of the driest timber and whether we will see a reduction in the death rate as this goes on. Clearly better medical treatments through ameliorating drugs, much more caution about the use of ventilators etc will help too.
The most difficult bit is that 1% varies from about 0.01 for the very young to over 20% for the very old. Surely our policies should focus on the implications of that rather than hitting our entire society and economy with a sledgehammer.
I think it was Prof Carl Heneghan who suggested that we went into Covid with 15K people clinging to life by their fingernails, because of below average deaths last year.
It would also be probable that at care homes, for example, both staff and inhabitants are taking things much, much more seriously.
One would assume the government won't decant a load of Covid patients into them again either.
You'd think but some areas are already reporting this is happening.
Great. Pubs lose business; people lose jobs. But people carry on mixing in far less safe environments and the virus continues spreading. Just fucking great.
Is there no end to this government's uselessness?
There will likely be more than 6 in a pub on different tables, only 6 in one house socially distanced is fine
"only 6 in one house socially distanced" - are you for real? Socially distanced drinking buddies in a house?
Covid LOVES booze. The more you drink, the more you forget it exists....
1 million mail ballots have been requested. Wisconsin has less than 6 million people in it!
Very few have actually voted, which is different from the UK experience of postal voting - generally people here return their votes within 48 hours. Lots of voters still keeping a slightly open mind?
People here are confusing the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) - the average probability of dying if infected - with the Case Fatality Rate (CFR) - the average probability of dying once treatment starts. Both are useful metrics but measure different things.
If you get your CFR down through better treatments, as is happening, that will also bring the IFR down. IFR now is less than 0.5%, down from above 1% during the initial peak. The other main reason for a reduced IFR seems to be a younger, healthier infection profile during the low infection rates we have seen recently. France and Spain show that infections may spread into older, less healthy people, bringing the IFR up somewhat.
It's also worth pointing out that an IFR of 0.3% implies 200 000 dead in the UK without any other interventions. (Herd immunity without vaccine approach). This is a WW2 scale death toll. We absolutely need to prevent infections.
Great. Pubs lose business; people lose jobs. But people carry on mixing in far less safe environments and the virus continues spreading. Just fucking great.
Is there no end to this government's uselessness?
Is he also not wrong about this unless the 6 friends come from only 2 households?
Yes he is. And it's unenforceable as well. So good pubs who follow the rules (like my daughter's) will be checked and those at home who ignore the rules will not. It's absurd.
Bit like my relatives building company - for years he has watched as the clipboardistas solemnly count the number of first aid kits he has stacked in the site office.
Sometimes, across the street, another company has illegal, unsafe scaffolding. Doing work that violates their planning permission. With workers visibly breaking safety rules.
Great. Pubs lose business; people lose jobs. But people carry on mixing in far less safe environments and the virus continues spreading. Just fucking great.
Is there no end to this government's uselessness?
Is he also not wrong about this unless the 6 friends come from only 2 households?
No, at least not in England. There's no two household limit here.
I think the rule is that you can only meet up with 6 people (ie you & 5) from no more than 2 households. Even in England.
No, there's no mention of a two household limit in the guidelines:
2. Seeing friends and family When seeing friends and family you do not live with you should:
meet in groups of 6 or less follow social distancing rules limit how many different people you see socially over a short period of time meet people outdoors where practical: meeting people outdoors is safer than meeting people indoors because fresh air provides better ventilation Limits on the number of people you can see socially have changed. From Monday 14 September, when meeting friends and family you do not live with (or have formed a support bubble with) you must not meet in a group of more than 6, indoors or outdoors. This is against the law and the police will have the powers to enforce these legal limits, including to issue fines (fixed penalty notices) of £100, doubling for further breaches up to a maximum of £3,200.
Sounds like Boris big address to the nation will be a load of half arsed measures and a repeat like March of please use common sense otherwise we will have to be stricter.
And in two weeks he will be back on again, to tell us too many people have ignored his pleas and virus has got out of hand and now its lockdown harder, the sequel.
Don't forget that between those two dates there'll be a cry to get back to the office and save Pret.
Sounds like Boris big address to the nation will be a load of half arsed measures and a repeat like March of please use common sense otherwise we will have to be stricter.
And in two weeks he will be back on again, to tell us too many people have ignored his pleas and virus has got out of hand and now its lockdown harder, the sequel.
Lockdown 2: The Darkness
Long winter nights. None of that glorious summer weather of Lockdown 1. Going to be very hard on the mental health of many people.
The other thing that is annoying me this morning is Dido Harding (yes - the female Chris Grayling is at it again) announcing that the "moonshot" tests will have to be paid for if you want to go to the theatre or, get this, hug granny because this is the cost of doing business.
So tests being developed presumably with government money, our money (I assume), will then be handed over to private operators who will make money from all this and those who do not have the cash to pay will have to just stay home. Is that what is being planned? Is that why La Harding is being brought in - to set up a nice little earner for friends of Boris?
Great. Pubs lose business; people lose jobs. But people carry on mixing in far less safe environments and the virus continues spreading. Just fucking great.
Is there no end to this government's uselessness?
Is he also not wrong about this unless the 6 friends come from only 2 households?
No, at least not in England. There's no two household limit here.
I think the rule is that you can only meet up with 6 people (ie you & 5) from no more than 2 households. Even in England.
No, there's no mention of a two household limit in the guidelines:
2. Seeing friends and family When seeing friends and family you do not live with you should:
meet in groups of 6 or less follow social distancing rules limit how many different people you see socially over a short period of time meet people outdoors where practical: meeting people outdoors is safer than meeting people indoors because fresh air provides better ventilation Limits on the number of people you can see socially have changed. From Monday 14 September, when meeting friends and family you do not live with (or have formed a support bubble with) you must not meet in a group of more than 6, indoors or outdoors. This is against the law and the police will have the powers to enforce these legal limits, including to issue fines (fixed penalty notices) of £100, doubling for further breaches up to a maximum of £3,200.
Correct answer. No point in threatening it unless they get a majority in the Senate, it'll just embolden the GOP to take the piss if they win.
If Trump has any sense - admittedly no small if - he'll try to pin him down on it in the debates.
Do we expect Buttigieg to get some kind of constitution role - this sort of thing about making Washington function properly within the bounds of existing limitations was his specialist subject, right? And, am I right in thinking there was more to it than just numbers on the SCOTUS bench.
It's not very Christian to not want to help those less fortunate than yourself.
I've long been convinced that American Evangelical "christians" are nothing of the sort. They have a Bible consisting of half of Genesis, the most Gilead bits of Leviticus and Revelations. And thats it.
To be fair to evangelicals a majority of them did vote for Carter in 1976 over the pro choice Ford and Carter was probably the most Christian President the US has ever had, however since then they have been staunch Republican voters.
However if the Democrats nominated a social conservative Christian again and the Republicans nominated a pro choice moderate like Ford again evangelicals could vote Democrat again
Sounds like Boris big address to the nation will be a load of half arsed measures and a repeat like March of please use common sense otherwise we will have to be stricter.
And in two weeks he will be back on again, to tell us too many people have ignored his pleas and virus has got out of hand and now its lockdown harder, the sequel.
Lockdown 2: The Darkness
Long winter nights. None of that glorious summer weather of Lockdown 1. Going to be very hard on the mental health of many people.
If Keir Starmer wants to get a hearing from middle England swing voters he needs to reign in his hard-left who want to pull down statues, eviscerate sporting and national anthems, calls the countryside (and everything else for that matter) racist and demands everyone attends compulsory re-education in the workplace and do acts of penance.
If people feel Labour threatens their culture - then they won't vote Labour.
If Keir Starmer wants to get a hearing from middle England swing voters he needs to reign in his hard-left who want to pull down statues, eviscerate sporting and national anthems, calls the countryside (and everything else for that matter) racist and demands everyone attends compulsory re-education in the workplace and do acts of penance.
If people feel Labour threatens their culture - then they won't vote Labour.
The amusing subtext of those trying to rush a Trump nominee through before Nov 3rd is the implication that they don't think Trump will be President afterwards.
This all smacks of Last Rites.
The less amusing text is that despite winning a majority of the popular vote in six out of the last seven presidential elections, Democrats will see a 6-3 partisan court which they’ll be able to do little to change for the next decade, even if they win the next three elections.
And the three most recent justices will have been confirmed by senators representing about 40% of the electorate.
The other day we were discussing constitutionalism - I used to believe in it.
The problem is that a constitution is of no use, if the society and government don;'t believe in it. 1930s Germany, Soviet Russia etc all had magnificent constitutions. Protections for all.. And this is not uncommon. Dictators seem to like having such constitutions as a fig leaf.
What they uniformly do, is control the courts with their own brand of activist judge, who twists the law as required.
Someone, (I think Cyclefree) asked, what if, in the case of a government without a constitution to limit it, a persecution of a minority was attempted. My answer, sadly, is that history tells us that genocides have happened where every individual crime was illegal....
Which brings us to the US. The current system is no longer truly a constitution. Both sides are trying to rule, partially, by a selected oligarchy... The Supreme Court. Get "your people" on it, and rule for 50 years. Elections be damned.
The effect on civil society is obvious.
My cure? - well, look at Switzerland. The important thing is that constitutions change, frequently, and that the power to do so resides with the voters.
Very, very well said.
It is the people, not the laws, that keep society free.
Eternal vigiliance is the price of a free society. Without that all the laws in the world are not worth anything.
@Cyclefree are you willing to name your daughters pub? I would love to visit if I can to support it. I assume it’s in the Lakes?
Yes - It is The Punchbowl, The Green, near Millom, LA18 5HJ (01229 774457). Lots of lovely walking nearby - Black and White Combe, riding, the beaches of Haverigg and Hodbarrow Nature Reserve plus lots and lots of biking.
She has a marquee at the front and back as well as a pub garden. Food Wed - Saturday: with pies and steaks and veggie options too, all freshly cooked + local ales. Thursday is pizza night. There is a Facebook page.
Do visit if you can.
Thank you.
Good luck to your daughter, that pub looks lovely. I’m stuck a few thousand miles away but will share the details with others.
Hopefully the UK will escape another full lockdown, and a few irresponsible pubs won’t ruin things for everyone.
The amusing subtext of those trying to rush a Trump nominee through before Nov 3rd is the implication that they don't think Trump will be President afterwards.
This all smacks of Last Rites.
The less amusing text is that despite winning a majority of the popular vote in six out of the last seven presidential elections, Democrats will see a 6-3 partisan court which they’ll be able to do little to change for the next decade, even if they win the next three elections.
And the three most recent justices will have been confirmed by senators representing about 40% of the electorate.
They can get around it, there's no limit on the size of SCOTUS.
President Joe Biden could increase the size of SCOTUS to say 15.
I meant within current norms.
There is an argument, with which I have some sympathy, that Republican have utterly violated existing norms, and you cannot re-establish them unliterally. The problem with expanding the size of the court (while entirely constitutional) is that it invites retaliation next time Republicans control Congress.
The other thing that is annoying me this morning is Dido Harding (yes - the female Chris Grayling is at it again) announcing that the "moonshot" tests will have to be paid for if you want to go to the theatre or, get this, hug granny because this is the cost of doing business.
So tests being developed presumably with government money, our money (I assume), will then be handed over to private operators who will make money from all this and those who do not have the cash to pay will have to just stay home. Is that what is being planned? Is that why La Harding is being brought in - to set up a nice little earner for friends of Boris?
Not to mention the money made by selling the data on those tested, before they manage to leak it naturally
Great. Pubs lose business; people lose jobs. But people carry on mixing in far less safe environments and the virus continues spreading. Just fucking great.
Is there no end to this government's uselessness?
Is he also not wrong about this unless the 6 friends come from only 2 households?
No, at least not in England. There's no two household limit here.
I think the rule is that you can only meet up with 6 people (ie you & 5) from no more than 2 households. Even in England.
That was Government Policy (August). Government Policy (September) is a different thing, and in many ways more relaxed. No doubt the October edition will be different again, and tighter. Regardless of the policy (good or bad), there needs to be some consistency of direction, or we will all lose the plot.
It's not very Christian to not want to help those less fortunate than yourself.
I've long been convinced that American Evangelical "christians" are nothing of the sort. They have a Bible consisting of half of Genesis, the most Gilead bits of Leviticus and Revelations. And thats it.
To be fair to evangelicals a majority of them did vote for Carter in 1976 over the pro choice Ford and Carter was probably the most Christian President the US has ever had, however since then they have been staunch Republican voters.
However if the Democrats nominated a social conservative Christian again and the Republicans nominated a pro choice moderate like Ford again evangelicals could vote Democrat again
Mrs America, on iPlayer, is a fascinating study of the intersection between evangelical Christians and other traditionalist "values voters" and the new right that grew out of the Goldwater campaign and has increasingly dominated the Republican party. Only on episode 2 but it's really gripping.
If Keir Starmer wants to get a hearing from middle England swing voters he needs to reign in his hard-left who want to pull down statues, eviscerate sporting and national anthems, calls the countryside (and everything else for that matter) racist and demands everyone attends compulsory re-education in the workplace and do acts of penance.
If people feel Labour threatens their culture - then they won't vote Labour.
The other thing that is annoying me this morning is Dido Harding (yes - the female Chris Grayling is at it again) announcing that the "moonshot" tests will have to be paid for if you want to go to the theatre or, get this, hug granny because this is the cost of doing business.
So tests being developed presumably with government money, our money (I assume), will then be handed over to private operators who will make money from all this and those who do not have the cash to pay will have to just stay home. Is that what is being planned? Is that why La Harding is being brought in - to set up a nice little earner for friends of Boris?
I don't think that's what's being said at all.
If there is a clinical need for a test the NHS should provide it but if there's not and it is for something else then why not have that as part of the price of admission? Why should it be paid for by the NHS? Eg if a cheap rapid test were developed and people could eg be tested before admission to a football stadium then why should people pay a fortune to the club but the NHS pays for the testing?
"David Paton, professor of industrial economics at Nottingham University Businesses School, said he would "take a dim view" if his students presented similar data."
Telegraph.
I do think that chart will live on infamy. Such legerdemain and sleight of hand is just about acceptable when explaining how this new cream will make you look younger. It is totally unacceptable for our chief scientists presenting "facts" to a largely innumerate audience.
The really annoying thing is that there was a valid story to tell which justified further action. They didn't need to indulge in fantasy. But epidemiologists seem completely hooked on exponential models and wilfully ignore the fact that that is not how things happen in the real world.
Many years ago I was reading up on the maths of population dynamics with a particular interest in host-parasite interactions at college. The classic sigmoid curve is most certainly (a) real and (b) exponential for the first half or 2/3 or whatever, in the lower half of the S, till a shortage of new hosts starts kicking in.
I happened at the time to be involved with the college summer play. The number of audience per day for the play's run, number of buns sold at half-time, etc. looked familiar, so I plotted them on a log-linear plot - the result, quite to my surprise and the bemusement of the Eng Lit and modern lang students who formed the bulk of the company, was a dead straight line, as if the audience had been largely prompted by word of mouth from day to day. That's the real world, bums on seats ...
(I also found that a model I worked out for my special subject project, as one adjusted the parameters for such things as speed of parasite reproduction, entered cycling and then broke down into what was then called 'stochastic' behaviour at certain starting conditions - in hindsight that was a very nice demonstration of formally chaotic behaviour, but one wasn't to know ...).
Yes but on that basis only if Trump nominates a moderate Justice which he won't because if he does and does not nominate a staunch conservative then pro life evangelicals will stay home in November and not bother to vote for him
I think you fail to understand Republican talking points. That statement means he’ll vote to conform anyone Trump nominates.
No it says he will not vote for anyone who legislates from the bench ie he will not vote for a staunch pro life conservative activist judge....
Clueless. The Republican definition of Rowe v Wade is precisely 'legislating from the bench'. As is any other liberal judgment they don't like.
It's not very Christian to not want to help those less fortunate than yourself.
I've long been convinced that American Evangelical "christians" are nothing of the sort. They have a Bible consisting of half of Genesis, the most Gilead bits of Leviticus and Revelations. And thats it.
To be fair to evangelicals a majority of them did vote for Carter in 1976 over the pro choice Ford and Carter was probably the most Christian President the US has ever had, however since then they have been staunch Republican voters.
However if the Democrats nominated a social conservative Christian again and the Republicans nominated a pro choice moderate like Ford again evangelicals could vote Democrat again
Its. Not. About. Votes. Same as your foaming obsession about Tory polling. This is about Morals. Right and Wrong. Not votes. I couldn't give a rats ass whether Evangelicals voted for Carter - does that nugget somehow negate their un-Christian immorality?
"And evidence that Cheltenham did cause some spreading."
I have heard this repeatedly on here but despite asking several times for evidence I have seen none. Do you have any? I am particularly interested because I attended and live in the area.
The town of Cheltenham, in common with the Cotswolds and Gloucestershire generally, have very low Covid numbers now. If there was a Festival spike the region has certainly recovered well.
I am not sure whether it was ‘proven’ (nor that it ever could be, or disproven) but there was this:
The absence of hard numbers or of local reporting is making me a little sceptical. In hindsight, the Government should have banned the event and I shouldn't have gone but I suspect we just about got away with it.
If anyone can produce any relevant figures I will be grateful.
It seems like 8 million have antibodies in this country . If you take that to be more or less who has had Covid-19 then even accepting 45K have died because of Coivd-19 (rather than with it) that has a mortality rate of 0.5% - given that some of those deaths will have being caused by other factors (most of the dead are very very old) then I would say that a mortality rate of 0.2% is not far from the truth - A lot closer than your 1% and the absurd official 10% and its worrying that the government with ll its resources are still making ruinous decisions based on too high fatiality rates
The estimate I read was 3.4mn people in the UK having had it. You see similar estimates of the fatality rate from other countries. 1% seems to be the number. So not 10% but not 0.2% either.
I also wonder if the first wave took a lot of the driest timber and whether we will see a reduction in the death rate as this goes on. Clearly better medical treatments through ameliorating drugs, much more caution about the use of ventilators etc will help too.
The most difficult bit is that 1% varies from about 0.01 for the very young to over 20% for the very old. Surely our policies should focus on the implications of that rather than hitting our entire society and economy with a sledgehammer.
I think it was Prof Carl Heneghan who suggested that we went into Covid with 15K people clinging to life by their fingernails, because of below average deaths last year.
It would also be probable that at care homes, for example, both staff and inhabitants are taking things much, much more seriously.
One would assume the government won't decant a load of Covid patients into them again either.
You'd think but some areas are already reporting this is happening.
Surely any care home manager who accepts untested patients from a hospital is going to get his arse sued if there’s an outbreak?
It's not very Christian to not want to help those less fortunate than yourself.
I've long been convinced that American Evangelical "christians" are nothing of the sort. They have a Bible consisting of half of Genesis, the most Gilead bits of Leviticus and Revelations. And thats it.
To be fair to evangelicals a majority of them did vote for Carter in 1976 over the pro choice Ford and Carter was probably the most Christian President the US has ever had, however since then they have been staunch Republican voters.
However if the Democrats nominated a social conservative Christian again and the Republicans nominated a pro choice moderate like Ford again evangelicals could vote Democrat again
Mrs America, on iPlayer, is a fascinating study of the intersection between evangelical Christians and other traditionalist "values voters" and the new right that grew out of the Goldwater campaign and has increasingly dominated the Republican party. Only on episode 2 but it's really gripping.
Great. Pubs lose business; people lose jobs. But people carry on mixing in far less safe environments and the virus continues spreading. Just fucking great.
Is there no end to this government's uselessness?
Is he also not wrong about this unless the 6 friends come from only 2 households?
Yes he is. And it's unenforceable as well. So good pubs who follow the rules (like my daughter's) will be checked and those at home who ignore the rules will not. It's absurd.
Bit like my relatives building company - for years he has watched as the clipboardistas solemnly count the number of first aid kits he has stacked in the site office.
Sometimes, across the street, another company has illegal, unsafe scaffolding. Doing work that violates their planning permission. With workers visibly breaking safety rules.
Untouched, of course.
Your relatives will be polite in responding to the clipboardistas. A much better place to spend your time than being threatened and intimidated.
This is a vital point. If we allow normal treatments to proceed the second time round, the capacity available for Covid treatments is massively curtailed. Covid infections MUST be reduced to allow normal cancers etc to be treated.
Starmer's speech is well worth listening to. Both content and oratory. I've never heard him so passionate and angry.
When that first poll of Labour members came out showing Starmer ahead my immediate reaction (after Corbyn) was 'they're serious about winning power' - so, clearly, is Starmer.
It's not very Christian to not want to help those less fortunate than yourself.
I've long been convinced that American Evangelical "christians" are nothing of the sort. They have a Bible consisting of half of Genesis, the most Gilead bits of Leviticus and Revelations. And thats it.
To be fair to evangelicals a majority of them did vote for Carter in 1976 over the pro choice Ford and Carter was probably the most Christian President the US has ever had, however since then they have been staunch Republican voters.
However if the Democrats nominated a social conservative Christian again and the Republicans nominated a pro choice moderate like Ford again evangelicals could vote Democrat again
Its. Not. About. Votes. Same as your foaming obsession about Tory polling. This is about Morals. Right and Wrong. Not votes. I couldn't give a rats ass whether Evangelicals voted for Carter - does that nugget somehow negate their un-Christian immorality?
Define Christian.
The problem is that what is Christian depends upon the person speaking. It is an excuse to spout their own prejudices and beliefs and put the weight of God behind them.
So Tories largest party but short of a majority in a hung parliament and would need DUP support again to stay in power, no wonder Boris wants to remove the border in the Irish Sea
"David Paton, professor of industrial economics at Nottingham University Businesses School, said he would "take a dim view" if his students presented similar data."
Telegraph.
I do think that chart will live on infamy. Such legerdemain and sleight of hand is just about acceptable when explaining how this new cream will make you look younger. It is totally unacceptable for our chief scientists presenting "facts" to a largely innumerate audience.
The really annoying thing is that there was a valid story to tell which justified further action. They didn't need to indulge in fantasy. But epidemiologists seem completely hooked on exponential models and wilfully ignore the fact that that is not how things happen in the real world.
Many years ago I was reading up on the maths of population dynamics with a particular interest in host-parasite interactions at college. The classic sigmoid curve is most certainly (a) real and (b) exponential for the first half or 2/3 or whatever, in the lower half of the S, till a shortage of new hosts starts kicking in.
I happened at the time to be involved with the college summer play. The number of audience per day for the play's run, number of buns sold at half-time, etc. looked familiar, so I plotted them on a log-linear plot - the result, quite to my surprise and the bemusement of the Eng Lit and modern lang students who formed the bulk of the company, was a dead straight line, as if the audience had been largely prompted by word of mouth from day to day. That's the real world, bums on seats ...
(I also found that a model I worked out for my special subject project, as one adjusted the parameters for such things as speed of parasite reproduction, entered cycling and then broke down into what was then called 'stochastic' behaviour at certain starting conditions - in hindsight that was a very nice demonstration of formally chaotic behaviour, but one wasn't to know ...).
My comment on that chart, is that given what happened in March....
It is worth remembering that we went from essentially zero cases to 100,000+ infections per day, in a space of what? a month or 2?
Sounds like Boris big address to the nation will be a load of half arsed measures and a repeat like March of please use common sense otherwise we will have to be stricter.
And in two weeks he will be back on again, to tell us too many people have ignored his pleas and virus has got out of hand and now its lockdown harder, the sequel.
Lockdown 2: The Darkness
Long winter nights. None of that glorious summer weather of Lockdown 1. Going to be very hard on the mental health of many people.
Very, very hard.
Which is why it is really important that pubs and restaurants stay open, even if for limited times. Humans are social animals. They suffer when isolated.
The other thing that is annoying me this morning is Dido Harding (yes - the female Chris Grayling is at it again) announcing that the "moonshot" tests will have to be paid for if you want to go to the theatre or, get this, hug granny because this is the cost of doing business.
So tests being developed presumably with government money, our money (I assume), will then be handed over to private operators who will make money from all this and those who do not have the cash to pay will have to just stay home. Is that what is being planned? Is that why La Harding is being brought in - to set up a nice little earner for friends of Boris?
I don't think that's what's being said at all.
If there is a clinical need for a test the NHS should provide it but if there's not and it is for something else then why not have that as part of the price of admission? Why should it be paid for by the NHS? Eg if a cheap rapid test were developed and people could eg be tested before admission to a football stadium then why should people pay a fortune to the club but the NHS pays for the testing?
Rather like charging football clubs for the cost of extra policing....
Sounds like Boris big address to the nation will be a load of half arsed measures and a repeat like March of please use common sense otherwise we will have to be stricter.
And in two weeks he will be back on again, to tell us too many people have ignored his pleas and virus has got out of hand and now its lockdown harder, the sequel.
Lockdown 2: The Darkness
Long winter nights. None of that glorious summer weather of Lockdown 1. Going to be very hard on the mental health of many people.
Very, very hard.
What is so exasperating is the half-hearted measures now make lockdown 2 more likely. And the evidence for that is now plain as a pikestaff. Greed and cowardice are one thing, but this might turn into self-defeating greed and cowardice.
The amusing subtext of those trying to rush a Trump nominee through before Nov 3rd is the implication that they don't think Trump will be President afterwards.
This all smacks of Last Rites.
The less amusing text is that despite winning a majority of the popular vote in six out of the last seven presidential elections, Democrats will see a 6-3 partisan court which they’ll be able to do little to change for the next decade, even if they win the next three elections.
And the three most recent justices will have been confirmed by senators representing about 40% of the electorate.
The other day we were discussing constitutionalism - I used to believe in it.
The problem is that a constitution is of no use, if the society and government don;'t believe in it. 1930s Germany, Soviet Russia etc all had magnificent constitutions. Protections for all.. And this is not uncommon. Dictators seem to like having such constitutions as a fig leaf.
What they uniformly do, is control the courts with their own brand of activist judge, who twists the law as required.
Someone, (I think Cyclefree) asked, what if, in the case of a government without a constitution to limit it, a persecution of a minority was attempted. My answer, sadly, is that history tells us that genocides have happened where every individual crime was illegal....
History tells us that genocides tend to happen when states break down. There's a reason most of the Nazi genocidal murders happened outside of the German state.
Consitutions aren't of no use; they are simply on their own insufficient to guarantee anything.
It's not very Christian to not want to help those less fortunate than yourself.
I've long been convinced that American Evangelical "christians" are nothing of the sort. They have a Bible consisting of half of Genesis, the most Gilead bits of Leviticus and Revelations. And thats it.
To be fair to evangelicals a majority of them did vote for Carter in 1976 over the pro choice Ford and Carter was probably the most Christian President the US has ever had, however since then they have been staunch Republican voters.
However if the Democrats nominated a social conservative Christian again and the Republicans nominated a pro choice moderate like Ford again evangelicals could vote Democrat again
Its. Not. About. Votes. Same as your foaming obsession about Tory polling. This is about Morals. Right and Wrong. Not votes. I couldn't give a rats ass whether Evangelicals voted for Carter - does that nugget somehow negate their un-Christian immorality?
It is about votes in the context of this discussion, if you wanted a perfect Christian candidate they would probably be socially conservative but economically relatively left, though with an emphasis on work rather than welfare dependency.
Yet that is a very generic statement depending on which Bible passages you read, however I can assure you they would not be a left wing social liberal, however much you may wish to define that as the only moral view to hold
Starmer's speech is well worth listening to. Both content and oratory. I've never heard him so passionate and angry.
When that first poll of Labour members came out showing Starmer ahead my immediate reaction (after Corbyn) was 'they're serious about winning power' - so, clearly, is Starmer.
This was fucked up by S/Lt (Acting) Mordaunt from the start. Two of the jets were to be 737NGs sourced from the pre-enjoyed market while the other three were off the showroom floor. So the MoD had managed to get itself into a fleets-within-fleets situation before any of the a/c actually existed which is quite a feat.
If Keir Starmer wants to get a hearing from middle England swing voters he needs to reign in his hard-left who want to pull down statues, eviscerate sporting and national anthems, calls the countryside (and everything else for that matter) racist and demands everyone attends compulsory re-education in the workplace and do acts of penance.
If people feel Labour threatens their culture - then they won't vote Labour.
Biden's response to this: to stonewall on the question of what nuclear options the Dems might take; then picot to talking about healthcare, healthcare, healthcare - is probably the best response.
The amusing subtext of those trying to rush a Trump nominee through before Nov 3rd is the implication that they don't think Trump will be President afterwards.
This all smacks of Last Rites.
The less amusing text is that despite winning a majority of the popular vote in six out of the last seven presidential elections, Democrats will see a 6-3 partisan court which they’ll be able to do little to change for the next decade, even if they win the next three elections.
And the three most recent justices will have been confirmed by senators representing about 40% of the electorate.
Republicans have held the House of Representatives however for 20 out of those 28 years with representatives allocated by population and the Senate for 16 out of those 28 years, the US government is not just the Presidency
The Congressional districts are not remotely even. The average california district is 40% larger than Wyoming.
"And evidence that Cheltenham did cause some spreading."
I have heard this repeatedly on here but despite asking several times for evidence I have seen none. Do you have any? I am particularly interested because I attended and live in the area.
The town of Cheltenham, in common with the Cotswolds and Gloucestershire generally, have very low Covid numbers now. If there was a Festival spike the region has certainly recovered well.
I am not sure whether it was ‘proven’ (nor that it ever could be, or disproven) but there was this:
The absence of hard numbers or of local reporting is making me a little sceptical. In hindsight, the Government should have banned the event and I shouldn't have gone but I suspect we just about got away with it.
If anyone can produce any relevant figures I will be grateful.
It seems like 8 million have antibodies in this country . If you take that to be more or less who has had Covid-19 then even accepting 45K have died because of Coivd-19 (rather than with it) that has a mortality rate of 0.5% - given that some of those deaths will have being caused by other factors (most of the dead are very very old) then I would say that a mortality rate of 0.2% is not far from the truth - A lot closer than your 1% and the absurd official 10% and its worrying that the government with ll its resources are still making ruinous decisions based on too high fatiality rates
The estimate I read was 3.4mn people in the UK having had it. You see similar estimates of the fatality rate from other countries. 1% seems to be the number. So not 10% but not 0.2% either.
I also wonder if the first wave took a lot of the driest timber and whether we will see a reduction in the death rate as this goes on. Clearly better medical treatments through ameliorating drugs, much more caution about the use of ventilators etc will help too.
The most difficult bit is that 1% varies from about 0.01 for the very young to over 20% for the very old. Surely our policies should focus on the implications of that rather than hitting our entire society and economy with a sledgehammer.
I think it was Prof Carl Heneghan who suggested that we went into Covid with 15K people clinging to life by their fingernails, because of below average deaths last year.
It would also be probable that at care homes, for example, both staff and inhabitants are taking things much, much more seriously.
One would assume the government won't decant a load of Covid patients into them again either.
You'd think but some areas are already reporting this is happening.
Surely any care home manager who accepts untested patients from a hospital is going to get his arse sued if there’s an outbreak?
But will they have a choice? To this government, the (reputation of the) NHS must be protected at all costs. Of course care homes now, unlike March/April, have the capacity to do their own testing.
The other thing that is annoying me this morning is Dido Harding (yes - the female Chris Grayling is at it again) announcing that the "moonshot" tests will have to be paid for if you want to go to the theatre or, get this, hug granny because this is the cost of doing business.
So tests being developed presumably with government money, our money (I assume), will then be handed over to private operators who will make money from all this and those who do not have the cash to pay will have to just stay home. Is that what is being planned? Is that why La Harding is being brought in - to set up a nice little earner for friends of Boris?
I don't think that's what's being said at all.
If there is a clinical need for a test the NHS should provide it but if there's not and it is for something else then why not have that as part of the price of admission? Why should it be paid for by the NHS? Eg if a cheap rapid test were developed and people could eg be tested before admission to a football stadium then why should people pay a fortune to the club but the NHS pays for the testing?
Yes, this is designed to be a 5-minute, £5 test that allows venues to abandon social distancing on the basis that they test everyone on the way in. It’s going to be the only way to save many entertainment businesses, but will require several mllion tests a day. The business will cover the costs if it lets them increase capacity.
Biden's response to this: to stonewall on the question of what nuclear options the Dems might take; then picot to talking about healthcare, healthcare, healthcare - is probably the best response.
The amusing subtext of those trying to rush a Trump nominee through before Nov 3rd is the implication that they don't think Trump will be President afterwards.
This all smacks of Last Rites.
The less amusing text is that despite winning a majority of the popular vote in six out of the last seven presidential elections, Democrats will see a 6-3 partisan court which they’ll be able to do little to change for the next decade, even if they win the next three elections.
And the three most recent justices will have been confirmed by senators representing about 40% of the electorate.
Republicans have held the House of Representatives however for 20 out of those 28 years with representatives allocated by population and the Senate for 16 out of those 28 years, the US government is not just the Presidency
The Congressional districts are not remotely even. The average california district is 40% larger than Wyoming.
So what, the average Texas district is also larger than the the 1 Vermont district too.
Republicans also won the national popular vote in the House elections of 1994, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2010, 2014 and 2016 too
It's not very Christian to not want to help those less fortunate than yourself.
I've long been convinced that American Evangelical "christians" are nothing of the sort. They have a Bible consisting of half of Genesis, the most Gilead bits of Leviticus and Revelations. And thats it.
To be fair to evangelicals a majority of them did vote for Carter in 1976 over the pro choice Ford and Carter was probably the most Christian President the US has ever had, however since then they have been staunch Republican voters.
However if the Democrats nominated a social conservative Christian again and the Republicans nominated a pro choice moderate like Ford again evangelicals could vote Democrat again
Mrs America, on iPlayer, is a fascinating study of the intersection between evangelical Christians and other traditionalist "values voters" and the new right that grew out of the Goldwater campaign and has increasingly dominated the Republican party. Only on episode 2 but it's really gripping.
Yes, it's marvellous. And as I said on here before, it demonstrates that "culture wars" are really nothing new, they were raging in the 60s and 70s. All that's new is that they are being fought out on Twitter and Facebook etc.
It's not very Christian to not want to help those less fortunate than yourself.
I've long been convinced that American Evangelical "christians" are nothing of the sort. They have a Bible consisting of half of Genesis, the most Gilead bits of Leviticus and Revelations. And thats it.
To be fair to evangelicals a majority of them did vote for Carter in 1976 over the pro choice Ford and Carter was probably the most Christian President the US has ever had, however since then they have been staunch Republican voters.
However if the Democrats nominated a social conservative Christian again and the Republicans nominated a pro choice moderate like Ford again evangelicals could vote Democrat again
Its. Not. About. Votes. Same as your foaming obsession about Tory polling. This is about Morals. Right and Wrong. Not votes. I couldn't give a rats ass whether Evangelicals voted for Carter - does that nugget somehow negate their un-Christian immorality?
Define Christian.
The problem is that what is Christian depends upon the person speaking. It is an excuse to spout their own prejudices and beliefs and put the weight of God behind them.
It can be. But it isn't always.
Very occasionally, one meets individuals who have got "it" (where "it" could be Christianity, but doesn't have to be) completely. They tend to be the least prejudiced, most humble, most aware of their own failings and paradoxical value. Can be pretty disconcerting, actually.
And as for "Christians say and do terrible things"? Without knowing what terrible things they would do without Christianity, we can't say whether that's a good or bad thing. The John Cleese / Robin Skinner "... and how to survive" books are good on this.
Anyway, income needs to come in, and physics work won't mark itself. Stay safe, everyone.
The other thing that is annoying me this morning is Dido Harding (yes - the female Chris Grayling is at it again) announcing that the "moonshot" tests will have to be paid for if you want to go to the theatre or, get this, hug granny because this is the cost of doing business.
So tests being developed presumably with government money, our money (I assume), will then be handed over to private operators who will make money from all this and those who do not have the cash to pay will have to just stay home. Is that what is being planned? Is that why La Harding is being brought in - to set up a nice little earner for friends of Boris?
I don't think that's what's being said at all.
If there is a clinical need for a test the NHS should provide it but if there's not and it is for something else then why not have that as part of the price of admission? Why should it be paid for by the NHS? Eg if a cheap rapid test were developed and people could eg be tested before admission to a football stadium then why should people pay a fortune to the club but the NHS pays for the testing?
Yes, this is designed to be a 5-minute, £5 test that allows venues to abandon social distancing on the basis that they test everyone on the way in. It’s going to be the only way to save many entertainment businesses, but will require several mllion tests a day. The business will cover the costs if it lets them increase capacity.
The only one with a spike in Covid deaths is the one with Spain on it.
Going to the raw data and taking a seven day average, I get this for Spain:
Which is literally exactly the same.
Seriously, if a journalist wants to complain about "fake news," then possibly he should, you know, not say things that are explicitly and obviously untrue.
Comments
If Trump has any sense - admittedly no small if - he'll try to pin him down on it in the debates.
One rule for them?
Evangelicals have no loyalty to Trump as a person, many find his personal life distasteful, they only back him so long as he supports a staunch conservative agenda, if he abandons that for some evangelicals it would be better for Trump to lose and then try and get Pence in as President in 2024 than for Trump to win and likely then be followed by Democrats after 2024 for years
And in two weeks he will be back on again, to tell us too many people have ignored his pleas and virus has got out of hand and now its lockdown harder, the sequel.
That said, I’d rather government didn’t brief stuff ahead of time, these things should really be presented to Parliament first.
"only 6 in one house socially distanced" - are you for real? Socially distanced drinking buddies in a house?
We know all the decisions were made at the weekend.
The problem is that a constitution is of no use, if the society and government don;'t believe in it. 1930s Germany, Soviet Russia etc all had magnificent constitutions. Protections for all.. And this is not uncommon. Dictators seem to like having such constitutions as a fig leaf.
What they uniformly do, is control the courts with their own brand of activist judge, who twists the law as required.
Someone, (I think Cyclefree) asked, what if, in the case of a government without a constitution to limit it, a persecution of a minority was attempted. My answer, sadly, is that history tells us that genocides have happened where every individual crime was illegal....
Which brings us to the US. The current system is no longer truly a constitution. Both sides are trying to rule, partially, by a selected oligarchy... The Supreme Court. Get "your people" on it, and rule for 50 years. Elections be damned.
The effect on civil society is obvious.
My cure? - well, look at Switzerland. The important thing is that constitutions change, frequently, and that the power to do so resides with the voters.
If you get your CFR down through better treatments, as is happening, that will also bring the IFR down. IFR now is less than 0.5%, down from above 1% during the initial peak. The other main reason for a reduced IFR seems to be a younger, healthier infection profile during the low infection rates we have seen recently. France and Spain show that infections may spread into older, less healthy people, bringing the IFR up somewhat.
It's also worth pointing out that an IFR of 0.3% implies 200 000 dead in the UK without any other interventions. (Herd immunity without vaccine approach). This is a WW2 scale death toll. We absolutely need to prevent infections.
Sometimes, across the street, another company has illegal, unsafe scaffolding. Doing work that violates their planning permission. With workers visibly breaking safety rules.
Untouched, of course.
https://eu.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/09/21/robert-graetz-dies-white-minister-who-helped-organize-montgomery-bus-boycott-obituary/2054186002/
2. Seeing friends and family
When seeing friends and family you do not live with you should:
meet in groups of 6 or less
follow social distancing rules
limit how many different people you see socially over a short period of time
meet people outdoors where practical: meeting people outdoors is safer than meeting people indoors because fresh air provides better ventilation
Limits on the number of people you can see socially have changed. From Monday 14 September, when meeting friends and family you do not live with (or have formed a support bubble with) you must not meet in a group of more than 6, indoors or outdoors. This is against the law and the police will have the powers to enforce these legal limits, including to issue fines (fixed penalty notices) of £100, doubling for further breaches up to a maximum of £3,200.
Boris and co do the same - there is a reason why they keep multiple balls in the air so that you focus on one and ignore the others
Save the Great British Autumn!
Long winter nights. None of that glorious summer weather of Lockdown 1. Going to be very hard on the mental health of many people.
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1308069545274376194?s=20
So tests being developed presumably with government money, our money (I assume), will then be handed over to private operators who will make money from all this and those who do not have the cash to pay will have to just stay home. Is that what is being planned? Is that why La Harding is being brought in - to set up a nice little earner for friends of Boris?
However if the Democrats nominated a social conservative Christian again and the Republicans nominated a pro choice moderate like Ford again evangelicals could vote Democrat again
If people feel Labour threatens their culture - then they won't vote Labour.
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1308316287123292165?s=20
It is the people, not the laws, that keep society free.
Eternal vigiliance is the price of a free society. Without that all the laws in the world are not worth anything.
Hopefully the UK will escape another full lockdown, and a few irresponsible pubs won’t ruin things for everyone.
There is an argument, with which I have some sympathy, that Republican have utterly violated existing norms, and you cannot re-establish them unliterally.
The problem with expanding the size of the court (while entirely constitutional) is that it invites retaliation next time Republicans control Congress.
While there's a good case for looking at it, I'd prefer first looking at the introduction of term limits:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/08/experts-tout-proposals-for-supreme-court-term-limits/
And/or legislating to strip the jurisdiction of federal courts from particular legislation:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3669954
https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1308319964898701317
Sorry that's autocorrect - again.
If there is a clinical need for a test the NHS should provide it but if there's not and it is for something else then why not have that as part of the price of admission? Why should it be paid for by the NHS? Eg if a cheap rapid test were developed and people could eg be tested before admission to a football stadium then why should people pay a fortune to the club but the NHS pays for the testing?
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1308321578103517186?s=20
I happened at the time to be involved with the college summer play. The number of audience per day for the play's run, number of buns sold at half-time, etc. looked familiar, so I plotted them on a log-linear plot - the result, quite to my surprise and the bemusement of the Eng Lit and modern lang students who formed the bulk of the company, was a dead straight line, as if the audience had been largely prompted by word of mouth from day to day. That's the real world, bums on seats ...
(I also found that a model I worked out for my special subject project, as one adjusted the parameters for such things as speed of parasite reproduction, entered cycling and then broke down into what was then called 'stochastic' behaviour at certain starting conditions - in hindsight that was a very nice demonstration of formally chaotic behaviour, but one wasn't to know ...).
The Republican definition of Rowe v Wade is precisely 'legislating from the bench'.
As is any other liberal judgment they don't like.
Go back to your constituencies and prepare for winning council seats
https://twitter.com/Prof_Marciniak/status/1308294010486681601
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1308322500183552000?s=20
https://twitter.com/J_Bloodworth/status/1308319086280142849?s=20
https://twitter.com/ExStrategist/status/1308323309231144961?s=20
The problem is that what is Christian depends upon the person speaking. It is an excuse to spout their own prejudices and beliefs and put the weight of God behind them.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=40&LAB=37&LIB=8&Brexit=2&Green=5&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVBrexit=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=20.5&SCOTLAB=17.4&SCOTLIB=5.5&SCOTBrexit=1.1&SCOTGreen=1.1&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=53.5&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019
So Tories largest party but short of a majority in a hung parliament and would need DUP support again to stay in power, no wonder Boris wants to remove the border in the Irish Sea
It is worth remembering that we went from essentially zero cases to 100,000+ infections per day, in a space of what? a month or 2?
Greed and cowardice are one thing, but this might turn into self-defeating greed and cowardice.
Consitutions aren't of no use; they are simply on their own insufficient to guarantee anything.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1308324190454415360?s=20
Yet that is a very generic statement depending on which Bible passages you read, however I can assure you they would not be a left wing social liberal, however much you may wish to define that as the only moral view to hold
I thought SKS started a bit worthy but he may well have got better. He's a serious guy and well worth listening to.
https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/1308324590482010112?s=20
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1308323619823640576?s=20
NEW THREAD
Of course care homes now, unlike March/April, have the capacity to do their own testing.
There’s a trial test going on in my part of the world, of a blood drop analysed by a laser that’s cheap and fast (£10, 10 minutes), but it’s not yet as accurate as the nasal swap.
https://gulfnews.com/uae/how-it-works-faster-cheaper-covid-test-using-laser-in-abu-dhabi-1.1597239122278?slide=1
Republicans also won the national popular vote in the House elections of 1994, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2010, 2014 and 2016 too
Very occasionally, one meets individuals who have got "it" (where "it" could be Christianity, but doesn't have to be) completely. They tend to be the least prejudiced, most humble, most aware of their own failings and paradoxical value. Can be pretty disconcerting, actually.
And as for "Christians say and do terrible things"? Without knowing what terrible things they would do without Christianity, we can't say whether that's a good or bad thing. The John Cleese / Robin Skinner "... and how to survive" books are good on this.
Anyway, income needs to come in, and physics work won't mark itself. Stay safe, everyone.
The slides from the brief are here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/919548/20200921_Briefing.pdf
The only one with a spike in Covid deaths is the one with Spain on it.
Going to the raw data and taking a seven day average, I get this for Spain:
Which is literally exactly the same.
Seriously, if a journalist wants to complain about "fake news," then possibly he should, you know, not say things that are explicitly and obviously untrue.