✔️ The exponential-takeoff scaremongering propaganda was a disgrace.
I take it maths isn't your strongest suit. The important figure he is the rate of transmission and that rate of transmission has suddenly shoot up well past an R of 1.
This is the kind of stuff we've needed for a while, a bit of flag waving
Turns me off a bit, I have to say. But my vote is safe (if not my membership) and it clearly is the case that the party under Corbyn was perceived as lacking in "proud to be British" sentiment and that this did cost votes and seats. It's important to counter this now and win a proportion of those voters back. So to this extent, I approve. "Go Keir. Wave that wi... flag."
But caution is required - because it's undeniable that xenophobic attitudes were a factor in taking some of these erstwhile Labour voters down the Brexit and UKIP-to-Tory path and Starmer should not imo be chasing this constituency. For 2 reasons. (i) Such attitudes are at odds with the core values of the party. (ii) It would backfire. The support picked up by pandering to xenophobic variety "patriotism" would be outweighed by the support lost in the party's new metropolitan base.
I don't think Starmer is pandering to anti-foreigner xenophobic patriotism but appealing to the middle of the road proud to be British patriotism.
Most of the party's new metropolitan base are bright enough to recognise that this is a route to power and won't be put off by it. It might even appeal to some.
One thing that has also been overlooked in the criticism is the two eggheads said they would lay out what is happening across Europe and how if we follow that trend here...then they only showed Spain and France, who just happen to be the absolute worst by a country mile.
That is rather naughty sleight of hand.
I know why they did it, but as scientists they shouldn't he doing it.
It's reasonable to show France and Spain, given the UK is following approximately the same trajectory. As it did the first time. I would love the UK to follow Slovakia which has had roughly one hundredth of the deaths. But it doesn't and it has no curiosity about why Slovakia has done so well. The only international comparison we seem to be interested in is Sweden which has done almost as badly as us.
Apart from carping from the sidelines here and there, labour are on very board with what the tories are doing. And that means they own the coming catastrophe.
When this carnage is eventually over, voters will be looking for new parties to support. Ed Davey sort of realises this. So does Nigel Farage. Not sure about Starmer.
Although Labour are supporting the Government on combating Covid-19 and "getting Brexit done" they are also saying that the government is incompetent, and that Labour would do it better. That might appeal to a lot of people.
This is the kind of stuff we've needed for a while, a bit of flag waving
Turns me off a bit, I have to say. But my vote is safe (if not my membership) and it clearly is the case that the party under Corbyn was perceived as lacking in "proud to be British" sentiment and that this did cost votes and seats. It's important to counter this now and win a proportion of those voters back. So to this extent, I approve. "Go Keir. Wave that wi... flag."
But caution is required - because it's undeniable that xenophobic attitudes were a factor in taking some of these erstwhile Labour voters down the Brexit and UKIP-to-Tory path and Starmer should not imo be chasing this constituency. For 2 reasons. (i) Such attitudes are at odds with the core values of the party. (ii) It would backfire. The support picked up by pandering to xenophobic variety "patriotism" would be outweighed by the support lost in the party's new metropolitan base.
Yes, it's a fine line to tread, I agree. But I'm pretty confident that Starmer will have no truck with the xenophobic, little Englander nationalism that you rightly fear. I suspect he's more in the tradition of Blair, Wilson and Orwell. And I expect Starmer to celebrate contemporary multiculturalism as a virtue rather than a sin, which would be wholly at odds with the UKIP / right-wing white working class.
One thing that has also been overlooked in the criticism is the two eggheads said they would lay out what is happening across Europe and how if we follow that trend here...then they only showed Spain and France, who just happen to be the absolute worst by a country mile.
That is rather naughty sleight of hand.
I know why they did it, but as scientists they shouldn't he doing it.
It's reasonable to show France and Spain, given the UK is following approximately the same trajectory. As it did the first time. I would love the UK to follow Slovakia which has had roughly one hundredth of the deaths. But it doesn't and it has no curiosity about why Slovakia has done so well. The only international comparison we seem to be interested in is Sweden which has done almost as badly as us.
No it is cherry picking. I know why they did it, but if they shouldn't have talked about comparisons to Europe.
As scientists they should have a chart showing the full sample of different countries and then say it looks like the UK is following more along the Spain / France trajectory, hence why the need for action.
Also any idea when the next round of talks between Frost and Barnier will be? Considering we're just three weeks from the 15 Oct deadline there seems to be total radio silence on that at the moment.
While expanding Supreme Court numbers is entirely constitutional, it is perhaps not the smartest political response, as it invites retaliation. You wouldn't want your opponents to do the same.
Conversely, it's much harder to see how utterly cynical Republicans would retaliate in kind to these proposals;
I think that's the point - Biden won't rush into making announcements when there are multiple options - term limits and jurisdiction changes both use Republican favoured approaches against them.
Which, appropriately enough, was Ginsburg's judicial technique.
Term limits is a good idea but if the start point is a 6/3 Con majority it would take a while to bear fruit. Re the election impact, I think Biden should play it down. Not so much out of fear that the issue will play bigly for Trump but out of simple risk analysis. His lead looks decisive and stable. Trump needs changes of narrative and volatility to have a chance of turning things around by 3/11.
WFH (for at least part of the week) is here to stay. The genie is out of the bottle. As a long term WFHer, i couldn't imagine doing having to do a 3hr round commute every day, when I can just do the same work from my home office, in peace and quiet overlooking the countryside.
Also any idea when the next round of talks between Frost and Barnier will be? Considering we're just three weeks from the 15 Oct deadline there seems to be total radio silence on that at the moment.
Radio silence is probably a good thing, it means neither one has cause to openly shit on the other one.
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.
Of course. They are necessary but not sufficient. But they do help create the parameters of debate, the boundaries of what is acceptable and what isn’t. They provide a marker against which proposed actions can be tested.
There is a reason why authoritarian / totalitarian states change laws, destroy independent judges, control law enforcement etc, why they pay lip service to laws and constitutions even while denuding them of any meaning.
Agreed. My further point was that even in the most extreme of states (Nazi Germany was an example) laws and constitutions, however perverted, are not entirely without meaning. Places where there is neither state nor law (Nazi occupied Polish territories, for example) are more perilous places still than those where the state still exists.
Timothy Snyder’s “Black Earth” expands on this - the Nazis destroyed states like Austria etc and this allowed them to do to Jews what they were, initially, unable to do in Germany. If there is no state, no law there is not even the possibility - however remote - of protection from barbarism. And when states themselves become barbaric, all hope is gone.
One thing that has also been overlooked in the criticism is the two eggheads said they would lay out what is happening across Europe and how if we follow that trend here...then they only showed Spain and France, who just happen to be the absolute worst by a country mile.
That is rather naughty sleight of hand.
I know why they did it, but as scientists they shouldn't he doing it.
It's reasonable to show France and Spain, given the UK is following approximately the same trajectory. As it did the first time. I would love the UK to follow Slovakia which has had roughly one hundredth of the deaths. But it doesn't and it has no curiosity about why Slovakia has done so well. The only international comparison we seem to be interested in is Sweden which has done almost as badly as us.
No it is cherry picking. I know why they did it, but if they shouldn't have talked about comparisons to Europe.
As scientists they should have a chart showing the full sample of different countries and then say it looks like the UK is following more along the Spain / France trajectory, hence why the need for action.
We disagree. The point they were making, I think, is that without interventions we can reasonably expect to follow France and Spain as that is the trajectory we are on.
They could make a different point that we could choose to be like France and Spain or more like, say, Slovakia. The chart to illustrate that different point would be the one you are talking about.
I generally rate Ed Conway but I think he misleads on that thread, where he implies that the growth rate is linear. If R>1, by definition we are in exponential growth. The valid issue with the UK gov chart is the rate of that exponential growth (counterfactual if we don't do the interventions talked about). Whether we get to the higher figure sooner or later does matter.
We had this discussion last night. The growth line for France, Spain and the UK (since our numbers started growing again) is linear. That is a fact. Claiming that we are going to somehow switch to exponential growth is misleading and frankly dishonest.
In the real world what would otherwise be exponential is restricted by numerous factors, changes in human behaviour, dead ends where people in a particular locale run out of people to infect, etc. I have been trying to find the graph that was repeatedly linked to in February. By now everyone in the world would have had the virus. Its not worked out that way.
Epidemiologists relying upon exponential growth models tell us as much as economists relying on perfect markets, ie nothing about the real world.
This is the kind of stuff we've needed for a while, a bit of flag waving
Turns me off a bit, I have to say. But my vote is safe (if not my membership) and it clearly is the case that the party under Corbyn was perceived as lacking in "proud to be British" sentiment and that this did cost votes and seats. It's important to counter this now and win a proportion of those voters back. So to this extent, I approve. "Go Keir. Wave that wi... flag."
But caution is required - because it's undeniable that xenophobic attitudes were a factor in taking some of these erstwhile Labour voters down the Brexit and UKIP-to-Tory path and Starmer should not imo be chasing this constituency. For 2 reasons. (i) Such attitudes are at odds with the core values of the party. (ii) It would backfire. The support picked up by pandering to xenophobic variety "patriotism" would be outweighed by the support lost in the party's new metropolitan base.
Excellent. The best of both worlds for them.
They are turning people like you off but you will still vote for anyone with a red rosette - you are the Lab equivalent of @HYUFD - plus they are likely to pick up centrists, such as @MaxPB as well.
I am going to back a Lab govt right now!
Does that mean anyone voting for Starmer 'cos the alternative is BJ is the non-Tory equivalent of you?
WFH (for at least part of the week) is here to stay. The genie is out of the bottle. As a long term WFHer, i couldn't imagine doing having to do a 3hr round commute every day, when I can just do the same work from my home office, in peace and quiet overlooking the countryside.
Surely if your company required in office work you'd move close or quit? Also, you're probably classed as a remote worker rather than WFH.
Also any idea when the next round of talks between Frost and Barnier will be? Considering we're just three weeks from the 15 Oct deadline there seems to be total radio silence on that at the moment.
Radio silence is probably a good thing, it means neither one has cause to openly shit on the other one.
Fantastic news for Starmer then, the first small steps on the way back to Labour being electable.
He knows the left will go nuts on Twitter for four years then all vote for him anyway, the best thing he can do now is ignore them and concentrate his efforts on the swing voters who actually decide elections.
Makes Labour electable. If they drop all of the self-ID gender stuff I'm basically in the Labour column while Boris is still Tory leader. If Starmer can force the last vestiges of the Corbynite hard left out I honestly can see him winning 45% of the vote nationally at which point he will have a majority.
Hold on there, 45% seems unlikely. Outpolling Blair?
WFH (for at least part of the week) is here to stay. The genie is out of the bottle. As a long term WFHer, i couldn't imagine doing having to do a 3hr round commute every day, when I can just do the same work from my home office, in peace and quiet overlooking the countryside.
Surely if your company required in office work you'd move close or quit? Also, you're probably classed as a remote worker rather than WFH.
I believe I am classed as a business owner ;-)
But if you live in commuter towns around london you can easily spend 2+ hrs commuting everyday and many people can't afford to move closer as their work doesn't pay well enough, or they don't fancy living in some of the dodgy areas of London, especiall if they have kids, who are already in good schools etc etc etc.
I am not sure you will convince many people to move from Guildford to Croydon because it cuts their commute down.
Until now they put up with the extra commute time, because they got to live in a nice town with good schools.
But the genie is out the bottle, people can easily work from their home for 3-4 days a week and just pop up to London for 1-1.5 days.
While expanding Supreme Court numbers is entirely constitutional, it is perhaps not the smartest political response, as it invites retaliation. You wouldn't want your opponents to do the same.
Conversely, it's much harder to see how utterly cynical Republicans would retaliate in kind to these proposals;
The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all legislation - it would need a constitutional amendment to change that.
Did you read the article - the argument is that the Constitution is indeterminate on the issue...
Having read the abstract it is about limiting the scope/existence of lower federal courts. It does not in any way limit the ability of the Supreme Court to try cases.
Gosh, maybe they should have emphasised the "If" in the slide and when they spoke about it.
Oh, wait. They did.
Doubling faster than that has happened before.
Hospitalisations have been doubling every 8 days.
Accordingly, a worst-case without interventions of every 7 days is certainly feasible.
AND THEY EMPHASISED IT WAS A WORST CASE AND NOT A PREDICTION
Why the suffering FUCK are people ignoring that and claiming otherwise and that they're scaremongering? Seriously, why?
Because they put this chart up in front of an innumerate audience with the inevitable consequence that it dominated today's press. Headlines of 50k cases a day are everywhere.
Makes Labour electable. If they drop all of the self-ID gender stuff I'm basically in the Labour column while Boris is still Tory leader. If Starmer can force the last vestiges of the Corbynite hard left out I honestly can see him winning 45% of the vote nationally at which point he will have a majority.
Hold on there, 45% seems unlikely. Outpolling Blair?
Lib Dems on 18% in 1997. 6-8% now.
12% this time next year as both so called major parties disappoint.
Gosh, maybe they should have emphasised the "If" in the slide and when they spoke about it.
Oh, wait. They did.
Doubling faster than that has happened before.
Hospitalisations have been doubling every 8 days.
Accordingly, a worst-case without interventions of every 7 days is certainly feasible.
AND THEY EMPHASISED IT WAS A WORST CASE AND NOT A PREDICTION
Why the suffering FUCK are people ignoring that and claiming otherwise and that they're scaremongering? Seriously, why?
Because political journalists and opinion writers understand neither epidemiology nor statistics, and the media companies appear totally unwilling to let their science journalists take the lead on the coronavirus reporting?
From the BBC Sir Keir says he can "see in my mind’s eye the country I want us to be".
He lists his goals, including "properly funded" universal public services, a "world-class" education system and a strong economy.
He also calls for a "country committed to a greener, cleaner and fairer society, where every policy is judged not just by how much it costs today but also by what it does for the planet tomorrow".
And a country which would be "an active force for good in the world, once again admired and respected".
Sir Keir says: "I can see it. I can describe it. But it’s all just a dream unless we win back the trust of the people.
"And we’ve got a long road ahead of us. We’re not going to win back those we’ve lost with a single speech or a clever policy offer. Trust takes time".
A lot of motherhood and apple pie there but what's wrong with that? What I think we can see is a strategic overall vision capable of giving a plan for government.
He's right about trust, the damage done by Corbyn to the Labour brand is profound, and he needs a stronger team than he seems to have right now but already he and his party are a much, much more credible alternative government than Labour have been since Brown resigned. The Tories need to lift their game. Thank god for that. Crap government because the alternative is even worse does none of us any good.
On your final point David, he could go a long way to fortifying his team by appointing the very competent Rachel Reeves as ShadChan – that seems to me to be such an obvious step it's rather baffling why she was sidelined in the first place.
In what way is Ed Conway's if more valid than the other?
To create the linear increase in case numbers seen by France and Spain would require one of two changes, or a combination.
Firstly, if the linear increase accurately reflected the real increase in case numbers this could only happen if R was declining asymptotically towards 1. R will decline only if people's behaviour changes, either due to fear, or obedience to government instruction. Thus we may have a chicken and egg scenario where we only end up with a linear increase if people are scared of an exponential increase. And if people aren't scared we end up with the exponential increase.
Secondly, the linear increase in reported case numbers may be a result of a decline in the proportion of real cases identified, as the testing system is overwhelmed by the exponential increase in cases.
This is especially a problem now when there is an increasing number of other respiratory illnesses as we progress through autumn.
This is the kind of stuff we've needed for a while, a bit of flag waving
Turns me off a bit, I have to say. But my vote is safe (if not my membership) and it clearly is the case that the party under Corbyn was perceived as lacking in "proud to be British" sentiment and that this did cost votes and seats. It's important to counter this now and win a proportion of those voters back. So to this extent, I approve. "Go Keir. Wave that wi... flag."
But "proportion" is the operative word here - because it's undeniable that xenophobic attitudes were a factor in taking some of these erstwhile Labour voters down the Brexit and UKIP-to-Tory path and Starmer should not imo be chasing this bloc. For 2 reasons. (i) Such attitudes are at odds with the core values of the party. (ii) It would backfire. The support picked up by pandering to xenophobic variety "patriotism" would be outweighed by the support lost in the party's new metropolitan base.
Thought it was a good solid speech and a good pitch for voters to give Labour a chance. He's not a great orator or even as good a speaker as Blair but I think he will lead Labour to victory, which I haven't really felt in my gut of any leader since Blair. On flag waving, it's not my thing either, but since Labour is a patriotic party there is no harm in expressing it in ways that people understand and that don't create openings for our opponents.
Yes, one simply knew that Jeremy Corbyn was never going to be PM of this country. I made plenty of betting moolah guided by that knowledge. PM Corbyn was a Not Happening Event - right up there with Ref2, No Deal Brexit, and a Trump 2nd term.
Regardless of all else the leader* has to pass the "Can I imagine this person as PM? Are they up to it?" test. Starmer does. So given the unfolding disaster of this administration I am also quite bullish on a Labour government next time.
* The LABOUR leader has to pass this test, I mean. GE19 showed conclusively that a Tory one doesn't.
From the BBC Sir Keir says he can "see in my mind’s eye the country I want us to be".
He lists his goals, including "properly funded" universal public services, a "world-class" education system and a strong economy.
He also calls for a "country committed to a greener, cleaner and fairer society, where every policy is judged not just by how much it costs today but also by what it does for the planet tomorrow".
And a country which would be "an active force for good in the world, once again admired and respected".
Sir Keir says: "I can see it. I can describe it. But it’s all just a dream unless we win back the trust of the people.
"And we’ve got a long road ahead of us. We’re not going to win back those we’ve lost with a single speech or a clever policy offer. Trust takes time".
A lot of motherhood and apple pie there but what's wrong with that? What I think we can see is a strategic overall vision capable of giving a plan for government.
He's right about trust, the damage done by Corbyn to the Labour brand is profound, and he needs a stronger team than he seems to have right now but already he and his party are a much, much more credible alternative government than Labour have been since Brown resigned. The Tories need to lift their game. Thank god for that. Crap government because the alternative is even worse does none of us any good.
On your final point David, he could go a long way to fortifying his team by appointing the very competent Rachel Reeves as ShadChan – that seems to me to be such an obvious step it's rather baffling why she was sidelined in the first place.
Anyone have the inside track?
Her or Ed Miliband. Either would be a significant improvement. I think her sidelining was a consequence of the Corbyn legacy but he is clearly moving on from that now.
I generally rate Ed Conway but I think he misleads on that thread, where he implies that the growth rate is linear. If R>1, by definition we are in exponential growth. The valid issue with the UK gov chart is the rate of that exponential growth (counterfactual if we don't do the interventions talked about). Whether we get to the higher figure sooner or later does matter.
We had this discussion last night. The growth line for France, Spain and the UK (since our numbers started growing again) is linear. That is a fact. Claiming that we are going to somehow switch to exponential growth is misleading and frankly dishonest.
In the real world what would otherwise be exponential is restricted by numerous factors, changes in human behaviour, dead ends where people in a particular locale run out of people to infect, etc. I have been trying to find the graph that was repeatedly linked to in February. By now everyone in the world would have had the virus. Its not worked out that way.
Epidemiologists relying upon exponential growth models tell us as much as economists relying on perfect markets, ie nothing about the real world.
R>1 means exponential growth. By definition, if people are on average infecting more than one other person, as Ed Conway accepts and as the UK and Scottish figures are calculated, it's exponential. The linear line is an interpretation, not a fact. A lot will depend on what happens next and in particular how well the new interventions work.
Gosh, maybe they should have emphasised the "If" in the slide and when they spoke about it.
Oh, wait. They did.
Doubling faster than that has happened before.
Hospitalisations have been doubling every 8 days.
Accordingly, a worst-case without interventions of every 7 days is certainly feasible.
AND THEY EMPHASISED IT WAS A WORST CASE AND NOT A PREDICTION
Why the suffering FUCK are people ignoring that and claiming otherwise and that they're scaremongering? Seriously, why?
Because they put this chart up in front of an innumerate audience with the inevitable consequence that it dominated today's press. Headlines of 50k cases a day are everywhere.
The scientists allowed themselves to play patsy for a government that is anxious and fearful about the policies they are about to introduce. Although no doubt it was the scientists that insisted on a new lockdown - both sides having the other to watch their backs.
Gosh, maybe they should have emphasised the "If" in the slide and when they spoke about it.
Oh, wait. They did.
Doubling faster than that has happened before.
Hospitalisations have been doubling every 8 days.
Accordingly, a worst-case without interventions of every 7 days is certainly feasible.
AND THEY EMPHASISED IT WAS A WORST CASE AND NOT A PREDICTION
Why the suffering FUCK are people ignoring that and claiming otherwise and that they're scaremongering? Seriously, why?
Because political journalists and opinion writers understand neither epidemiology nor statistics, and the media companies appear totally unwilling to let their science journalists take the lead on the coronavirus reporting?
Can you imagine being a professional science journalist in this media environment, made to sit in the corner while political hacks who didn't know the ONS existed and can barely understand basic arithmetic take the lead on every single story and turn it into a bunfight? If you started the year with hair, you certainly don't have any now...
New discovery published yesterday could be important
Scientists have discovered linoleic acid within a tailor made pocket in the spike protein. Linoleic acid, a fatty free acid, plays a key role in inflammation and immunity levels.
Professor Imre Berger said: "Our discovery provides the first direct link between Linoleic Acid, Covid-19 pathological manifestations and the virus itself.
"The question now is how to turn this new knowledge against the virus itself and defeat the pandemic."
This is the kind of stuff we've needed for a while, a bit of flag waving
Turns me off a bit, I have to say. But my vote is safe (if not my membership) and it clearly is the case that the party under Corbyn was perceived as lacking in "proud to be British" sentiment and that this did cost votes and seats. It's important to counter this now and win a proportion of those voters back. So to this extent, I approve. "Go Keir. Wave that wi... flag."
But caution is required - because it's undeniable that xenophobic attitudes were a factor in taking some of these erstwhile Labour voters down the Brexit and UKIP-to-Tory path and Starmer should not imo be chasing this constituency. For 2 reasons. (i) Such attitudes are at odds with the core values of the party. (ii) It would backfire. The support picked up by pandering to xenophobic variety "patriotism" would be outweighed by the support lost in the party's new metropolitan base.
Excellent. The best of both worlds for them.
They are turning people like you off but you will still vote for anyone with a red rosette - you are the Lab equivalent of @HYUFD - plus they are likely to pick up centrists, such as @MaxPB as well.
I am going to back a Lab govt right now!
Does that mean anyone voting for Starmer 'cos the alternative is BJ is the non-Tory equivalent of you?
Say what?
Hold on let me unpack that. Voting for Starmer because the alternative is BJ as I said describes @MaxPB.
I have no idea who I will vote for in 2024. If there was an election tomorrow, however, then it would certainly focus my mind. For example, I would be doing a lot more examining of Lab's team which I have not done to date.
That's a really interesting poll, because 78% of people want to work in the office some of the time post covid.
That really takes the pressure off city centres who can remodel around that – be work/socialisation hubs Tue-Thu, weekend party hubs Fri-Sat.
Mondays were largely dead anyway. Even when people worked in the office five days a week, who went to the pub after work on a Monday? Very few (indeed lots of pubs in London shut on Mondays).
I generally rate Ed Conway but I think he misleads on that thread, where he implies that the growth rate is linear. If R>1, by definition we are in exponential growth. The valid issue with the UK gov chart is the rate of that exponential growth (counterfactual if we don't do the interventions talked about). Whether we get to the higher figure sooner or later does matter.
We had this discussion last night. The growth line for France, Spain and the UK (since our numbers started growing again) is linear. That is a fact. Claiming that we are going to somehow switch to exponential growth is misleading and frankly dishonest.
In the real world what would otherwise be exponential is restricted by numerous factors, changes in human behaviour, dead ends where people in a particular locale run out of people to infect, etc. I have been trying to find the graph that was repeatedly linked to in February. By now everyone in the world would have had the virus. Its not worked out that way.
Epidemiologists relying upon exponential growth models tell us as much as economists relying on perfect markets, ie nothing about the real world.
R>1 means exponential growth. By definition, if people are on average infecting more than one other person, as Ed Conway accepts and as the UK and Scottish figures are calculated, it's exponential. The linear line is an interpretation, not a fact. A lot will depend on what happens next and in particular how well the new interventions work.
So by 27th October I reckon that we will have something like 12k new cases a day if the new interventions do not slow down the rate of increase. You are going for 50K? It's difficult to frame a bet on this because there will be more interventions but we risk overkill with harsh economic consequences if people insist on clinging to a model that does not reflect reality (except in the very early stages where behaviour has not responded to the threat).
From the BBC Sir Keir says he can "see in my mind’s eye the country I want us to be".
He lists his goals, including "properly funded" universal public services, a "world-class" education system and a strong economy.
He also calls for a "country committed to a greener, cleaner and fairer society, where every policy is judged not just by how much it costs today but also by what it does for the planet tomorrow".
And a country which would be "an active force for good in the world, once again admired and respected".
Sir Keir says: "I can see it. I can describe it. But it’s all just a dream unless we win back the trust of the people.
"And we’ve got a long road ahead of us. We’re not going to win back those we’ve lost with a single speech or a clever policy offer. Trust takes time".
A lot of motherhood and apple pie there but what's wrong with that? What I think we can see is a strategic overall vision capable of giving a plan for government.
He's right about trust, the damage done by Corbyn to the Labour brand is profound, and he needs a stronger team than he seems to have right now but already he and his party are a much, much more credible alternative government than Labour have been since Brown resigned. The Tories need to lift their game. Thank god for that. Crap government because the alternative is even worse does none of us any good.
On your final point David, he could go a long way to fortifying his team by appointing the very competent Rachel Reeves as ShadChan – that seems to me to be such an obvious step it's rather baffling why she was sidelined in the first place.
Anyone have the inside track?
Her or Ed Miliband. Either would be a significant improvement. I think her sidelining was a consequence of the Corbyn legacy but he is clearly moving on from that now.
Fair point about Ed although Rachel is clearly better qualified for that job.
Gosh, maybe they should have emphasised the "If" in the slide and when they spoke about it.
Oh, wait. They did.
Doubling faster than that has happened before.
Hospitalisations have been doubling every 8 days.
Accordingly, a worst-case without interventions of every 7 days is certainly feasible.
AND THEY EMPHASISED IT WAS A WORST CASE AND NOT A PREDICTION
Why the suffering FUCK are people ignoring that and claiming otherwise and that they're scaremongering? Seriously, why?
Don't be a twat.
National, televised press conference with the countries two, er, top scientists and they put up a scary red line and look all serious about it. Of course they littered "if"..."could be"..."might"...
But the message they gave, loud and clear, is "here's where we're heading".
Gosh, maybe they should have emphasised the "If" in the slide and when they spoke about it.
Oh, wait. They did.
Doubling faster than that has happened before.
Hospitalisations have been doubling every 8 days.
Accordingly, a worst-case without interventions of every 7 days is certainly feasible.
AND THEY EMPHASISED IT WAS A WORST CASE AND NOT A PREDICTION
Why the suffering FUCK are people ignoring that and claiming otherwise and that they're scaremongering? Seriously, why?
Because political journalists and opinion writers understand neither epidemiology nor statistics, and the media companies appear totally unwilling to let their science journalists take the lead on the coronavirus reporting?
If only journalists spent as much time and effort learning some basic stats as they did chasing wild conspiracy tales about PMs faking meetings / christenings of their own kids to have a secret getaway in Italy.
The BBC sent two journalists to the airport to cover that story. Where as I fired up the interweb and in 2 mins found pictures of Boris doing stuff in the UK during the times he was supposed on some top secret flights.
Makes Labour electable. If they drop all of the self-ID gender stuff I'm basically in the Labour column while Boris is still Tory leader. If Starmer can force the last vestiges of the Corbynite hard left out I honestly can see him winning 45% of the vote nationally at which point he will have a majority.
Hold on there, 45% seems unlikely. Outpolling Blair?
Lib Dems on 18% in 1997. 6-8% now.
12% this time next year as both so called major parties disappoint.
I hope LibDems remain at around 8% nationally but >50% in key places.
From the BBC Sir Keir says he can "see in my mind’s eye the country I want us to be".
He lists his goals, including "properly funded" universal public services, a "world-class" education system and a strong economy.
He also calls for a "country committed to a greener, cleaner and fairer society, where every policy is judged not just by how much it costs today but also by what it does for the planet tomorrow".
And a country which would be "an active force for good in the world, once again admired and respected".
Sir Keir says: "I can see it. I can describe it. But it’s all just a dream unless we win back the trust of the people.
"And we’ve got a long road ahead of us. We’re not going to win back those we’ve lost with a single speech or a clever policy offer. Trust takes time".
A lot of motherhood and apple pie there but what's wrong with that? What I think we can see is a strategic overall vision capable of giving a plan for government.
He's right about trust, the damage done by Corbyn to the Labour brand is profound, and he needs a stronger team than he seems to have right now but already he and his party are a much, much more credible alternative government than Labour have been since Brown resigned. The Tories need to lift their game. Thank god for that. Crap government because the alternative is even worse does none of us any good.
On your final point David, he could go a long way to fortifying his team by appointing the very competent Rachel Reeves as ShadChan – that seems to me to be such an obvious step it's rather baffling why she was sidelined in the first place.
Anyone have the inside track?
He rates Anneliese Dodds very highly. He had to have a balanced Shadow Cabinet in the first instance, and Reeves is (probably unfairly) associated with the right of the party. So he may well change them around in time.
Having said that, if you read what Dodds has actually said and written, it's pretty good stuff. I know people on here don't rate her, but I suspect that's more to do with style rather than substance. She's very able, but doesn't yet look the part.
From the BBC Sir Keir says he can "see in my mind’s eye the country I want us to be".
He lists his goals, including "properly funded" universal public services, a "world-class" education system and a strong economy.
He also calls for a "country committed to a greener, cleaner and fairer society, where every policy is judged not just by how much it costs today but also by what it does for the planet tomorrow".
And a country which would be "an active force for good in the world, once again admired and respected".
Sir Keir says: "I can see it. I can describe it. But it’s all just a dream unless we win back the trust of the people.
"And we’ve got a long road ahead of us. We’re not going to win back those we’ve lost with a single speech or a clever policy offer. Trust takes time".
A lot of motherhood and apple pie there but what's wrong with that? What I think we can see is a strategic overall vision capable of giving a plan for government.
He's right about trust, the damage done by Corbyn to the Labour brand is profound, and he needs a stronger team than he seems to have right now but already he and his party are a much, much more credible alternative government than Labour have been since Brown resigned. The Tories need to lift their game. Thank god for that. Crap government because the alternative is even worse does none of us any good.
On your final point David, he could go a long way to fortifying his team by appointing the very competent Rachel Reeves as ShadChan – that seems to me to be such an obvious step it's rather baffling why she was sidelined in the first place.
Anyone have the inside track?
Her or Ed Miliband. Either would be a significant improvement. I think her sidelining was a consequence of the Corbyn legacy but he is clearly moving on from that now.
Fair point about Ed although Rachel is clearly better qualified for that job.
Where Ed is strong is as an ideas man. So many of his policy ideas have been adopted since 2015. I am not so sure he delivers results (Environmental and Energy policy weren't great) or is capable of articulating a great vision but he clearly has analytical skills and SKS should use him that way.
In what way is Ed Conway's if more valid than the other?
To create the linear increase in case numbers seen by France and Spain would require one of two changes, or a combination.
Firstly, if the linear increase accurately reflected the real increase in case numbers this could only happen if R was declining asymptotically towards 1. R will decline only if people's behaviour changes, either due to fear, or obedience to government instruction. Thus we may have a chicken and egg scenario where we only end up with a linear increase if people are scared of an exponential increase. And if people aren't scared we end up with the exponential increase.
Secondly, the linear increase in reported case numbers may be a result of a decline in the proportion of real cases identified, as the testing system is overwhelmed by the exponential increase in cases.
This is especially a problem now when there is an increasing number of other respiratory illnesses as we progress through autumn.
Indeed. For weeks now I've been saying the key figure to keep an eye on was the positivity rate.
At the start of that chart the positivity rate was: Spain 1.4% France 1.3% UK 0.8%
On the latest figures: Spain 11.6% France 5.9% UK 1.5%
Very different. We should have zero faith in Spanish case numbers when over 10% of all tests are coming back positive, whereas our positivity rate is essentially the same as theirs was three months ago.
I generally rate Ed Conway but I think he misleads on that thread, where he implies that the growth rate is linear. If R>1, by definition we are in exponential growth. The valid issue with the UK gov chart is the rate of that exponential growth (counterfactual if we don't do the interventions talked about). Whether we get to the higher figure sooner or later does matter.
We had this discussion last night. The growth line for France, Spain and the UK (since our numbers started growing again) is linear. That is a fact. Claiming that we are going to somehow switch to exponential growth is misleading and frankly dishonest.
In the real world what would otherwise be exponential is restricted by numerous factors, changes in human behaviour, dead ends where people in a particular locale run out of people to infect, etc. I have been trying to find the graph that was repeatedly linked to in February. By now everyone in the world would have had the virus. Its not worked out that way.
Epidemiologists relying upon exponential growth models tell us as much as economists relying on perfect markets, ie nothing about the real world.
R>1 means exponential growth. By definition, if people are on average infecting more than one other person, as Ed Conway accepts and as the UK and Scottish figures are calculated, it's exponential. The linear line is an interpretation, not a fact. A lot will depend on what happens next and in particular how well the new interventions work.
Add an extra bit. I think with an epidemic it is essentially impossible to get linear growth until maybe near herd immunity. You either have exponential growth, no growth or exponential decline. To get linear growth each secondary infection would have to infect fewer people than the one before.
I generally rate Ed Conway but I think he misleads on that thread, where he implies that the growth rate is linear. If R>1, by definition we are in exponential growth. The valid issue with the UK gov chart is the rate of that exponential growth (counterfactual if we don't do the interventions talked about). Whether we get to the higher figure sooner or later does matter.
We had this discussion last night. The growth line for France, Spain and the UK (since our numbers started growing again) is linear. That is a fact. Claiming that we are going to somehow switch to exponential growth is misleading and frankly dishonest.
In the real world what would otherwise be exponential is restricted by numerous factors, changes in human behaviour, dead ends where people in a particular locale run out of people to infect, etc. I have been trying to find the graph that was repeatedly linked to in February. By now everyone in the world would have had the virus. Its not worked out that way.
Epidemiologists relying upon exponential growth models tell us as much as economists relying on perfect markets, ie nothing about the real world.
R>1 means exponential growth. By definition, if people are on average infecting more than one other person, as Ed Conway accepts and as the UK and Scottish figures are calculated, it's exponential. The linear line is an interpretation, not a fact. A lot will depend on what happens next and in particular how well the new interventions work.
So by 27th October I reckon that we will have something like 12k new cases a day if the new interventions do not slow down the rate of increase.
No, this is mathematically nonsense. You would end up with 12k cases if R was reduced, but still above 1 (or if we were unable to count all the cases that were happening).
This is the kind of stuff we've needed for a while, a bit of flag waving
Turns me off a bit, I have to say. But my vote is safe (if not my membership) and it clearly is the case that the party under Corbyn was perceived as lacking in "proud to be British" sentiment and that this did cost votes and seats. It's important to counter this now and win a proportion of those voters back. So to this extent, I approve. "Go Keir. Wave that wi... flag."
But caution is required - because it's undeniable that xenophobic attitudes were a factor in taking some of these erstwhile Labour voters down the Brexit and UKIP-to-Tory path and Starmer should not imo be chasing this constituency. For 2 reasons. (i) Such attitudes are at odds with the core values of the party. (ii) It would backfire. The support picked up by pandering to xenophobic variety "patriotism" would be outweighed by the support lost in the party's new metropolitan base.
Excellent. The best of both worlds for them.
They are turning people like you off but you will still vote for anyone with a red rosette - you are the Lab equivalent of @HYUFD - plus they are likely to pick up centrists, such as @MaxPB as well.
I am going to back a Lab govt right now!
Labour most seats is 2.2. Touch short for me but not by that much. Re me voting for the proverbial donkey in a red rosette, yes I plead guilty. I'd give up my membership if I felt that the party were only about winning power and had no intention, if attaining it, of doing anything remotely radical, but it would take an awful lot to lose my vote. And we really must win next time. 5 losses in a row could be terminal.
This is the kind of stuff we've needed for a while, a bit of flag waving
Turns me off a bit, I have to say. But my vote is safe (if not my membership) and it clearly is the case that the party under Corbyn was perceived as lacking in "proud to be British" sentiment and that this did cost votes and seats. It's important to counter this now and win a proportion of those voters back. So to this extent, I approve. "Go Keir. Wave that wi... flag."
But caution is required - because it's undeniable that xenophobic attitudes were a factor in taking some of these erstwhile Labour voters down the Brexit and UKIP-to-Tory path and Starmer should not imo be chasing this constituency. For 2 reasons. (i) Such attitudes are at odds with the core values of the party. (ii) It would backfire. The support picked up by pandering to xenophobic variety "patriotism" would be outweighed by the support lost in the party's new metropolitan base.
Excellent. The best of both worlds for them.
They are turning people like you off but you will still vote for anyone with a red rosette - you are the Lab equivalent of @HYUFD - plus they are likely to pick up centrists, such as @MaxPB as well.
I am going to back a Lab govt right now!
Does that mean anyone voting for Starmer 'cos the alternative is BJ is the non-Tory equivalent of you?
Say what?
Hold on let me unpack that. Voting for Starmer because the alternative is BJ as I said describes @MaxPB.
I have no idea who I will vote for in 2024. If there was an election tomorrow, however, then it would certainly focus my mind. For example, I would be doing a lot more examining of Lab's team which I have not done to date.
You said that Lab would pick up centrists, not BJ haters. Afaicr you said that you voted for the party of BJ because the alternative was Corbyn, so I'll stick with my original formulation.
From the BBC Sir Keir says he can "see in my mind’s eye the country I want us to be".
He lists his goals, including "properly funded" universal public services, a "world-class" education system and a strong economy.
He also calls for a "country committed to a greener, cleaner and fairer society, where every policy is judged not just by how much it costs today but also by what it does for the planet tomorrow".
And a country which would be "an active force for good in the world, once again admired and respected".
Sir Keir says: "I can see it. I can describe it. But it’s all just a dream unless we win back the trust of the people.
"And we’ve got a long road ahead of us. We’re not going to win back those we’ve lost with a single speech or a clever policy offer. Trust takes time".
A lot of motherhood and apple pie there but what's wrong with that? What I think we can see is a strategic overall vision capable of giving a plan for government.
He's right about trust, the damage done by Corbyn to the Labour brand is profound, and he needs a stronger team than he seems to have right now but already he and his party are a much, much more credible alternative government than Labour have been since Brown resigned. The Tories need to lift their game. Thank god for that. Crap government because the alternative is even worse does none of us any good.
On your final point David, he could go a long way to fortifying his team by appointing the very competent Rachel Reeves as ShadChan – that seems to me to be such an obvious step it's rather baffling why she was sidelined in the first place.
Anyone have the inside track?
He rates Anneliese Dodds very highly. He had to have a balanced Shadow Cabinet in the first instance, and Reeves is (probably unfairly) associated with the right of the party. So he may well change them around in time.
Having said that, if you read what Dodds has actually said and written, it's pretty good stuff. I know people on here don't rate her, but I suspect that's more to do with style rather than substance. She's very able, but doesn't yet look the part.
From the BBC Sir Keir says he can "see in my mind’s eye the country I want us to be".
He lists his goals, including "properly funded" universal public services, a "world-class" education system and a strong economy.
He also calls for a "country committed to a greener, cleaner and fairer society, where every policy is judged not just by how much it costs today but also by what it does for the planet tomorrow".
And a country which would be "an active force for good in the world, once again admired and respected".
Sir Keir says: "I can see it. I can describe it. But it’s all just a dream unless we win back the trust of the people.
"And we’ve got a long road ahead of us. We’re not going to win back those we’ve lost with a single speech or a clever policy offer. Trust takes time".
A lot of motherhood and apple pie there but what's wrong with that? What I think we can see is a strategic overall vision capable of giving a plan for government.
He's right about trust, the damage done by Corbyn to the Labour brand is profound, and he needs a stronger team than he seems to have right now but already he and his party are a much, much more credible alternative government than Labour have been since Brown resigned. The Tories need to lift their game. Thank god for that. Crap government because the alternative is even worse does none of us any good.
On your final point David, he could go a long way to fortifying his team by appointing the very competent Rachel Reeves as ShadChan – that seems to me to be such an obvious step it's rather baffling why she was sidelined in the first place.
Anyone have the inside track?
He rates Anneliese Dodds very highly. He had to have a balanced Shadow Cabinet in the first instance, and Reeves is (probably unfairly) associated with the right of the party. So he may well change them around in time.
Having said that, if you read what Dodds has actually said and written, it's pretty good stuff. I know people on here don't rate her, but I suspect that's more to do with style rather than substance. She's very able, but doesn't yet look the part.
I think she is very bright but her appearance is odd. Still, it makes her memorable. Gove has a similar problem. Very bright but odd looking.
I generally rate Ed Conway but I think he misleads on that thread, where he implies that the growth rate is linear. If R>1, by definition we are in exponential growth. The valid issue with the UK gov chart is the rate of that exponential growth (counterfactual if we don't do the interventions talked about). Whether we get to the higher figure sooner or later does matter.
We had this discussion last night. The growth line for France, Spain and the UK (since our numbers started growing again) is linear. That is a fact. Claiming that we are going to somehow switch to exponential growth is misleading and frankly dishonest.
In the real world what would otherwise be exponential is restricted by numerous factors, changes in human behaviour, dead ends where people in a particular locale run out of people to infect, etc. I have been trying to find the graph that was repeatedly linked to in February. By now everyone in the world would have had the virus. Its not worked out that way.
Epidemiologists relying upon exponential growth models tell us as much as economists relying on perfect markets, ie nothing about the real world.
R>1 means exponential growth. By definition, if people are on average infecting more than one other person, as Ed Conway accepts and as the UK and Scottish figures are calculated, it's exponential. The linear line is an interpretation, not a fact. A lot will depend on what happens next and in particular how well the new interventions work.
So by 27th October I reckon that we will have something like 12k new cases a day if the new interventions do not slow down the rate of increase. You are going for 50K? It's difficult to frame a bet on this because there will be more interventions but we risk overkill with harsh economic consequences if people insist on clinging to a model that does not reflect reality (except in the very early stages where behaviour has not responded to the threat).
If the KCL/Zoe app is to be believed (and, although it's not watertight, it's got the advantage of being updating in real time, and its numbers haven't been that wrong so far), we're already at 12 k new cases a day.
I generally rate Ed Conway but I think he misleads on that thread, where he implies that the growth rate is linear. If R>1, by definition we are in exponential growth. The valid issue with the UK gov chart is the rate of that exponential growth (counterfactual if we don't do the interventions talked about). Whether we get to the higher figure sooner or later does matter.
We had this discussion last night. The growth line for France, Spain and the UK (since our numbers started growing again) is linear. That is a fact. Claiming that we are going to somehow switch to exponential growth is misleading and frankly dishonest.
In the real world what would otherwise be exponential is restricted by numerous factors, changes in human behaviour, dead ends where people in a particular locale run out of people to infect, etc. I have been trying to find the graph that was repeatedly linked to in February. By now everyone in the world would have had the virus. Its not worked out that way.
Epidemiologists relying upon exponential growth models tell us as much as economists relying on perfect markets, ie nothing about the real world.
R>1 means exponential growth. By definition, if people are on average infecting more than one other person, as Ed Conway accepts and as the UK and Scottish figures are calculated, it's exponential. The linear line is an interpretation, not a fact. A lot will depend on what happens next and in particular how well the new interventions work.
So by 27th October I reckon that we will have something like 12k new cases a day if the new interventions do not slow down the rate of increase.
No, this is mathematically nonsense. You would end up with 12k cases if R was reduced, but still above 1 (or if we were unable to count all the cases that were happening).
Well we might see. It is a continuation of the current rate of growth in line with what has happened in 2 similar European countries whose growth started some weeks before ours.
Having said that, if you read what Dodds has actually said and written, it's pretty good stuff. I know people on here don't rate her, but I suspect that's more to do with style rather than substance. She's very able, but doesn't yet look the part.
She reminds me of Sagan's lead out man, Daniel Oss.
From the BBC Sir Keir says he can "see in my mind’s eye the country I want us to be".
He lists his goals, including "properly funded" universal public services, a "world-class" education system and a strong economy.
He also calls for a "country committed to a greener, cleaner and fairer society, where every policy is judged not just by how much it costs today but also by what it does for the planet tomorrow".
And a country which would be "an active force for good in the world, once again admired and respected".
Sir Keir says: "I can see it. I can describe it. But it’s all just a dream unless we win back the trust of the people.
"And we’ve got a long road ahead of us. We’re not going to win back those we’ve lost with a single speech or a clever policy offer. Trust takes time".
A lot of motherhood and apple pie there but what's wrong with that? What I think we can see is a strategic overall vision capable of giving a plan for government.
He's right about trust, the damage done by Corbyn to the Labour brand is profound, and he needs a stronger team than he seems to have right now but already he and his party are a much, much more credible alternative government than Labour have been since Brown resigned. The Tories need to lift their game. Thank god for that. Crap government because the alternative is even worse does none of us any good.
On your final point David, he could go a long way to fortifying his team by appointing the very competent Rachel Reeves as ShadChan – that seems to me to be such an obvious step it's rather baffling why she was sidelined in the first place.
Anyone have the inside track?
He rates Anneliese Dodds very highly. He had to have a balanced Shadow Cabinet in the first instance, and Reeves is (probably unfairly) associated with the right of the party. So he may well change them around in time.
Having said that, if you read what Dodds has actually said and written, it's pretty good stuff. I know people on here don't rate her, but I suspect that's more to do with style rather than substance. She's very able, but doesn't yet look the part.
From the BBC Sir Keir says he can "see in my mind’s eye the country I want us to be".
He lists his goals, including "properly funded" universal public services, a "world-class" education system and a strong economy.
He also calls for a "country committed to a greener, cleaner and fairer society, where every policy is judged not just by how much it costs today but also by what it does for the planet tomorrow".
And a country which would be "an active force for good in the world, once again admired and respected".
Sir Keir says: "I can see it. I can describe it. But it’s all just a dream unless we win back the trust of the people.
"And we’ve got a long road ahead of us. We’re not going to win back those we’ve lost with a single speech or a clever policy offer. Trust takes time".
A lot of motherhood and apple pie there but what's wrong with that? What I think we can see is a strategic overall vision capable of giving a plan for government.
He's right about trust, the damage done by Corbyn to the Labour brand is profound, and he needs a stronger team than he seems to have right now but already he and his party are a much, much more credible alternative government than Labour have been since Brown resigned. The Tories need to lift their game. Thank god for that. Crap government because the alternative is even worse does none of us any good.
On your final point David, he could go a long way to fortifying his team by appointing the very competent Rachel Reeves as ShadChan – that seems to me to be such an obvious step it's rather baffling why she was sidelined in the first place.
Anyone have the inside track?
He rates Anneliese Dodds very highly. He had to have a balanced Shadow Cabinet in the first instance, and Reeves is (probably unfairly) associated with the right of the party. So he may well change them around in time.
Having said that, if you read what Dodds has actually said and written, it's pretty good stuff. I know people on here don't rate her, but I suspect that's more to do with style rather than substance. She's very able, but doesn't yet look the part.
I think she is very bright but her appearance is odd. Still, it makes her memorable. Gove has a similar problem. Very bright but odd looking.
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....
The Weimar int Germany in the 20's constitution was OK but had some flaws in how to deal with govenment gridlock and the president's powers. It is a stretch to claim that Germany had the Weimar constitution after 1933. The parliament did not meet at all, and all new laws wer passed by the executive ie. Hitler, who was Chancelllor, President and famously used the title Führer.
Another example of a "magnificent constitution" was that of the German Democratic Republic (1949-1990). The country was proud of its constitution and every school child of a certain age got a hardback copy of it. Although it was a great constitution, it was totally worthless of course, because no one had the opportunity to go to court if anything unconstitutional happened, and just by mentioning it in public could get you sent to jail.
From the BBC Sir Keir says he can "see in my mind’s eye the country I want us to be".
He lists his goals, including "properly funded" universal public services, a "world-class" education system and a strong economy.
He also calls for a "country committed to a greener, cleaner and fairer society, where every policy is judged not just by how much it costs today but also by what it does for the planet tomorrow".
And a country which would be "an active force for good in the world, once again admired and respected".
Sir Keir says: "I can see it. I can describe it. But it’s all just a dream unless we win back the trust of the people.
"And we’ve got a long road ahead of us. We’re not going to win back those we’ve lost with a single speech or a clever policy offer. Trust takes time".
A lot of motherhood and apple pie there but what's wrong with that? What I think we can see is a strategic overall vision capable of giving a plan for government.
He's right about trust, the damage done by Corbyn to the Labour brand is profound, and he needs a stronger team than he seems to have right now but already he and his party are a much, much more credible alternative government than Labour have been since Brown resigned. The Tories need to lift their game. Thank god for that. Crap government because the alternative is even worse does none of us any good.
On your final point David, he could go a long way to fortifying his team by appointing the very competent Rachel Reeves as ShadChan – that seems to me to be such an obvious step it's rather baffling why she was sidelined in the first place.
Anyone have the inside track?
Her or Ed Miliband. Either would be a significant improvement. I think her sidelining was a consequence of the Corbyn legacy but he is clearly moving on from that now.
Fair point about Ed although Rachel is clearly better qualified for that job.
I have only had one dealing with Rachel Reeves and it was when she was shadow DWP secretary. I have been involved for 8 years in a very specific pension campaign. It has cross party support, there have been 2 HofC debates on it and an attempted 10 minute bill to resolve the issue.
MPs contacted have either been very supportive, supportive, indifferent and very occasionally not supportive. The one exception to al of these is Rachel Reeves even though she was in a prime position to do something about it.
Her office was contacted 5 times. Each time they requested stuff to be sent and although they promised next time they would respond they never did. Not even an acknowledgement, ever. Next time we would get lots of enthusiasm, send stuff again and then be completely ignored.
Utterly hopeless. Every other MP at least acknowledged correspondence.
I generally rate Ed Conway but I think he misleads on that thread, where he implies that the growth rate is linear. If R>1, by definition we are in exponential growth. The valid issue with the UK gov chart is the rate of that exponential growth (counterfactual if we don't do the interventions talked about). Whether we get to the higher figure sooner or later does matter.
We had this discussion last night. The growth line for France, Spain and the UK (since our numbers started growing again) is linear. That is a fact. Claiming that we are going to somehow switch to exponential growth is misleading and frankly dishonest.
In the real world what would otherwise be exponential is restricted by numerous factors, changes in human behaviour, dead ends where people in a particular locale run out of people to infect, etc. I have been trying to find the graph that was repeatedly linked to in February. By now everyone in the world would have had the virus. Its not worked out that way.
Epidemiologists relying upon exponential growth models tell us as much as economists relying on perfect markets, ie nothing about the real world.
R>1 means exponential growth. By definition, if people are on average infecting more than one other person, as Ed Conway accepts and as the UK and Scottish figures are calculated, it's exponential. The linear line is an interpretation, not a fact. A lot will depend on what happens next and in particular how well the new interventions work.
So by 27th October I reckon that we will have something like 12k new cases a day if the new interventions do not slow down the rate of increase.
No, this is mathematically nonsense. You would end up with 12k cases if R was reduced, but still above 1 (or if we were unable to count all the cases that were happening).
Well we might see. It is a continuation of the current rate of growth in line with what has happened in 2 similar European countries whose growth started some weeks before ours.
French and Spanish real case numbers have grown much faster than their official data shows since unlike ours (yet) their testing regime has failed.
Spanish case numbers now are as believable as the UKs were in April.
I generally rate Ed Conway but I think he misleads on that thread, where he implies that the growth rate is linear. If R>1, by definition we are in exponential growth. The valid issue with the UK gov chart is the rate of that exponential growth (counterfactual if we don't do the interventions talked about). Whether we get to the higher figure sooner or later does matter.
We had this discussion last night. The growth line for France, Spain and the UK (since our numbers started growing again) is linear. That is a fact. Claiming that we are going to somehow switch to exponential growth is misleading and frankly dishonest.
In the real world what would otherwise be exponential is restricted by numerous factors, changes in human behaviour, dead ends where people in a particular locale run out of people to infect, etc. I have been trying to find the graph that was repeatedly linked to in February. By now everyone in the world would have had the virus. Its not worked out that way.
Epidemiologists relying upon exponential growth models tell us as much as economists relying on perfect markets, ie nothing about the real world.
R>1 means exponential growth. By definition, if people are on average infecting more than one other person, as Ed Conway accepts and as the UK and Scottish figures are calculated, it's exponential. The linear line is an interpretation, not a fact. A lot will depend on what happens next and in particular how well the new interventions work.
So by 27th October I reckon that we will have something like 12k new cases a day if the new interventions do not slow down the rate of increase. You are going for 50K? It's difficult to frame a bet on this because there will be more interventions but we risk overkill with harsh economic consequences if people insist on clinging to a model that does not reflect reality (except in the very early stages where behaviour has not responded to the threat).
There is a valid question about the rate of exponential growth. If we don't get R=1 then growing more slowly is better than growing faster. But we really need to be at R=1 (it doesn't need to be below that).
By the way, I don't think we are miles apart on our approach to the virus. We both, I think, see this as something that we need to live with and want to maximise our activity as long as we can do it safely. I probably assess the inherent risk as higher than you do, so the interventions need to be more rigorous and our choices about what we do and don't do are starker, so we get to the same residual risk.
This is the kind of stuff we've needed for a while, a bit of flag waving
Turns me off a bit, I have to say. But my vote is safe (if not my membership) and it clearly is the case that the party under Corbyn was perceived as lacking in "proud to be British" sentiment and that this did cost votes and seats. It's important to counter this now and win a proportion of those voters back. So to this extent, I approve. "Go Keir. Wave that wi... flag."
But caution is required - because it's undeniable that xenophobic attitudes were a factor in taking some of these erstwhile Labour voters down the Brexit and UKIP-to-Tory path and Starmer should not imo be chasing this constituency. For 2 reasons. (i) Such attitudes are at odds with the core values of the party. (ii) It would backfire. The support picked up by pandering to xenophobic variety "patriotism" would be outweighed by the support lost in the party's new metropolitan base.
I don't think Starmer is pandering to anti-foreigner xenophobic patriotism but appealing to the middle of the road proud to be British patriotism.
Most of the party's new metropolitan base are bright enough to recognise that this is a route to power and won't be put off by it. It might even appeal to some.
I do hope and expect he will get things right. The risk I'm highlighting - of chasing Red Wall and losing Red Metro - is one he will have given far more thought to than I have. But I do fret about it. The shift to the left in 2015 turned me from a loyal Labour voter into a party member.
In what way is Ed Conway's if more valid than the other?
To create the linear increase in case numbers seen by France and Spain would require one of two changes, or a combination.
Firstly, if the linear increase accurately reflected the real increase in case numbers this could only happen if R was declining asymptotically towards 1. R will decline only if people's behaviour changes, either due to fear, or obedience to government instruction. Thus we may have a chicken and egg scenario where we only end up with a linear increase if people are scared of an exponential increase. And if people aren't scared we end up with the exponential increase.
Secondly, the linear increase in reported case numbers may be a result of a decline in the proportion of real cases identified, as the testing system is overwhelmed by the exponential increase in cases.
This is especially a problem now when there is an increasing number of other respiratory illnesses as we progress through autumn.
Indeed. For weeks now I've been saying the key figure to keep an eye on was the positivity rate.
At the start of that chart the positivity rate was: Spain 1.4% France 1.3% UK 0.8%
On the latest figures: Spain 11.6% France 5.9% UK 1.5%
Very different. We should have zero faith in Spanish case numbers when over 10% of all tests are coming back positive, whereas our positivity rate is essentially the same as theirs was three months ago.
Thanks for that. So it's pretty clear that the real number of cases in Spain has increased much more than the reported linear increase. You'd have thought that someone with the experience of Ed Conway would be aware of a situation when the data isn't entirely accurate.
Gosh, maybe they should have emphasised the "If" in the slide and when they spoke about it.
Oh, wait. They did.
Doubling faster than that has happened before.
Hospitalisations have been doubling every 8 days.
Accordingly, a worst-case without interventions of every 7 days is certainly feasible.
AND THEY EMPHASISED IT WAS A WORST CASE AND NOT A PREDICTION
Why the suffering FUCK are people ignoring that and claiming otherwise and that they're scaremongering? Seriously, why?
Because they desperately, desperately want it not to be so.
I would very much hope that everyone desperately wants it not to be so.
Agreed. However, you will accept I expect, that there is a huge gulf between not wanting it to be so, resigning oneself to it and working out a way to move forward. And furiously twisting or denying any evidence that it is so in the hope of not having to come up with a plan at all.
This is the kind of stuff we've needed for a while, a bit of flag waving
Turns me off a bit, I have to say. But my vote is safe (if not my membership) and it clearly is the case that the party under Corbyn was perceived as lacking in "proud to be British" sentiment and that this did cost votes and seats. It's important to counter this now and win a proportion of those voters back. So to this extent, I approve. "Go Keir. Wave that wi... flag."
But caution is required - because it's undeniable that xenophobic attitudes were a factor in taking some of these erstwhile Labour voters down the Brexit and UKIP-to-Tory path and Starmer should not imo be chasing this constituency. For 2 reasons. (i) Such attitudes are at odds with the core values of the party. (ii) It would backfire. The support picked up by pandering to xenophobic variety "patriotism" would be outweighed by the support lost in the party's new metropolitan base.
Excellent. The best of both worlds for them.
They are turning people like you off but you will still vote for anyone with a red rosette - you are the Lab equivalent of @HYUFD - plus they are likely to pick up centrists, such as @MaxPB as well.
I am going to back a Lab govt right now!
Does that mean anyone voting for Starmer 'cos the alternative is BJ is the non-Tory equivalent of you?
Say what?
Hold on let me unpack that. Voting for Starmer because the alternative is BJ as I said describes @MaxPB.
I have no idea who I will vote for in 2024. If there was an election tomorrow, however, then it would certainly focus my mind. For example, I would be doing a lot more examining of Lab's team which I have not done to date.
You said that Lab would pick up centrists, not BJ haters. Afaicr you said that you voted for the party of BJ because the alternative was Corbyn, so I'll stick with my original formulation.
We're getting a little hypothetical but I could certainly live with a categorisation that I couldn't vote for BJ.
I generally rate Ed Conway but I think he misleads on that thread, where he implies that the growth rate is linear. If R>1, by definition we are in exponential growth. The valid issue with the UK gov chart is the rate of that exponential growth (counterfactual if we don't do the interventions talked about). Whether we get to the higher figure sooner or later does matter.
We had this discussion last night. The growth line for France, Spain and the UK (since our numbers started growing again) is linear. That is a fact. Claiming that we are going to somehow switch to exponential growth is misleading and frankly dishonest.
In the real world what would otherwise be exponential is restricted by numerous factors, changes in human behaviour, dead ends where people in a particular locale run out of people to infect, etc. I have been trying to find the graph that was repeatedly linked to in February. By now everyone in the world would have had the virus. Its not worked out that way.
Epidemiologists relying upon exponential growth models tell us as much as economists relying on perfect markets, ie nothing about the real world.
R>1 means exponential growth. By definition, if people are on average infecting more than one other person, as Ed Conway accepts and as the UK and Scottish figures are calculated, it's exponential. The linear line is an interpretation, not a fact. A lot will depend on what happens next and in particular how well the new interventions work.
So by 27th October I reckon that we will have something like 12k new cases a day if the new interventions do not slow down the rate of increase.
No, this is mathematically nonsense. You would end up with 12k cases if R was reduced, but still above 1 (or if we were unable to count all the cases that were happening).
Well we might see. It is a continuation of the current rate of growth in line with what has happened in 2 similar European countries whose growth started some weeks before ours.
French and Spanish real case numbers have grown much faster than their official data shows since unlike ours (yet) their testing regime has failed.
Spanish case numbers now are as believable as the UKs were in April.
No one is Europe is testing anything like as much as we are but I don't think its correct to say that their testing regimes have failed.
I generally rate Ed Conway but I think he misleads on that thread, where he implies that the growth rate is linear. If R>1, by definition we are in exponential growth. The valid issue with the UK gov chart is the rate of that exponential growth (counterfactual if we don't do the interventions talked about). Whether we get to the higher figure sooner or later does matter.
We had this discussion last night. The growth line for France, Spain and the UK (since our numbers started growing again) is linear. That is a fact. Claiming that we are going to somehow switch to exponential growth is misleading and frankly dishonest.
In the real world what would otherwise be exponential is restricted by numerous factors, changes in human behaviour, dead ends where people in a particular locale run out of people to infect, etc. I have been trying to find the graph that was repeatedly linked to in February. By now everyone in the world would have had the virus. Its not worked out that way.
Epidemiologists relying upon exponential growth models tell us as much as economists relying on perfect markets, ie nothing about the real world.
R>1 means exponential growth. By definition, if people are on average infecting more than one other person, as Ed Conway accepts and as the UK and Scottish figures are calculated, it's exponential. The linear line is an interpretation, not a fact. A lot will depend on what happens next and in particular how well the new interventions work.
So by 27th October I reckon that we will have something like 12k new cases a day if the new interventions do not slow down the rate of increase.
No, this is mathematically nonsense. You would end up with 12k cases if R was reduced, but still above 1 (or if we were unable to count all the cases that were happening).
Well we might see. It is a continuation of the current rate of growth in line with what has happened in 2 similar European countries whose growth started some weeks before ours.
French and Spanish real case numbers have grown much faster than their official data shows since unlike ours (yet) their testing regime has failed.
Spanish case numbers now are as believable as the UKs were in April.
No one is Europe is testing anything like as much as we are but I don't think its correct to say that their testing regimes have failed.
The French one has, a friend of mine needs one and she's been told there is a 6 day lead time and she won't get the results for another two weeks after that.
Edit: she wants to come back to London but won't until she has the all clear, but I told her that she might end up getting it while she waits for the results. Given that she hasn't got symptoms I did suggest that she should come back and do the 14 day isolation period.
I generally rate Ed Conway but I think he misleads on that thread, where he implies that the growth rate is linear. If R>1, by definition we are in exponential growth. The valid issue with the UK gov chart is the rate of that exponential growth (counterfactual if we don't do the interventions talked about). Whether we get to the higher figure sooner or later does matter.
We had this discussion last night. The growth line for France, Spain and the UK (since our numbers started growing again) is linear. That is a fact. Claiming that we are going to somehow switch to exponential growth is misleading and frankly dishonest.
In the real world what would otherwise be exponential is restricted by numerous factors, changes in human behaviour, dead ends where people in a particular locale run out of people to infect, etc. I have been trying to find the graph that was repeatedly linked to in February. By now everyone in the world would have had the virus. Its not worked out that way.
Epidemiologists relying upon exponential growth models tell us as much as economists relying on perfect markets, ie nothing about the real world.
R>1 means exponential growth. By definition, if people are on average infecting more than one other person, as Ed Conway accepts and as the UK and Scottish figures are calculated, it's exponential. The linear line is an interpretation, not a fact. A lot will depend on what happens next and in particular how well the new interventions work.
So by 27th October I reckon that we will have something like 12k new cases a day if the new interventions do not slow down the rate of increase.
No, this is mathematically nonsense. You would end up with 12k cases if R was reduced, but still above 1 (or if we were unable to count all the cases that were happening).
Well we might see. It is a continuation of the current rate of growth in line with what has happened in 2 similar European countries whose growth started some weeks before ours.
French and Spanish real case numbers have grown much faster than their official data shows since unlike ours (yet) their testing regime has failed.
Spanish case numbers now are as believable as the UKs were in April.
No one is Europe is testing anything like as much as we are but I don't think its correct to say that their testing regimes have failed.
Gosh, maybe they should have emphasised the "If" in the slide and when they spoke about it.
Oh, wait. They did.
Doubling faster than that has happened before.
Hospitalisations have been doubling every 8 days.
Accordingly, a worst-case without interventions of every 7 days is certainly feasible.
AND THEY EMPHASISED IT WAS A WORST CASE AND NOT A PREDICTION
Why the suffering FUCK are people ignoring that and claiming otherwise and that they're scaremongering? Seriously, why?
If they really wanted to scare us, why not go for a quintupling every week? That would have generated an even bigger number for their slides.
Stick it up your punter!
They should simply point out we had over 100,000 infections per day at the peak, and that we could easily repeat that if we are not more careful. Deaths might be a little lower than then as we know a bit more about treatments, but seeing 500 deaths per day is entirely plausible.
But that's just the COVID-19, what we really need to focus on is what happens if COVID-19 is out of control and influenza is bad this year. Then the hospitals will be in trouble, and the deaths will really mount up.
I generally rate Ed Conway but I think he misleads on that thread, where he implies that the growth rate is linear. If R>1, by definition we are in exponential growth. The valid issue with the UK gov chart is the rate of that exponential growth (counterfactual if we don't do the interventions talked about). Whether we get to the higher figure sooner or later does matter.
We had this discussion last night. The growth line for France, Spain and the UK (since our numbers started growing again) is linear. That is a fact. Claiming that we are going to somehow switch to exponential growth is misleading and frankly dishonest.
In the real world what would otherwise be exponential is restricted by numerous factors, changes in human behaviour, dead ends where people in a particular locale run out of people to infect, etc. I have been trying to find the graph that was repeatedly linked to in February. By now everyone in the world would have had the virus. Its not worked out that way.
Epidemiologists relying upon exponential growth models tell us as much as economists relying on perfect markets, ie nothing about the real world.
R>1 means exponential growth. By definition, if people are on average infecting more than one other person, as Ed Conway accepts and as the UK and Scottish figures are calculated, it's exponential. The linear line is an interpretation, not a fact. A lot will depend on what happens next and in particular how well the new interventions work.
So by 27th October I reckon that we will have something like 12k new cases a day if the new interventions do not slow down the rate of increase.
No, this is mathematically nonsense. You would end up with 12k cases if R was reduced, but still above 1 (or if we were unable to count all the cases that were happening).
Well we might see. It is a continuation of the current rate of growth in line with what has happened in 2 similar European countries whose growth started some weeks before ours.
The question is: are you interested in the real number of cases or the reported number of cases?
I generally rate Ed Conway but I think he misleads on that thread, where he implies that the growth rate is linear. If R>1, by definition we are in exponential growth. The valid issue with the UK gov chart is the rate of that exponential growth (counterfactual if we don't do the interventions talked about). Whether we get to the higher figure sooner or later does matter.
We had this discussion last night. The growth line for France, Spain and the UK (since our numbers started growing again) is linear. That is a fact. Claiming that we are going to somehow switch to exponential growth is misleading and frankly dishonest.
In the real world what would otherwise be exponential is restricted by numerous factors, changes in human behaviour, dead ends where people in a particular locale run out of people to infect, etc. I have been trying to find the graph that was repeatedly linked to in February. By now everyone in the world would have had the virus. Its not worked out that way.
Epidemiologists relying upon exponential growth models tell us as much as economists relying on perfect markets, ie nothing about the real world.
R>1 means exponential growth. By definition, if people are on average infecting more than one other person, as Ed Conway accepts and as the UK and Scottish figures are calculated, it's exponential. The linear line is an interpretation, not a fact. A lot will depend on what happens next and in particular how well the new interventions work.
So by 27th October I reckon that we will have something like 12k new cases a day if the new interventions do not slow down the rate of increase.
No, this is mathematically nonsense. You would end up with 12k cases if R was reduced, but still above 1 (or if we were unable to count all the cases that were happening).
Well we might see. It is a continuation of the current rate of growth in line with what has happened in 2 similar European countries whose growth started some weeks before ours.
French and Spanish real case numbers have grown much faster than their official data shows since unlike ours (yet) their testing regime has failed.
Spanish case numbers now are as believable as the UKs were in April.
No one is Europe is testing anything like as much as we are but I don't think its correct to say that their testing regimes have failed.
The French one has, a friend of mine needs one and she's been told there is a 6 day lead time and she won't get the results for another two weeks after that.
Surely not. Watching the BBC, I am informed that only the UK in the whole world has an issue with testing....everybody else's systems works perfectly.
Interesting I heard that the US is now running gone out to averaging ~7 day turn around time and it is blamed on lack of reagents. Wonder if that is also causing issues across Europe?
A bit more context.... In February 0% of deaths in England and Wales were due to Covid.
In March and April 26.7% of deaths in England and Wales involved the Corona Virus. (Source ONS).
The situation can change very rapidly.
I am not downplaying the danger (anybody on here regularly will know I am certainly not in the no lockdown camp), just saying that I think if you asked the public over the past few months how much death has been due to COVID, they would have a totally distorted view.
WFH (for at least part of the week) is here to stay. The genie is out of the bottle. As a long term WFHer, i couldn't imagine doing having to do a 3hr round commute every day, when I can just do the same work from my home office, in peace and quiet overlooking the countryside.
Surely if your company required in office work you'd move close or quit? Also, you're probably classed as a remote worker rather than WFH.
That's assuming the employer wants people in yet. I have a stepson who works in IT at Lloyds in the west country. The company has decreed stay at home at least until Christmas,
Gosh, maybe they should have emphasised the "If" in the slide and when they spoke about it.
Oh, wait. They did.
Doubling faster than that has happened before.
Hospitalisations have been doubling every 8 days.
Accordingly, a worst-case without interventions of every 7 days is certainly feasible.
AND THEY EMPHASISED IT WAS A WORST CASE AND NOT A PREDICTION
Why the suffering FUCK are people ignoring that and claiming otherwise and that they're scaremongering? Seriously, why?
Because they desperately, desperately want it not to be so.
I would very much hope that everyone desperately wants it not to be so.
Agreed. However, you will accept I expect, that there is a huge gulf between not wanting it to be so, resigning oneself to it and working out a way to move forward. And furiously twisting or denying any evidence that it is so in the hope of not having to come up with a plan at all.
Who is doing this?
Covid is a serious thing. A very serious problem.
Yet treating all groups the same despite their having vastly different risk profiles strikes me as the wrong approach.
This is the kind of stuff we've needed for a while, a bit of flag waving
Turns me off a bit, I have to say. But my vote is safe (if not my membership) and it clearly is the case that the party under Corbyn was perceived as lacking in "proud to be British" sentiment and that this did cost votes and seats. It's important to counter this now and win a proportion of those voters back. So to this extent, I approve. "Go Keir. Wave that wi... flag."
But caution is required - because it's undeniable that xenophobic attitudes were a factor in taking some of these erstwhile Labour voters down the Brexit and UKIP-to-Tory path and Starmer should not imo be chasing this constituency. For 2 reasons. (i) Such attitudes are at odds with the core values of the party. (ii) It would backfire. The support picked up by pandering to xenophobic variety "patriotism" would be outweighed by the support lost in the party's new metropolitan base.
I don't think Starmer is pandering to anti-foreigner xenophobic patriotism but appealing to the middle of the road proud to be British patriotism.
Most of the party's new metropolitan base are bright enough to recognise that this is a route to power and won't be put off by it. It might even appeal to some.
I do hope and expect he will get things right. The risk I'm highlighting - of chasing Red Wall and losing Red Metro - is one he will have given far more thought to than I have. But I do fret about it. The shift to the left in 2015 turned me from a loyal Labour voter into a party member.
The answer to that will depend on whether he thinks the number of party members or the number of votes for his party at a general election is the more important statistic.
I generally rate Ed Conway but I think he misleads on that thread, where he implies that the growth rate is linear. If R>1, by definition we are in exponential growth. The valid issue with the UK gov chart is the rate of that exponential growth (counterfactual if we don't do the interventions talked about). Whether we get to the higher figure sooner or later does matter.
We had this discussion last night. The growth line for France, Spain and the UK (since our numbers started growing again) is linear. That is a fact. Claiming that we are going to somehow switch to exponential growth is misleading and frankly dishonest.
In the real world what would otherwise be exponential is restricted by numerous factors, changes in human behaviour, dead ends where people in a particular locale run out of people to infect, etc. I have been trying to find the graph that was repeatedly linked to in February. By now everyone in the world would have had the virus. Its not worked out that way.
Epidemiologists relying upon exponential growth models tell us as much as economists relying on perfect markets, ie nothing about the real world.
R>1 means exponential growth. By definition, if people are on average infecting more than one other person, as Ed Conway accepts and as the UK and Scottish figures are calculated, it's exponential. The linear line is an interpretation, not a fact. A lot will depend on what happens next and in particular how well the new interventions work.
So by 27th October I reckon that we will have something like 12k new cases a day if the new interventions do not slow down the rate of increase.
No, this is mathematically nonsense. You would end up with 12k cases if R was reduced, but still above 1 (or if we were unable to count all the cases that were happening).
Well we might see. It is a continuation of the current rate of growth in line with what has happened in 2 similar European countries whose growth started some weeks before ours.
French and Spanish real case numbers have grown much faster than their official data shows since unlike ours (yet) their testing regime has failed.
Spanish case numbers now are as believable as the UKs were in April.
No one is Europe is testing anything like as much as we are but I don't think its correct to say that their testing regimes have failed.
Its not reasonable to compare Spanish case numbers now to Spanish case numbers in June given the change in positivity rates.
Spanish reporting runs about a week behind, they update the numbers every Thursday and backfill the data on case numbers and deaths. The death statistics are dodgy as they use a 7 day cut off vs the European standard of 21 or 28 days.
Having said that, if you read what Dodds has actually said and written, it's pretty good stuff. I know people on here don't rate her, but I suspect that's more to do with style rather than substance. She's very able, but doesn't yet look the part.
She reminds me of Sagan's lead out man, Daniel Oss.
That's really harsh - he has a whole lot of facial hair on the photos I've seen.
From the BBC Sir Keir says he can "see in my mind’s eye the country I want us to be".
He lists his goals, including "properly funded" universal public services, a "world-class" education system and a strong economy.
He also calls for a "country committed to a greener, cleaner and fairer society, where every policy is judged not just by how much it costs today but also by what it does for the planet tomorrow".
And a country which would be "an active force for good in the world, once again admired and respected".
Sir Keir says: "I can see it. I can describe it. But it’s all just a dream unless we win back the trust of the people.
"And we’ve got a long road ahead of us. We’re not going to win back those we’ve lost with a single speech or a clever policy offer. Trust takes time".
A lot of motherhood and apple pie there but what's wrong with that? What I think we can see is a strategic overall vision capable of giving a plan for government.
He's right about trust, the damage done by Corbyn to the Labour brand is profound, and he needs a stronger team than he seems to have right now but already he and his party are a much, much more credible alternative government than Labour have been since Brown resigned. The Tories need to lift their game. Thank god for that. Crap government because the alternative is even worse does none of us any good.
On your final point David, he could go a long way to fortifying his team by appointing the very competent Rachel Reeves as ShadChan – that seems to me to be such an obvious step it's rather baffling why she was sidelined in the first place.
Anyone have the inside track?
Her or Ed Miliband. Either would be a significant improvement. I think her sidelining was a consequence of the Corbyn legacy but he is clearly moving on from that now.
Fair point about Ed although Rachel is clearly better qualified for that job.
I have only had one dealing with Rachel Reeves and it was when she was shadow DWP secretary. I have been involved for 8 years in a very specific pension campaign. It has cross party support, there have been 2 HofC debates on it and an attempted 10 minute bill to resolve the issue.
MPs contacted have either been very supportive, supportive, indifferent and very occasionally not supportive. The one exception to al of these is Rachel Reeves even though she was in a prime position to do something about it.
Her office was contacted 5 times. Each time they requested stuff to be sent and although they promised next time they would respond they never did. Not even an acknowledgement, ever. Next time we would get lots of enthusiasm, send stuff again and then be completely ignored.
Utterly hopeless. Every other MP at least acknowledged correspondence.
Not to mention that she sounds like Harry H Corbett
I generally rate Ed Conway but I think he misleads on that thread, where he implies that the growth rate is linear. If R>1, by definition we are in exponential growth. The valid issue with the UK gov chart is the rate of that exponential growth (counterfactual if we don't do the interventions talked about). Whether we get to the higher figure sooner or later does matter.
We had this discussion last night. The growth line for France, Spain and the UK (since our numbers started growing again) is linear. That is a fact. Claiming that we are going to somehow switch to exponential growth is misleading and frankly dishonest.
In the real world what would otherwise be exponential is restricted by numerous factors, changes in human behaviour, dead ends where people in a particular locale run out of people to infect, etc. I have been trying to find the graph that was repeatedly linked to in February. By now everyone in the world would have had the virus. Its not worked out that way.
Epidemiologists relying upon exponential growth models tell us as much as economists relying on perfect markets, ie nothing about the real world.
R>1 means exponential growth. By definition, if people are on average infecting more than one other person, as Ed Conway accepts and as the UK and Scottish figures are calculated, it's exponential. The linear line is an interpretation, not a fact. A lot will depend on what happens next and in particular how well the new interventions work.
So by 27th October I reckon that we will have something like 12k new cases a day if the new interventions do not slow down the rate of increase.
No, this is mathematically nonsense. You would end up with 12k cases if R was reduced, but still above 1 (or if we were unable to count all the cases that were happening).
Well we might see. It is a continuation of the current rate of growth in line with what has happened in 2 similar European countries whose growth started some weeks before ours.
French and Spanish real case numbers have grown much faster than their official data shows since unlike ours (yet) their testing regime has failed.
Spanish case numbers now are as believable as the UKs were in April.
No one is Europe is testing anything like as much as we are but I don't think its correct to say that their testing regimes have failed.
The French one has, a friend of mine needs one and she's been told there is a 6 day lead time and she won't get the results for another two weeks after that.
Edit: she wants to come back to London but won't until she has the all clear, but I told her that she might end up getting it while she waits for the results. Given that she hasn't got symptoms I did suggest that she should come back and do the 14 day isolation period.
Pollsters are fairly united now, slim or no Tory lead. We will see crossover soon.
Going to catch up on Keir's speech, apparently it's fantastic.
The more the public see of Sir Keir, the duller they find him - personality rating down from 32 to 25 in today’s IPSOS-MORI.
Maybe COVID has changed everything, but leaders of the opposition who the public find this in charismatic, especially compared to the PM, don’t get the top job,
Gosh, maybe they should have emphasised the "If" in the slide and when they spoke about it.
Oh, wait. They did.
Doubling faster than that has happened before.
Hospitalisations have been doubling every 8 days.
Accordingly, a worst-case without interventions of every 7 days is certainly feasible.
AND THEY EMPHASISED IT WAS A WORST CASE AND NOT A PREDICTION
Why the suffering FUCK are people ignoring that and claiming otherwise and that they're scaremongering? Seriously, why?
Because they desperately, desperately want it not to be so.
I would very much hope that everyone desperately wants it not to be so.
Agreed. However, you will accept I expect, that there is a huge gulf between not wanting it to be so, resigning oneself to it and working out a way to move forward. And furiously twisting or denying any evidence that it is so in the hope of not having to come up with a plan at all.
Who is doing this?
Covid is a serious thing. A very serious problem.
Yet treating all groups the same despite their having vastly different risk profiles strikes me as the wrong approach.
That is all.
Any attempt at risk segmentation falls straight down the "The Gov't isn't keeping me from seeing my grandkids" rabbithole.
I generally rate Ed Conway but I think he misleads on that thread, where he implies that the growth rate is linear. If R>1, by definition we are in exponential growth. The valid issue with the UK gov chart is the rate of that exponential growth (counterfactual if we don't do the interventions talked about). Whether we get to the higher figure sooner or later does matter.
We had this discussion last night. The growth line for France, Spain and the UK (since our numbers started growing again) is linear. That is a fact. Claiming that we are going to somehow switch to exponential growth is misleading and frankly dishonest.
In the real world what would otherwise be exponential is restricted by numerous factors, changes in human behaviour, dead ends where people in a particular locale run out of people to infect, etc. I have been trying to find the graph that was repeatedly linked to in February. By now everyone in the world would have had the virus. Its not worked out that way.
Epidemiologists relying upon exponential growth models tell us as much as economists relying on perfect markets, ie nothing about the real world.
R>1 means exponential growth. By definition, if people are on average infecting more than one other person, as Ed Conway accepts and as the UK and Scottish figures are calculated, it's exponential. The linear line is an interpretation, not a fact. A lot will depend on what happens next and in particular how well the new interventions work.
So by 27th October I reckon that we will have something like 12k new cases a day if the new interventions do not slow down the rate of increase.
No, this is mathematically nonsense. You would end up with 12k cases if R was reduced, but still above 1 (or if we were unable to count all the cases that were happening).
Well we might see. It is a continuation of the current rate of growth in line with what has happened in 2 similar European countries whose growth started some weeks before ours.
The question is: are you interested in the real number of cases or the reported number of cases?
I'm genuinely interested in both. Clearly the reported cases are facts. The unreported cases are hypotheses. Where, as in March/April, the amount of testing was pretty derisory the "facts" of reported cases are of limited utility. Given the scale of our current testing (and the still very low +ve results) I think that they tell us a bit more but clearly not the whole picture. If we can increase testing further we will get a better picture.
Looking at the unreported cases I think that you are looking for evidence that they exist and their extent. Such as the proportion of the population with antibodies. Or, possibly, the number of new cases not linked to any known source. I think changes in the percentage of +ve tests may also be a good indicator that there are more untraced cases.
Also any idea when the next round of talks between Frost and Barnier will be? Considering we're just three weeks from the 15 Oct deadline there seems to be total radio silence on that at the moment.
Radio silence is probably a good thing, it means neither one has cause to openly shit on the other one.
Could it be the radio silence of the tunnel?
Coincidentally seems like this question has now been answered by Kuenssberg.
Also any idea when the next round of talks between Frost and Barnier will be? Considering we're just three weeks from the 15 Oct deadline there seems to be total radio silence on that at the moment.
Radio silence is probably a good thing, it means neither one has cause to openly shit on the other one.
Could it be the radio silence of the tunnel?
Coincidentally seems like this question has now been answered by Kuenssberg.
While expanding Supreme Court numbers is entirely constitutional, it is perhaps not the smartest political response, as it invites retaliation. You wouldn't want your opponents to do the same.
Conversely, it's much harder to see how utterly cynical Republicans would retaliate in kind to these proposals;
Read the article (and more to the point, read Article III of the Constitution itself); it is not.
I'll give it a read but "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority" seems pretty unambiguous to me
....shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under Such Regulations as the Congress shall make. is considerably more ambiguous, though, along with the extent of that "judicial power" (and has been debated for many years). It's pretty clear that a Thomas or Alito will brush aside such "exceptions", just as they have brushed aside more clearcut constitutional principles when it suits them. Far less clear is how a Roberts or possibly a Gorsuch would interpret that. Roberts in particular has demonstrated a tendency to defer to specific Congressional legislative action.
Where it won't give any halt to the court is in judging the constitutionality of executive actions.
Pollsters are fairly united now, slim or no Tory lead. We will see crossover soon.
Going to catch up on Keir's speech, apparently it's fantastic.
The more the public see of Sir Keir, the duller they find him - personality rating down from 32 to 25 in today’s IPSOS-MORI.
Maybe COVID has changed everything, but leaders of the opposition who the public find this in charismatic, especially compared to the PM, don’t get the top job,
My mistake, it is down from 30 to 25
It's going to be really fascinating to see how your theory plays out, because I suspect the UK will emerge from the twin crises of Covid and Brexit long before Sir Keith grows a personality...
Comments
Most of the party's new metropolitan base are bright enough to recognise that this is a route to power and won't be put off by it. It might even appeal to some.
Thanks for shifting the Overton Window all the way back in our favour, Sir Keir
As scientists they should have a chart showing the full sample of different countries and then say it looks like the UK is following more along the Spain / France trajectory, hence why the need for action.
Also any idea when the next round of talks between Frost and Barnier will be? Considering we're just three weeks from the 15 Oct deadline there seems to be total radio silence on that at the moment.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/08/lisa-nandy-uk-faces-serious-reckoning-about-global-role
They could make a different point that we could choose to be like France and Spain or more like, say, Slovakia. The chart to illustrate that different point would be the one you are talking about.
Blue is the Conservatives VI lead
Red is Camerons Net Satisfaction lead
Grey is his personality lead
In the real world what would otherwise be exponential is restricted by numerous factors, changes in human behaviour, dead ends where people in a particular locale run out of people to infect, etc. I have been trying to find the graph that was repeatedly linked to in February. By now everyone in the world would have had the virus. Its not worked out that way.
Epidemiologists relying upon exponential growth models tell us as much as economists relying on perfect markets, ie nothing about the real world.
He knows the left will go nuts on Twitter for four years then all vote for him anyway, the best thing he can do now is ignore them and concentrate his efforts on the swing voters who actually decide elections.
Oh, wait. They did.
Doubling faster than that has happened before.
Hospitalisations have been doubling every 8 days.
Accordingly, a worst-case without interventions of every 7 days is certainly feasible.
AND THEY EMPHASISED IT WAS A WORST CASE AND NOT A PREDICTION
Why the suffering FUCK are people ignoring that and claiming otherwise and that they're scaremongering?
Seriously, why?
But if you live in commuter towns around london you can easily spend 2+ hrs commuting everyday and many people can't afford to move closer as their work doesn't pay well enough, or they don't fancy living in some of the dodgy areas of London, especiall if they have kids, who are already in good schools etc etc etc.
I am not sure you will convince many people to move from Guildford to Croydon because it cuts their commute down.
Until now they put up with the extra commute time, because they got to live in a nice town with good schools.
But the genie is out the bottle, people can easily work from their home for 3-4 days a week and just pop up to London for 1-1.5 days.
Anyone have the inside track?
To create the linear increase in case numbers seen by France and Spain would require one of two changes, or a combination.
Firstly, if the linear increase accurately reflected the real increase in case numbers this could only happen if R was declining asymptotically towards 1. R will decline only if people's behaviour changes, either due to fear, or obedience to government instruction. Thus we may have a chicken and egg scenario where we only end up with a linear increase if people are scared of an exponential increase. And if people aren't scared we end up with the exponential increase.
Secondly, the linear increase in reported case numbers may be a result of a decline in the proportion of real cases identified, as the testing system is overwhelmed by the exponential increase in cases.
This is especially a problem now when there is an increasing number of other respiratory illnesses as we progress through autumn.
Regardless of all else the leader* has to pass the "Can I imagine this person as PM? Are they up to it?" test. Starmer does. So given the unfolding disaster of this administration I am also quite bullish on a Labour government next time.
* The LABOUR leader has to pass this test, I mean. GE19 showed conclusively that a Tory one doesn't.
Stick it up your punter!
Scientists have discovered linoleic acid within a tailor made pocket in the spike protein. Linoleic acid, a fatty free acid, plays a key role in inflammation and immunity levels.
Professor Imre Berger said: "Our discovery provides the first direct link between Linoleic Acid, Covid-19 pathological manifestations and the virus itself.
"The question now is how to turn this new knowledge against the virus itself and defeat the pandemic."
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/early/2020/09/18/science.abd3255.full.pdf
Hold on let me unpack that. Voting for Starmer because the alternative is BJ as I said describes @MaxPB.
I have no idea who I will vote for in 2024. If there was an election tomorrow, however, then it would certainly focus my mind. For example, I would be doing a lot more examining of Lab's team which I have not done to date.
That's a really interesting poll, because 78% of people want to work in the office some of the time post covid.
That really takes the pressure off city centres who can remodel around that – be work/socialisation hubs Tue-Thu, weekend party hubs Fri-Sat.
Mondays were largely dead anyway. Even when people worked in the office five days a week, who went to the pub after work on a Monday? Very few (indeed lots of pubs in London shut on Mondays).
Quite encouraging support for a hybrid model.
National, televised press conference with the countries two, er, top scientists and they put up a scary red line and look all serious about it. Of course they littered "if"..."could be"..."might"...
But the message they gave, loud and clear, is "here's where we're heading".
The BBC sent two journalists to the airport to cover that story. Where as I fired up the interweb and in 2 mins found pictures of Boris doing stuff in the UK during the times he was supposed on some top secret flights.
Having said that, if you read what Dodds has actually said and written, it's pretty good stuff. I know people on here don't rate her, but I suspect that's more to do with style rather than substance. She's very able, but doesn't yet look the part.
At the start of that chart the positivity rate was:
Spain 1.4%
France 1.3%
UK 0.8%
On the latest figures:
Spain 11.6%
France 5.9%
UK 1.5%
Very different. We should have zero faith in Spanish case numbers when over 10% of all tests are coming back positive, whereas our positivity rate is essentially the same as theirs was three months ago.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/positive-rate-daily-smoothed?tab=chart&time=2020-06-30..2020-09-20&country=FRA~ITA~PRT~ESP~GBR
Coronavirus accounted for 1% of all deaths in England and Wales in the second week of this month.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54248150
Gove has a similar problem. Very bright but odd looking.
https://covid.joinzoe.com/data
The Weimar int Germany in the 20's constitution was OK but had some flaws in how to deal with govenment gridlock and the president's powers. It is a stretch to claim that Germany had the Weimar constitution after 1933. The parliament did not meet at all, and all new laws wer passed by the executive ie. Hitler, who was Chancelllor, President and famously used the title Führer.
Another example of a "magnificent constitution" was that of the German Democratic Republic (1949-1990). The country was proud of its constitution and every school child of a certain age got a hardback copy of it. Although it was a great constitution, it was totally worthless of course, because no one had the opportunity to go to court if anything unconstitutional happened, and just by mentioning it in public could get you sent to jail.
MPs contacted have either been very supportive, supportive, indifferent and very occasionally not supportive. The one exception to al of these is Rachel Reeves even though she was in a prime position to do something about it.
Her office was contacted 5 times. Each time they requested stuff to be sent and although they promised next time they would respond they never did. Not even an acknowledgement, ever. Next time we would get lots of enthusiasm, send stuff again and then be completely ignored.
Utterly hopeless. Every other MP at least acknowledged correspondence.
Spanish case numbers now are as believable as the UKs were in April.
https://twitter.com/joesaward/status/1307798867501412353 https://twitter.com/joesaward/status/1308011746104422400 https://twitter.com/joesaward/status/1308014716208508934
By the way, I don't think we are miles apart on our approach to the virus. We both, I think, see this as something that we need to live with and want to maximise our activity as long as we can do it safely. I probably assess the inherent risk as higher than you do, so the interventions need to be more rigorous and our choices about what we do and don't do are starker, so we get to the same residual risk.
And furiously twisting or denying any evidence that it is so in the hope of not having to come up with a plan at all.
Edit: she wants to come back to London but won't until she has the all clear, but I told her that she might end up getting it while she waits for the results. Given that she hasn't got symptoms I did suggest that she should come back and do the 14 day isolation period.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/positive-rate-daily-smoothed?tab=chart&time=2020-06-30..2020-09-20&country=FRA~ITA~PRT~ESP~GBR
Its not reasonable to compare Spanish case numbers now to Spanish case numbers in June given the change in positivity rates.
But that's just the COVID-19, what we really need to focus on is what happens if COVID-19 is out of control and influenza is bad this year. Then the hospitals will be in trouble, and the deaths will really mount up.
Interesting I heard that the US is now running gone out to averaging ~7 day turn around time and it is blamed on lack of reagents. Wonder if that is also causing issues across Europe?
In February 0% of deaths in England and Wales were due to Covid.
In March and April 26.7% of deaths in England and Wales involved the Corona Virus. (Source ONS).
The situation can change very rapidly.
Covid is a serious thing. A very serious problem.
Yet treating all groups the same despite their having vastly different risk profiles strikes me as the wrong approach.
That is all.
Didn't they have parties celebrating that COVID had gone away?
Looking at the unreported cases I think that you are looking for evidence that they exist and their extent. Such as the proportion of the population with antibodies. Or, possibly, the number of new cases not linked to any known source. I think changes in the percentage of +ve tests may also be a good indicator that there are more untraced cases.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1308352662841307136
It's pretty clear that a Thomas or Alito will brush aside such "exceptions", just as they have brushed aside more clearcut constitutional principles when it suits them. Far less clear is how a Roberts or possibly a Gorsuch would interpret that. Roberts in particular has demonstrated a tendency to defer to specific Congressional legislative action.
Where it won't give any halt to the court is in judging the constitutionality of executive actions.