Credit, where credit is due... government done well here.
On a per-capita basis, the UK has built the largest and most diversified vaccine portfolio, according to data from Deutsche Bank, having pre-ordered more than five doses per citizen spread across six leading vaccine candidates.
Plus the UK is at the front of the queue for most of those vaccines as well. We signed a lot of contracts before the EU had signed any, so even if they've signed some afterwards for the same vaccines I believe we should get ours first.
Remarkably the UK has spent nearly as much on vaccines as the "EU alliance" has combined.
Contracts counted for little in the scramble for PPE earlier this year.
I find it amusing that @Philip_Thompson constantly bangs on about how "clear" the regulations and rules are yet has got it completely wrong today, at least as far as I read it.
Let's look at @DecrepiterJohnL 's situation - working in a takeaway.
So the regulations state that:
3.—(1) No person may, without reasonable excuse, enter or remain within a relevant place without wearing a face covering.
(2) The requirement in paragraph (1) does not apply—
....
(b) to a person responsible for a relevant place or an employee of that person acting in the course of their employment
The regulations have now been amended to remove that exception in the following circumstances:
As far as I read, a takeaway still falls under the exception unless you argue it is a "shop".
Thus employees of a takeaway do not need to wear masks under the law.
I am happy to be proven wrong, but that's my take.
Can't they make the rules based on whether visitors are present or expected? This would apply to all those in the list above, takeaways and offices in which a person from another company is visiting. Deliverers and receptionists taking deliveries would also need to wear masks under this rule.
I realise that there will need to be some more detail eg schools could if necessary be exempted. But the advantage is that the reasoning and intention is made clear.
This means that when the chippie closes, the staff no longer have to wear masks, as there are only 2 or three staff there, who are there every day. Before opening they do have to wear masks, as visitors ie customers are expected in an enclosed area soon.
My first impression is that your idea would be better and much clearer.
Meeting somebody who is not an employee of the same business? = wear a mask.
'exemption to wear a mask' 'do not apply'. Love a double negative don't they ?
Superb hatchet jobs on Vallance and Carrie by our fourth estate.
The Johnson government is unravelling.
Mmmm, spiteful tooth-sucking tittle tattle about somebody's fiancee's private life. In the Daily Mail. Definitely the example to go for when celebrating the British press, on the day Harold Evans's death is announced.
Which is why Boris this week has said he will increase the fine for non compliance and suggested he may bring in the army to support the police while more of the police switch to enforcing mask wearing and compliance with Covid rules.
New Covid Marshalls will also help the police in enforcing Covid rules
I realise there is more than an element of hindsight about this but shouldn't the enforcement measures have been more strongly in place before now?
My view is the renewed increase in cases has been more related to public (and some business) non-compliance than to the relaxation of restrictions themselves. This was foreseeable - the initial relaxation should have been combined with the kind of enforcement only now being talked about and implemented.
There was plenty of evidence from America as to what could happen if a relaxation of restrictions wasn't combined with a strict enforcement of mask wearing and social distancing rules/guidelines.
The deeper question was whether this was inevitable given who we are and the socio-political culture in which we live but that's a debate for another day.
The deeper political question is whether this Government and this Prime Minister were the worst possible option for this kind of crisis - this isn't a Party political jibe but a philosophical observation. Johnson is not a man, I think, who enjoys imposing rules and restrictions on anyone - he has his notion of individual freedom and personal civil liberties which I get but does this conflict make him unable to take the kind of quasi-authoritarian action needed to combat a virus?
To paraphrase someone (I don't know Who) - "I could be a dictator, I'd be great at dictating, I could be the Great Dictator".
Credit, where credit is due... government done well here.
On a per-capita basis, the UK has built the largest and most diversified vaccine portfolio, according to data from Deutsche Bank, having pre-ordered more than five doses per citizen spread across six leading vaccine candidates.
Plus the UK is at the front of the queue for most of those vaccines as well. We signed a lot of contracts before the EU had signed any, so even if they've signed some afterwards for the same vaccines I believe we should get ours first.
Remarkably the UK has spent nearly as much on vaccines as the "EU alliance" has combined.
Contracts counted for little in the scramble for PPE earlier this year.
A lot of the manufacturing for those is domestic, the government seems to have learned the lesson of PPE.
40 days until the US election and Biden remains 7 points ahead in the national poll averages. It makes me wonder, when is most early voting (in person or by mail) expected to happen this year? And how big will the percentages be given Covid-19 etc?
It seems to me Trump is running out of time for a swing back to him, especially once a meaningful proportion of the votes have been cast. So the debate on Tuesday is surely critical for him - the next Presidential one is 2 weeks later, by which point he'll be running out of time.
It would be good to have a PB piece giving an overview of the key states and their position on early and postal voting, and any data on how it's going so far. I saw one post that said a million out of 6 million votes in that state had been sent out, though not many received back yet.
Some interesting notes on key states from New York Times on this:
1. Pennsylvania has moved to no reason needed postal voting so has 22% registrations compared with 1% in 2016. They are going out already in most counties. Party affiliation of requesters is 70% Democrat. This shows the risk of Trump's position on postal votes in a state not used to postal voting - no doubt his supporters do plan to vote on the day, but they've clearly been put off the postal route in Pennsylvania and he is vulnerable to weather or a virus upsurge causing him problems there.
2. Florida is more used to postal voting and has 33% requesting compared with 25% in 2016. Traditionally, the split is fairly even between Democrats and GOP requesting but there is some imbalance this time - 46% Dem, 31% GOP, 22% neither. So again, Trump has made himself a little more reliant on turnout on the day although not as dramatic as elsewhere. Ballots going out from today.
3. New Hampshire is restrictive on postal voting and only 4% have requested. NH is one to watch for a possible surprise Trump gain if he gets a late swing - can see him spending time here late on.
4. North Carolina has 13% requests compared with 4% in 2016 and these have been going out for weeks. 50% Democrat, 18% GOP, 33% neither. Importantly, there is also a very high percentage of early in-person voting there (from mid October). Indications are that Biden (and Cunningham for Senate) have very narrow leads and it becomes really hard for Trump (and Tillis) if that endures much into October as a lot of votes will be locked in - late swing isn't much good for them.
5. Wisconsin has 32% requesting (5% in 2016) and these have been hitting letterboxes for a week. No party affiliation, but you'd assume on pattern elsewhere this is good for Democrats. Wisconsin always looked tough for Trump to keep, and it's going to get ever tougher unless he makes serious inroads soon as so many votes will have been cast.
6. Michigan isn't quite so dramatic as Wisconsin but has had a big rise in requests (from 15% in 2016 to 31% now). Going out from today. Again, makes it less vulnerable to a late swing and Trump needs to move fairly fast to repeat his trick of last time there.
7. Georgia also has a fairly big rise in postal requests (17% compared with 4% in 2016). If Georgia is close and decisive (which I think is quite unlikely - if Biden/Trump are very close here, I think Biden will have already won nationally so it's moot) it could be extremely messy with rejected ballots as the state GOP have form on this. Senate could also be messy.
Credit, where credit is due... government done well here.
On a per-capita basis, the UK has built the largest and most diversified vaccine portfolio, according to data from Deutsche Bank, having pre-ordered more than five doses per citizen spread across six leading vaccine candidates.
Plus the UK is at the front of the queue for most of those vaccines as well. We signed a lot of contracts before the EU had signed any, so even if they've signed some afterwards for the same vaccines I believe we should get ours first.
Remarkably the UK has spent nearly as much on vaccines as the "EU alliance" has combined.
Contracts counted for little in the scramble for PPE earlier this year.
A lot of the manufacturing for those is domestic, the government seems to have learned the lesson of PPE.
I heard a hilarious one on this - someone tried to complain about xenophobia. Because they got turned down for a PPE contract because they basically had their entire supply chain in China. When the contract *specified* on-shore.
More likely enforced early term end and self-isolation for returnees from high infection rate institutions? I.e. coming home from uni = coming home from abroad.
Did you go to university? compare that with what young people today are going through.
I know, I know - and trying to keep students in institutions and nearer to a normality is likely to be messier but ultimately less damaging than keeping the unis closed. Serious thought needs to go into how we make good, post COVID, the disruption that has occurred, because you only do this stuff once. I expect in March 2021 we will be far closer to a long-term normality and institutions and government need to be ready for that.
40 days until the US election and Biden remains 7 points ahead in the national poll averages. It makes me wonder, when is most early voting (in person or by mail) expected to happen this year? And how big will the percentages be given Covid-19 etc?
It seems to me Trump is running out of time for a swing back to him, especially once a meaningful proportion of the votes have been cast. So the debate on Tuesday is surely critical for him - the next Presidential one is 2 weeks later, by which point he'll be running out of time.
It would be good to have a PB piece giving an overview of the key states and their position on early and postal voting, and any data on how it's going so far. I saw one post that said a million out of 6 million votes in that state had been sent out, though not many received back yet.
Some interesting notes on key states from New York Times on this:
1. Pennsylvania has moved to no reason needed postal voting so has 22% registrations compared with 1% in 2016. They are going out already in most counties. Party affiliation of requesters is 70% Democrat. This shows the risk of Trump's position on postal votes in a state not used to postal voting - no doubt his supporters do plan to vote on the day, but they've clearly been put off the postal route in Pennsylvania and he is vulnerable to weather or a virus upsurge causing him problems there.
2. Florida is more used to postal voting and has 33% requesting compared with 25% in 2016. Traditionally, the split is fairly even between Democrats and GOP requesting but there is some imbalance this time - 46% Dem, 31% GOP, 22% neither. So again, Trump has made himself a little more reliant on turnout on the day although not as dramatic as elsewhere. Ballots going out from today.
3. New Hampshire is restrictive on postal voting and only 4% have requested. NH is one to watch for a possible surprise Trump gain if he gets a late swing - can see him spending time here late on.
4. North Carolina has 13% requests compared with 4% in 2016 and these have been going out for weeks. 50% Democrat, 18% GOP, 33% neither. Importantly, there is also a very high percentage of early in-person voting there (from mid October). Indications are that Biden (and Cunningham for Senate) have very narrow leads and it becomes really hard for Trump (and Tillis) if that endures much into October as a lot of votes will be locked in - late swing isn't much good for them.
5. Wisconsin has 32% requesting (5% in 2016) and these have been hitting letterboxes for a week. No party affiliation, but you'd assume on pattern elsewhere this is good for Democrats. Wisconsin always looked tough for Trump to keep, and it's going to get ever tougher unless he makes serious inroads soon as so many votes will have been cast.
6. Michigan isn't quite so dramatic as Wisconsin but has had a big rise in requests (from 15% in 2016 to 31% now). Going out from today. Again, makes it less vulnerable to a late swing and Trump needs to move fairly fast to repeat his trick of last time there.
7. Georgia also has a fairly big rise in postal requests (17% compared with 4% in 2016). If Georgia is close and decisive (which I think is quite unlikely - if Biden/Trump are very close here, I think Biden will have already won nationally so it's moot) it could be extremely messy with rejected ballots as the state GOP have form on this. Senate could also be messy.
Thanks for compiling and posting that.
That post should be a threader – really interesting.
So - if this morning’s newspaper reports are true - there will be no help for the one sector which has been specifically targeted by the latest restrictions: the hospitality sector, despite it being apparently a source of only 5% of the increase in infections.
If true, a disgrace.
This sector has lost most of its spring/summer season, will lose the Xmas/NY season, possibly the start of the next spring season and, even while open, is losing a very significant percentage of its normal trading. Early closing will do little to help stop the virus’s spread but will do a great deal of damage to this sector.
I really hope the newspaper reports are wrong.
In other news Trump makes it clear he’s going to steal the election.
Please tell me there’s some good news somewhere.
2.5 hours to go until we find out.
I don't trust media reports. Remember Peston saying he'd been authoritatively told that the Chancellor had no major news to announce . . . about 30 minutes before the Chancellor announced the furlough scheme?
The media have to sell column inches and develop clickbait. Lets find out what the Chancellor actually announces, I'd be shocked if there's no help for hospitality considering his summer job support scheme was almost exclusively targetted at hospitality.
I work in Hospitality so I am hopeful that something can be done. The current restrictions require more staff to earn less money - this is not really sustainable, and hopefully something can be done specifically to address this.
The second point I don’t see on here is with regards to evidence. I obviously have an interest here but the I don’t see the evidence that cases now being detected are actually linked to a rise in hospitalisations and deaths, which sure surely be the key metric as they are what is supposed to differentiate this from other seasonal viruses.
I also oppose describing somebody who tests positive for COVID 19 as a case, and then comparing it to cases of flu for example. We do not record asymptomatic flu so this is not a fair comparison.
Professor Whitty said he wasn’t making a prediction but kept on using the figure 50000 deaths, whereas similar trajectories to France and Spain would lead to around 10000 deaths. Now I am not saying that this is an acceptable number, but should we follow scientists who seem to push a very worst case scenario but chastise those who are equally as qualified and have a different view on the science.
At the beginning of the outbreak, unprepared and with little knowledge about the virus and plenty of fear around its possible consequences, I happily supported measures to control the virus. However evidence points to this being not such a significant health risk in the under 50s, and efforts should be made to protect the infirm, and those with health issues. I cannot see how the new restrictions do that. I will continue to follow the requirements to protect those vulnerable in my community, but I hope the Government is willing to review the measures if hospitalisations and deaths do not go up
I find it amusing that @Philip_Thompson constantly bangs on about how "clear" the regulations and rules are yet has got it completely wrong today, at least as far as I read it.
Let's look at @DecrepiterJohnL 's situation - working in a takeaway.
I didn't realise John worked in a takeaway.
Somebody working in a takeaway, is not a reason for the rules to be complicated.
I don't think they are complicated.
And if your boss says you need to wear a mask then wear a mask.
Could someone like Philip Thompson who says the rules are clear and uncomplicated explain in clear English what you can and cannot do under Section 5(2B)(b) of the HP(CR)No. 2(England) Regs 2020 as amended. This is a central section covering and regulating large parts of ordinary human activity. In interview on R4 Today programme the Home Secretary clearly had not got any idea what they meant, and she signed them.
So - if this morning’s newspaper reports are true - there will be no help for the one sector which has been specifically targeted by the latest restrictions: the hospitality sector, despite it being apparently a source of only 5% of the increase in infections.
If true, a disgrace.
This sector has lost most of its spring/summer season, will lose the Xmas/NY season, possibly the start of the next spring season and, even while open, is losing a very significant percentage of its normal trading. Early closing will do little to help stop the virus’s spread but will do a great deal of damage to this sector.
I really hope the newspaper reports are wrong.
In other news Trump makes it clear he’s going to steal the election.
Please tell me there’s some good news somewhere.
2.5 hours to go until we find out.
I don't trust media reports. Remember Peston saying he'd been authoritatively told that the Chancellor had no major news to announce . . . about 30 minutes before the Chancellor announced the furlough scheme?
The media have to sell column inches and develop clickbait. Lets find out what the Chancellor actually announces, I'd be shocked if there's no help for hospitality considering his summer job support scheme was almost exclusively targetted at hospitality.
I work in Hospitality so I am hopeful that something can be done. The current restrictions require more staff to earn less money - this is not really sustainable, and hopefully something can be done specifically to address this.
The second point I don’t see on here is with regards to evidence. I obviously have an interest here but the I don’t see the evidence that cases now being detected are actually linked to a rise in hospitalisations and deaths, which sure surely be the key metric as they are what is supposed to differentiate this from other seasonal viruses.
I also oppose describing somebody who tests positive for COVID 19 as a case, and then comparing it to cases of flu for example. We do not record asymptomatic flu so this is not a fair comparison.
Professor Whitty said he wasn’t making a prediction but kept on using the figure 50000 deaths, whereas similar trajectories to France and Spain would lead to around 10000 deaths. Now I am not saying that this is an acceptable number, but should we follow scientists who seem to push a very worst case scenario but chastise those who are equally as qualified and have a different view on the science.
At the beginning of the outbreak, unprepared and with little knowledge about the virus and plenty of fear around its possible consequences, I happily supported measures to control the virus. However evidence points to this being not such a significant health risk in the under 50s, and efforts should be made to protect the infirm, and those with health issues. I cannot see how the new restrictions do that. I will continue to follow the requirements to protect those vulnerable in my community, but I hope the Government is willing to review the measures if hospitalisations and deaths do not go up
Hospitalisations and deaths are going up. Right now. Slowly at first, but remember this -
More likely enforced early term end and self-isolation for returnees from high infection rate institutions? I.e. coming home from uni = coming home from abroad.
Did you go to university? compare that with what young people today are going through.
No one is saying it is preferable, just better than the alternative of shutting down education and universities.
Cats are perfectly able to do the same. They just can't be arsed.
So you agree with me then?
Cats aren't useless.
They are just useless to humans.
But isn't "useless" subjective almost by definition? It means not fulfilling an intended purpose, and there must therefore be an actor somewhere in the picture who has the intended purpose in mind.
That said, cats aren't useless even on that basis. I have a cat - her purpose is to cheer me up a bit by being decorative and purring, and she does that reasonably well. She doesn't fetch me my slippers, but I'm not all that bothered about having my slippers fetched.
I also don't see why Fishing is claiming all dogs are amazing just because some dogs do a job of work. A lot of them are work-shy layabouts, and let's not credit these skivers for the hard graft of a handful of them.
OK, I'll modify my anti-cat stance slightly. They are good if you want to murder a bunch of mice or rats.
But when you want a pet to do something non-psychotic, get a dog.
Lots of dogs kill rodents, albeit they are normally trained to do so - but that's because they are pack animals so training forms a big part of most of what they do.
We'll have to go rat-baiting some time - another great tradition under threat from snowflakes and invasive cancel culture.
Testing update: wife has managed to book a test this afternoon at walk in site not too far from home, after repeated attempts. At least, we think she has, no confirmation by text or email. Fingers crossed.
Testing update: wife has managed to book a test this afternoon at walk in site not too far from home, after repeated attempts. At least, we think she has, no confirmation by text or email. Fingers crossed.
So - if this morning’s newspaper reports are true - there will be no help for the one sector which has been specifically targeted by the latest restrictions: the hospitality sector, despite it being apparently a source of only 5% of the increase in infections.
If true, a disgrace.
This sector has lost most of its spring/summer season, will lose the Xmas/NY season, possibly the start of the next spring season and, even while open, is losing a very significant percentage of its normal trading. Early closing will do little to help stop the virus’s spread but will do a great deal of damage to this sector.
I really hope the newspaper reports are wrong.
In other news Trump makes it clear he’s going to steal the election.
Please tell me there’s some good news somewhere.
2.5 hours to go until we find out.
I don't trust media reports. Remember Peston saying he'd been authoritatively told that the Chancellor had no major news to announce . . . about 30 minutes before the Chancellor announced the furlough scheme?
The media have to sell column inches and develop clickbait. Lets find out what the Chancellor actually announces, I'd be shocked if there's no help for hospitality considering his summer job support scheme was almost exclusively targetted at hospitality.
I work in Hospitality so I am hopeful that something can be done. The current restrictions require more staff to earn less money - this is not really sustainable, and hopefully something can be done specifically to address this.
The second point I don’t see on here is with regards to evidence. I obviously have an interest here but the I don’t see the evidence that cases now being detected are actually linked to a rise in hospitalisations and deaths, which sure surely be the key metric as they are what is supposed to differentiate this from other seasonal viruses.
I agree.
Here you go: (Hospitalisations in England by day - bars are raw numbers, line is 7-day average)
(Deaths in England by day - bars are raw numbers, line is 7-day average)
More likely enforced early term end and self-isolation for returnees from high infection rate institutions? I.e. coming home from uni = coming home from abroad.
Did you go to university? compare that with what young people today are going through.
No one is saying it is preferable, just better than the alternative of shutting down education and universities.
Wishing the virus away is not one of the options.
The young men of my generation had National Service. Two years in Cyprus or Malaya could rather mess up family Christmases for them. But of course they were doing it for the Empah!
Cats could be amazing if they wanted to be. They just choose not to.
Edit: ah, I see others got there before me, and more succinctly.
Cats know they are amazing and don’t feel the need to prove it, especially not to humans.
The only clever thing cats do is manage to persuade multiple humans that they are their sole owner so they get fed multiple times They do however have four drumsticks and are reputed to be quite tasty
OK, I'll modify my anti-cat stance slightly. They are good if you want to murder a bunch of mice or rats.
But when you want a pet to do something non-psychotic, get a dog.
Lots of dogs kill rodents, albeit they are normally trained to do so - but that's because they are pack animals so training forms a big part of most of what they do.
We'll have to go rat-baiting some time - another great tradition under threat from snowflakes and invasive cancel culture.
On Countryfile last week they had sheepdog trials, and it was explained that sheepdogs were wolves that had been trained over the years NOT to kill the sheep, but just round them up.
OK, I'll modify my anti-cat stance slightly. They are good if you want to murder a bunch of mice or rats.
But when you want a pet to do something non-psychotic, get a dog.
We got a cat in March, he has brought so much happiness to the whole house, with remarkably little effort on his part.
A dog could have done that, tested you for COVID and some cancers, got you out walking, kept your property safe from burglars, helped catch local criminals, guided you if you're blind, herded your sheep and fetched your grouse or partridges.
OK, I'll modify my anti-cat stance slightly. They are good if you want to murder a bunch of mice or rats.
But when you want a pet to do something non-psychotic, get a dog.
Lots of dogs kill rodents, albeit they are normally trained to do so - but that's because they are pack animals so training forms a big part of most of what they do.
We'll have to go rat-baiting some time - another great tradition under threat from snowflakes and invasive cancel culture.
Many cats are rubbish at mousing. A friends cat would let the mice run *over* her.....
Cats could be amazing if they wanted to be. They just choose not to.
Edit: ah, I see others got there before me, and more succinctly.
Cats know they are amazing and don’t feel the need to prove it, especially not to humans.
The only clever thing cats do is manage to persuade multiple humans that they are their sole owner so they get fed multiple times They do however have four drumsticks and are reputed to be quite tasty
A couple of minor corrections to points made earlier in this thread:
@alex_ suggests that supermarket deliveries are not an option for students in halls of residence. At Lancaster University, where my daughter is finishing her PhD, this is certainly not the case. There is a constant stream of, mainly, Asda delivery vans being met in the car park by resident students.
Someone else suggested that, if you have been tested by the NHS, you must be symptomatic. The NHS also carries out tests to check you are clear a couple of days before turning up for an out-patient procedure. Probably applies to other treatments too.
Have downloaded the app to find that I am in a high-risk area. Due to being in a postcode that covers parts of both North Yorkshire and Lancashire. The App itself looks pretty good and being able to use it scan oneself in and out of pubs etc. should be useful.
Cats could be amazing if they wanted to be. They just choose not to.
Edit: ah, I see others got there before me, and more succinctly.
Cats know they are amazing and don’t feel the need to prove it, especially not to humans.
The only clever thing cats do is manage to persuade multiple humans that they are their sole owner so they get fed multiple times They do however have four drumsticks and are reputed to be quite tasty
Not sure adding new species to our diet is a popular stance right now.
Cats are perfectly able to do the same. They just can't be arsed.
So you agree with me then?
Cats aren't useless.
They are just useless to humans.
This reminds me of a mock question when I was studying philosophy for my degree: What is the point of sparrows?
Underlying the flippantly-worded question is the difference between intrinsic and instrumental value. The latter meaning "providing utility to humans" and the former meaning "having value in itself - i.e. in accord with nature".
Assuming you mean domesticated cats, they, like domesticated dogs, are a human construct. The result of centuries of genetic-engineering-by-humans for human need. Therefore they are, I would argue, part of the human realm rather than the natural realm. Therefore, it follows, they have bags of instrumental value but no intrinsic value.
Tigers, in contrast, have bags of intrinsic value but no, or very little, instrumental value. Therefore they - like so many other species - are fucked. (See Attenborough programme the other night and weep.)
OK, I'll modify my anti-cat stance slightly. They are good if you want to murder a bunch of mice or rats.
But when you want a pet to do something non-psychotic, get a dog.
Lots of dogs kill rodents, albeit they are normally trained to do so - but that's because they are pack animals so training forms a big part of most of what they do.
We'll have to go rat-baiting some time - another great tradition under threat from snowflakes and invasive cancel culture.
On Countryfile last week they had sheepdog trials, and it was explained that sheepdogs were wolves that had been trained over the years NOT to kill the sheep, but just round them up.
Instinct is an amazing thing. When I let my dog free when I shouldn't have, he rounded up a load of goats and brought them towards me, with no prior herding experience or training whatsoever
Here's a statistic to throw into the debate on living with things, how many deaths are acceptable, and precautions taken:
Deaths per year from hijacking are an average of 0.2 over the past 5 years. Even taken over the entire time from 1942 onwards, it's 50 per year, with a grand total (over 77 years) of 3880 (of which 1149 were on board aircraft).
Seeing that the amount of time consumed in Security is so high and the amount of effort and money put into Airport Security is so great, why don't we just do away with it? We'd save so much time and hassle, and the number of deaths currently being lost to hijacking is miniscule.
(For the avoidance of doubt, and for anyone who lost loved ones on September 11th - this is NOT a serious suggestion, nor is it intended to downgrade their deaths. It is, though, exactly down the lines of the "we can abandon precautions because deaths are now so low) of the denialists - except that the scale of deaths from covid utterly eclipses the scale of deaths from hijacking, but is seen as just something to accept)
OK, I'll modify my anti-cat stance slightly. They are good if you want to murder a bunch of mice or rats.
But when you want a pet to do something non-psychotic, get a dog.
We got a cat in March, he has brought so much happiness to the whole house, with remarkably little effort on his part.
A dog could have done that, tested you for COVID and some cancers, got you out walking, kept your property safe from burglars, helped catch local criminals, guided you if you're blind, herded your sheep and fetched your grouse or partridges.
Sounds a whole lot of hassle. Thats why I prefer cats.
Cats are perfectly able to do the same. They just can't be arsed.
So you agree with me then?
Cats aren't useless.
They are just useless to humans.
This reminds me of a mock question when I was studying philosophy for my degree: What is the point of sparrows?
Underlying the flippantly-worded question is the difference between intrinsic and instrumental value. The latter meaning "providing utility to humans" and the former meaning "having value in itself - i.e. in accord with nature".
Assuming you mean domesticated cats, they, like domesticated dogs, are a human construct. The result of centuries of genetic-engineering-by-humans for human need. Therefore they are, I would argue, part of the human realm rather than the natural realm. Therefore, it follows, they have bags of instrumental value but no intrinsic value.
Tigers, in contrast, have bags of intrinsic value but no, or very little, instrumental value. Therefore they - like so many other species - are fucked. (See Attenborough programme the other night and weep.)
Bit like the perennial debate on the utility of wasps. Many years ago I watched a wasp carefully strip down a piece of meat, to take pieces away. Probably wasn't always the same wasp, of course.
Cats could be amazing if they wanted to be. They just choose not to.
Edit: ah, I see others got there before me, and more succinctly.
Cats know they are amazing and don’t feel the need to prove it, especially not to humans.
The only clever thing cats do is manage to persuade multiple humans that they are their sole owner so they get fed multiple times They do however have four drumsticks and are reputed to be quite tasty
Cats don’t have owners. They have staff.
That is probably why pinko lefties prefer cats while upstanding and independent conservatives prefer dogs. Liberals want to be ordered around, while conservatives prefer to be self-reliant and independent.
Cats are perfectly able to do the same. They just can't be arsed.
So you agree with me then?
Cats aren't useless.
They are just useless to humans.
This reminds me of a mock question when I was studying philosophy for my degree: What is the point of sparrows?
Underlying the flippantly-worded question is the difference between intrinsic and instrumental value. The latter meaning "providing utility to humans" and the former meaning "having value in itself - i.e. in accord with nature".
Assuming you mean domesticated cats, they, like domesticated dogs, are a human construct. The result of centuries of genetic-engineering-by-humans for human need. Therefore they are, I would argue, part of the human realm rather than the natural realm. Therefore, it follows, they have bags of instrumental value but no intrinsic value.
Tigers, in contrast, have bags of intrinsic value but no, or very little, instrumental value. Therefore they - like so many other species - are fucked. (See Attenborough programme the other night and weep.)
Broadening the question slightly, what is the point of humans?
In other words, does anything need to have a point?
A couple of minor corrections to points made earlier in this thread:
@alex_ suggests that supermarket deliveries are not an option for students in halls of residence. At Lancaster University, where my daughter is finishing her PhD, this is certainly not the case. There is a constant stream of, mainly, Asda delivery vans being met in the car park by resident students.
Someone else suggested that, if you have been tested by the NHS, you must be symptomatic. The NHS also carries out tests to check you are clear a couple of days before turning up for an out-patient procedure. Probably applies to other treatments too.
Have downloaded the app to find that I am in a high-risk area. Due to being in a postcode that covers parts of both North Yorkshire and Lancashire. The App itself looks pretty good and being able to use it scan oneself in and out of pubs etc. should be useful.
The island has just been upgraded from low risk to medium, with five new cases out of the blue. Probably brought by all the recent holidaymakers from the North and Midlands. Still, let's focus on restricting the handful of people coming from Austria and Switzerland, and not worry about the people spreading it about the UK, eh?
Here's a statistic to throw into the debate on living with things, how many deaths are acceptable, and precautions taken:
Deaths per year from hijacking are an average of 0.2 over the past 5 years. Even taken over the entire time from 1942 onwards, it's 50 per year, with a grand total (over 77 years) of 3880 (of which 1149 were on board aircraft).
Seeing that the amount of time consumed in Security is so high and the amount of effort and money put into Airport Security is so great, why don't we just do away with it? We'd save so much time and hassle, and the number of deaths currently being lost to hijacking is miniscule.
(For the avoidance of doubt, and for anyone who lost loved ones on September 11th - this is NOT a serious suggestion, nor is it intended to downgrade their deaths. It is, though, exactly down the lines of the "we can abandon precautions because deaths are now so low) of the denialists - except that the scale of deaths from covid utterly eclipses the scale of deaths from hijacking, but is seen as just something to accept)
Your analogy is not a fair one. The "time and hassle" saved , ie. utility gained, by abandoning airport security would be slight compared to that of restoring liberty to us all. The willingness to jettison liberty is a surprising and very frightening aspect of this crisis.
I don`t know what the answer is, but I do know that the rationale for lockdown, and all of the economic and liberty distruction that this entails, was originally to protect the health service and give us some breathing space but has long morphed into something different, authoritarian, snitch-ridden and scary.
You mention "denialists". Sure they exist, but in small ultra libertarian enclaves I`d suggest. The rest of us understand the health consequences at stake but worry greatly about the myriad other aspects of this situation.
Here's a statistic to throw into the debate on living with things, how many deaths are acceptable, and precautions taken:
Deaths per year from hijacking are an average of 0.2 over the past 5 years. Even taken over the entire time from 1942 onwards, it's 50 per year, with a grand total (over 77 years) of 3880 (of which 1149 were on board aircraft).
Seeing that the amount of time consumed in Security is so high and the amount of effort and money put into Airport Security is so great, why don't we just do away with it? We'd save so much time and hassle, and the number of deaths currently being lost to hijacking is miniscule.
(For the avoidance of doubt, and for anyone who lost loved ones on September 11th - this is NOT a serious suggestion, nor is it intended to downgrade their deaths. It is, though, exactly down the lines of the "we can abandon precautions because deaths are now so low) of the denialists - except that the scale of deaths from covid utterly eclipses the scale of deaths from hijacking, but is seen as just something to accept)
Straw man argument. Nobody, except some fringe nutters who aren't worth engaging with and aren't reading this site anyway, thinks that. And who are these "denialists?" Thinking there's more than one view on the appropriate balance of physical safety/economic/general wellbeing/civil liberty issues arising from the virus isn't really the same as denying its existence, is it?
OK, I'll modify my anti-cat stance slightly. They are good if you want to murder a bunch of mice or rats.
But when you want a pet to do something non-psychotic, get a dog.
We got a cat in March, he has brought so much happiness to the whole house, with remarkably little effort on his part.
A dog could have done that, tested you for COVID and some cancers, got you out walking, kept your property safe from burglars, helped catch local criminals, guided you if you're blind, herded your sheep and fetched your grouse or partridges.
Cats could be amazing if they wanted to be. They just choose not to.
Edit: ah, I see others got there before me, and more succinctly.
Cats know they are amazing and don’t feel the need to prove it, especially not to humans.
The only clever thing cats do is manage to persuade multiple humans that they are their sole owner so they get fed multiple times They do however have four drumsticks and are reputed to be quite tasty
Cats don’t have owners. They have staff.
That is probably why pinko lefties prefer cats while upstanding and independent conservatives prefer dogs. Liberals want to be ordered around, while conservatives prefer to be self-reliant and independent.
As a dog loving liberal who can't abide useless mangy cats, i do not approve this message
Cats are perfectly able to do the same. They just can't be arsed.
So you agree with me then?
Cats aren't useless.
They are just useless to humans.
This reminds me of a mock question when I was studying philosophy for my degree: What is the point of sparrows?
Underlying the flippantly-worded question is the difference between intrinsic and instrumental value. The latter meaning "providing utility to humans" and the former meaning "having value in itself - i.e. in accord with nature".
Assuming you mean domesticated cats, they, like domesticated dogs, are a human construct. The result of centuries of genetic-engineering-by-humans for human need. Therefore they are, I would argue, part of the human realm rather than the natural realm. Therefore, it follows, they have bags of instrumental value but no intrinsic value.
Tigers, in contrast, have bags of intrinsic value but no, or very little, instrumental value. Therefore they - like so many other species - are fucked. (See Attenborough programme the other night and weep.)
Broadening the question slightly, what is the point of humans?
In other words, does anything need to have a point?
Humans have a "point" equal to any other species, animal or plant. Humans, that is, in the natural pre-agricultural revolution state. The strain of humans that emerged post-ag revolution - which now number 9 billion - are destroying the planet. It`s pretty much as simple as that.
40 days until the US election and Biden remains 7 points ahead in the national poll averages. It makes me wonder, when is most early voting (in person or by mail) expected to happen this year? And how big will the percentages be given Covid-19 etc?
It seems to me Trump is running out of time for a swing back to him, especially once a meaningful proportion of the votes have been cast. So the debate on Tuesday is surely critical for him - the next Presidential one is 2 weeks later, by which point he'll be running out of time.
It would be good to have a PB piece giving an overview of the key states and their position on early and postal voting, and any data on how it's going so far. I saw one post that said a million out of 6 million votes in that state had been sent out, though not many received back yet.
Some interesting notes on key states from New York Times on this:
1. Pennsylvania has moved to no reason needed postal voting so has 22% registrations compared with 1% in 2016. They are going out already in most counties. Party affiliation of requesters is 70% Democrat. This shows the risk of Trump's position on postal votes in a state not used to postal voting - no doubt his supporters do plan to vote on the day, but they've clearly been put off the postal route in Pennsylvania and he is vulnerable to weather or a virus upsurge causing him problems there.
2. Florida is more used to postal voting and has 33% requesting compared with 25% in 2016. Traditionally, the split is fairly even between Democrats and GOP requesting but there is some imbalance this time - 46% Dem, 31% GOP, 22% neither. So again, Trump has made himself a little more reliant on turnout on the day although not as dramatic as elsewhere. Ballots going out from today.
3. New Hampshire is restrictive on postal voting and only 4% have requested. NH is one to watch for a possible surprise Trump gain if he gets a late swing - can see him spending time here late on.
4. North Carolina has 13% requests compared with 4% in 2016 and these have been going out for weeks. 50% Democrat, 18% GOP, 33% neither. Importantly, there is also a very high percentage of early in-person voting there (from mid October). Indications are that Biden (and Cunningham for Senate) have very narrow leads and it becomes really hard for Trump (and Tillis) if that endures much into October as a lot of votes will be locked in - late swing isn't much good for them.
5. Wisconsin has 32% requesting (5% in 2016) and these have been hitting letterboxes for a week. No party affiliation, but you'd assume on pattern elsewhere this is good for Democrats. Wisconsin always looked tough for Trump to keep, and it's going to get ever tougher unless he makes serious inroads soon as so many votes will have been cast.
6. Michigan isn't quite so dramatic as Wisconsin but has had a big rise in requests (from 15% in 2016 to 31% now). Going out from today. Again, makes it less vulnerable to a late swing and Trump needs to move fairly fast to repeat his trick of last time there.
7. Georgia also has a fairly big rise in postal requests (17% compared with 4% in 2016). If Georgia is close and decisive (which I think is quite unlikely - if Biden/Trump are very close here, I think Biden will have already won nationally so it's moot) it could be extremely messy with rejected ballots as the state GOP have form on this. Senate could also be messy.
Cats are perfectly able to do the same. They just can't be arsed.
So you agree with me then?
Cats aren't useless.
They are just useless to humans.
This reminds me of a mock question when I was studying philosophy for my degree: What is the point of sparrows?
Underlying the flippantly-worded question is the difference between intrinsic and instrumental value. The latter meaning "providing utility to humans" and the former meaning "having value in itself - i.e. in accord with nature".
Assuming you mean domesticated cats, they, like domesticated dogs, are a human construct. The result of centuries of genetic-engineering-by-humans for human need. Therefore they are, I would argue, part of the human realm rather than the natural realm. Therefore, it follows, they have bags of instrumental value but no intrinsic value.
Tigers, in contrast, have bags of intrinsic value but no, or very little, instrumental value. Therefore they - like so many other species - are fucked. (See Attenborough programme the other night and weep.)
Bit like the perennial debate on the utility of wasps. Many years ago I watched a wasp carefully strip down a piece of meat, to take pieces away. Probably wasn't always the same wasp, of course.
Wasps fulfil a valuable niche - just as other species that are a nuisance to us do. Remove them and knock-on effects would be revealed.
Cats could be amazing if they wanted to be. They just choose not to.
Edit: ah, I see others got there before me, and more succinctly.
Cats know they are amazing and don’t feel the need to prove it, especially not to humans.
The only clever thing cats do is manage to persuade multiple humans that they are their sole owner so they get fed multiple times They do however have four drumsticks and are reputed to be quite tasty
Cats don’t have owners. They have staff.
That is probably why pinko lefties prefer cats while upstanding and independent conservatives prefer dogs. Liberals want to be ordered around, while conservatives prefer to be self-reliant and independent.
Conservatives prefer unquestioning obedience from their unpaid labourers.
Cats are perfectly able to do the same. They just can't be arsed.
So you agree with me then?
Cats aren't useless.
They are just useless to humans.
This reminds me of a mock question when I was studying philosophy for my degree: What is the point of sparrows?
Underlying the flippantly-worded question is the difference between intrinsic and instrumental value. The latter meaning "providing utility to humans" and the former meaning "having value in itself - i.e. in accord with nature".
Assuming you mean domesticated cats, they, like domesticated dogs, are a human construct. The result of centuries of genetic-engineering-by-humans for human need. Therefore they are, I would argue, part of the human realm rather than the natural realm. Therefore, it follows, they have bags of instrumental value but no intrinsic value.
Tigers, in contrast, have bags of intrinsic value but no, or very little, instrumental value. Therefore they - like so many other species - are fucked. (See Attenborough programme the other night and weep.)
Bit like the perennial debate on the utility of wasps. Many years ago I watched a wasp carefully strip down a piece of meat, to take pieces away. Probably wasn't always the same wasp, of course.
Wasps fulfil a valuable niche - just as other species that are a nuisance to us do. Remove them and knock-on effects would be revealed.
Cats are perfectly able to do the same. They just can't be arsed.
So you agree with me then?
Cats aren't useless.
They are just useless to humans.
This reminds me of a mock question when I was studying philosophy for my degree: What is the point of sparrows?
Underlying the flippantly-worded question is the difference between intrinsic and instrumental value. The latter meaning "providing utility to humans" and the former meaning "having value in itself - i.e. in accord with nature".
Assuming you mean domesticated cats, they, like domesticated dogs, are a human construct. The result of centuries of genetic-engineering-by-humans for human need. Therefore they are, I would argue, part of the human realm rather than the natural realm. Therefore, it follows, they have bags of instrumental value but no intrinsic value.
Tigers, in contrast, have bags of intrinsic value but no, or very little, instrumental value. Therefore they - like so many other species - are fucked. (See Attenborough programme the other night and weep.)
Bit like the perennial debate on the utility of wasps. Many years ago I watched a wasp carefully strip down a piece of meat, to take pieces away. Probably wasn't always the same wasp, of course.
Wasps fulfil a valuable niche - just as other species that are a nuisance to us do. Remove them and knock-on effects would be revealed.
Figs need them, for a start
Very useful for sticking down a school-chum`s blazer as well.
No longer a furlough and paying people who are not working at all given we are no longer in full lockdown and those jobs have effectively gone but still subsidising those who are at least working a few hours to keep them in their jobs
Comments
- delay
- get more money
- delay
- get more money
- fuck up
- get more money
- etc
My view is the renewed increase in cases has been more related to public (and some business) non-compliance than to the relaxation of restrictions themselves. This was foreseeable - the initial relaxation should have been combined with the kind of enforcement only now being talked about and implemented.
There was plenty of evidence from America as to what could happen if a relaxation of restrictions wasn't combined with a strict enforcement of mask wearing and social distancing rules/guidelines.
The deeper question was whether this was inevitable given who we are and the socio-political culture in which we live but that's a debate for another day.
The deeper political question is whether this Government and this Prime Minister were the worst possible option for this kind of crisis - this isn't a Party political jibe but a philosophical observation. Johnson is not a man, I think, who enjoys imposing rules and restrictions on anyone - he has his notion of individual freedom and personal civil liberties which I get but does this conflict make him unable to take the kind of quasi-authoritarian action needed to combat a virus?
To paraphrase someone (I don't know Who) - "I could be a dictator, I'd be great at dictating, I could be the Great Dictator".
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/24/close-to-100-accuracy-airport-enlists-sniffer-dogs-to-test-for-covid-19
Cats are useless.
They just can't be arsed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54240777
They are just useless to humans.
The second point I don’t see on here is with regards to evidence. I obviously have an interest here but the I don’t see the evidence that cases now being detected are actually linked to a rise in hospitalisations and deaths, which sure surely be the key metric as they are what is supposed to differentiate this from other seasonal viruses.
I also oppose describing somebody who tests positive for COVID 19 as a case, and then comparing it to cases of flu for example. We do not record asymptomatic flu so this is not a fair comparison.
Professor Whitty said he wasn’t making a prediction but kept on using the figure 50000 deaths, whereas similar trajectories to France and Spain would lead to around 10000 deaths. Now I am not saying that this is an acceptable number, but should we follow scientists who seem to push a very worst case scenario but chastise those who are equally as qualified and have a different view on the science.
At the beginning of the outbreak, unprepared and with little knowledge about the virus and plenty of fear around its possible consequences, I happily supported measures to control the virus. However evidence points to this being not such a significant health risk in the under 50s, and efforts should be made to protect the infirm, and those with health issues. I cannot see how the new restrictions do that. I will continue to follow the requirements to protect those vulnerable in my community, but I hope the Government is willing to review the measures if hospitalisations and deaths do not go up
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/684/regulation/5
They just choose not to.
Edit: ah, I see others got there before me, and more succinctly.
Wishing the virus away is not one of the options.
That said, cats aren't useless even on that basis. I have a cat - her purpose is to cheer me up a bit by being decorative and purring, and she does that reasonably well. She doesn't fetch me my slippers, but I'm not all that bothered about having my slippers fetched.
I also don't see why Fishing is claiming all dogs are amazing just because some dogs do a job of work. A lot of them are work-shy layabouts, and let's not credit these skivers for the hard graft of a handful of them.
But when you want a pet to do something non-psychotic, get a dog.
We'll have to go rat-baiting some time - another great tradition under threat from snowflakes and invasive cancel culture.
Here you go:
(Hospitalisations in England by day - bars are raw numbers, line is 7-day average)
(Deaths in England by day - bars are raw numbers, line is 7-day average)
But of course they were doing it for the Empah!
They do however have four drumsticks and are reputed to be quite tasty
https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/f63a02f0-0018-4a77-b8d4-037dc41e3558
@alex_ suggests that supermarket deliveries are not an option for students in halls of residence. At Lancaster University, where my daughter is finishing her PhD, this is certainly not the case. There is a constant stream of, mainly, Asda delivery vans being met in the car park by resident students.
Someone else suggested that, if you have been tested by the NHS, you must be symptomatic. The NHS also carries out tests to check you are clear a couple of days before turning up for an out-patient procedure. Probably applies to other treatments too.
Have downloaded the app to find that I am in a high-risk area. Due to being in a postcode that covers parts of both North Yorkshire and Lancashire. The App itself looks pretty good and being able to use it scan oneself in and out of pubs etc. should be useful.
They certainly know what they are doing.
Underlying the flippantly-worded question is the difference between intrinsic and instrumental value. The latter meaning "providing utility to humans" and the former meaning "having value in itself - i.e. in accord with nature".
Assuming you mean domesticated cats, they, like domesticated dogs, are a human construct. The result of centuries of genetic-engineering-by-humans for human need. Therefore they are, I would argue, part of the human realm rather than the natural realm. Therefore, it follows, they have bags of instrumental value but no intrinsic value.
Tigers, in contrast, have bags of intrinsic value but no, or very little, instrumental value. Therefore they - like so many other species - are fucked. (See Attenborough programme the other night and weep.)
https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/index.html
Deaths per year from hijacking are an average of 0.2 over the past 5 years. Even taken over the entire time from 1942 onwards, it's 50 per year, with a grand total (over 77 years) of 3880 (of which 1149 were on board aircraft).
Seeing that the amount of time consumed in Security is so high and the amount of effort and money put into Airport Security is so great, why don't we just do away with it? We'd save so much time and hassle, and the number of deaths currently being lost to hijacking is miniscule.
(For the avoidance of doubt, and for anyone who lost loved ones on September 11th - this is NOT a serious suggestion, nor is it intended to downgrade their deaths. It is, though, exactly down the lines of the "we can abandon precautions because deaths are now so low) of the denialists - except that the scale of deaths from covid utterly eclipses the scale of deaths from hijacking, but is seen as just something to accept)
Thats why I prefer cats.
Government guarantee extended to 10 years for small business loans.
Deadline for all loans extended until the end of the year with a new successor loan scheme from January
I have used this one as a filter
In other words, does anything need to have a point?
Anywhere near enough @Cyclefree ???
Thursday: We are keeping the VAT cut for pubs.
The VAT cut is for food and soft drinks not alcohol.
The serious alternative PM?
I don`t know what the answer is, but I do know that the rationale for lockdown, and all of the economic and liberty distruction that this entails, was originally to protect the health service and give us some breathing space but has long morphed into something different, authoritarian, snitch-ridden and scary.
You mention "denialists". Sure they exist, but in small ultra libertarian enclaves I`d suggest. The rest of us understand the health consequences at stake but worry greatly about the myriad other aspects of this situation.
So essentially compared to furlough employees lose about 1.5% and employer s pay a third not a fifth.
I think (!)
https://twitter.com/RishiSunak/status/1309086058307563521?s=20
https://twitter.com/RishiSunak/status/1309086060648030214?s=20
https://twitter.com/RishiSunak/status/1309086061985964033?s=20
No longer a furlough and paying people who are not working at all given we are no longer in full lockdown and those jobs have effectively gone but still subsidising those who are at least working a few hours to keep them in their jobs