Well, you - as a presumably typical Tory - are always talking about sending the tanks into Scotland and the task forces to invade Spain.
I don't believe HYUFD is a "typical Tory".
Well I am more so than you are certainly
I don't claim to be typical.
I am me. I don't want to be typical.
How typical is that?
Good question.
My philosophy is one where I fundamentally believe in individualism and not communitarianism.
As such fitting in a mould as HYUFD tries to do as a "typical Tory" seems to be rather counter-intuitive to my philosophy.
How on earth can anyone not believe in both the significance of the individual and the significance of communities?
I believe in both. A community is made up of many individuals.
You don't. Your knee jerk espousal of the term nimby outs you as a communitarian through and through. The thinking behind the term is, how dare individual ants own private property, seek to protect its value, and seek to preserve the amenity of their own particular part of the environment, when the requirements of the hive dictate otherwise?
This has nothing at all to do with the substantive merits of any discussion about housebuilding. It's the terminology which damns you.
Don't be ridiculous.
NIMBYs are the communitarian ones wanting to halt other people developing their land in order to protect the value of the NIMBYs home.
If you don't want someone else developing their land then you buy it yourself. Otherwise its not your land and the owner should be able to do as they please.
You're doing it again. You don't recognise individuals as individuals, only as crude economic actors. You are neither an individualist nor a conservative.
Of course I recognise individuals as individuals and those individuals should be free to do what they want with their land.
You think telling people they can't build homes in order to protect the value of existing homes like some dodgy cartel is a good thing. I do not.
it is strange how the Conservative wish for people to live on their own land as they wish never extends to Travellers.
Sigh. The weekend effect, reporting day effect etc.....
It's Murder Tuesday. The day when all the murders that Boris and Cummings personally commit at the weekend are recorded.
Basically weekend effect unwind is massive. I am generating the "specimen date" data right now...
Do you ever get the impression that some PBers are willing the numbers to be higher?
Of all the urges that typically rage within the sorts of blokes who argue the toss incessantly on an internet forum, "to be proved right" is amongst the strongest.
He obviously haven't looked at the daily mail for the past 6-9 months, they have been one of the most critical newspapers in regards to to government / boris handling of covid.
I hope people (in general not on PB) aren't overreacting once again to the infamous "Tuesday figures" which are always worse than the other days of the week, and have been for about 6 months. It gets a bit tedious. And the weekend figures are always lower. Probably best to stick to weekly averages.
Well, you - as a presumably typical Tory - are always talking about sending the tanks into Scotland and the task forces to invade Spain.
I don't believe HYUFD is a "typical Tory".
Well I am more so than you are certainly
I don't claim to be typical.
I am me. I don't want to be typical.
How typical is that?
Good question.
My philosophy is one where I fundamentally believe in individualism and not communitarianism.
As such fitting in a mould as HYUFD tries to do as a "typical Tory" seems to be rather counter-intuitive to my philosophy.
How on earth can anyone not believe in both the significance of the individual and the significance of communities?
I believe in both. A community is made up of many individuals.
You don't. Your knee jerk espousal of the term nimby outs you as a communitarian through and through. The thinking behind the term is, how dare individual ants own private property, seek to protect its value, and seek to preserve the amenity of their own particular part of the environment, when the requirements of the hive dictate otherwise?
This has nothing at all to do with the substantive merits of any discussion about housebuilding. It's the terminology which damns you.
Don't be ridiculous.
NIMBYs are the communitarian ones wanting to halt other people developing their land in order to protect the value of the NIMBYs home.
If you don't want someone else developing their land then you buy it yourself. Otherwise its not your land and the owner should be able to do as they please.
You're doing it again. You don't recognise individuals as individuals, only as crude economic actors. You are neither an individualist nor a conservative.
Of course I recognise individuals as individuals and those individuals should be free to do what they want with their land.
You think telling people they can't build homes in order to protect the value of existing homes like some dodgy cartel is a good thing. I do not.
So no planning controls at all, then?
Classic libertarian position: my home is my castle. I couldn`t disagree more with PT over this.
Your home absolutely. Not other people's homes.
Thing is, you hold individuals in higher regard than I do. If you allow people to do what they want with their property, lack of good taste and poor choices and poor quality of workmanship works to the detriment of everyone in the communty and the environment in general.
Some of my neighbours in our village take your view and moan like heck when a conservation or planning officer refuses them permission to proceed with some abomination or another. In contrast, I see these officers as arbiters of good taste.
Taste is a matter of opinion.
If a neighbour wants to build a pink house with a chimney designed to look like a lollipop and candy cane striped roof then I might think that is in terrible taste but if that's their choice so be it. Diversity makes somewhere interesting and I'm not sure that building nothing but tiny, uniform identikit homes is progress.
Every December some neighbours go OTT in Christmas lights that may be considered "bad taste" but again that is their choice. Do with your own home whatever you find tasteful.
Shoddy workmanship is a different matter. I said that safety standards should exist. But safety standards are a different matter to taste.
Sigh. The weekend effect, reporting day effect etc.....
It's Murder Tuesday. The day when all the murders that Boris and Cummings personally commit at the weekend are recorded.
Basically weekend effect unwind is massive. I am generating the "specimen date" data right now...
Do you ever get the impression that some PBers are willing the numbers to be higher?
Of all the urges that typically rage within the sorts of blokes who argue the toss incessantly on an internet forum, "to be proved right" is amongst the strongest.
We hate it when our friends become successful... and if they're Swedish, that makes it even worse...
If the Duchess of Sussex does have presidential ambitions, would she have to drop the title? The constitution only forbids someone in office from accepting one, I don't think it forbids people who already have one.
If she didn't specifically renounce it before running, I suspect that the Titles of Nobility amendment might get resurrected from its constitutional slumber and quickly acrue enough state ratifications to be adopted.
I certainly hope not though, as its prohibition on American citizens from accepting "any pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power", on pain of losing citizenship, would be a disaster for me as I'd have to chose between taking my UK local government and state pensions when I retire or retaining my American citizenship.
BTW, while the US citizenship process includes having to renounce one's previous "allegiance" the US does not require new citizens whose current country allows dual citizenship to actually go through any process with the other country to renounce that nor show evidence that they have. However, the application form also includes a question on whether one has a title of nobility and if you tick "yes" you do have to renounce it and show that you have done so before you can become a US citizen.
Having gone through the US citizenship process, as has my wife, I can tell you that there was a Supreme Court case over the requirement to renounce your previous citizenship, and they found that you did not have to renounce your previous allegiance. So we both have dual UK-US citizenship. My daughter went the other way. She started as a US citizen and got her UK citizenship afterwards. She has both also. Other countries - Norway for example - do not allow dual citizenship, so on becoming a US citizen, Norway insists on you renouncing your Norwegian citizenship.
I hope people (in general not on PB) aren't overreacting once again to the infamous "Tuesday figures" which are always worse than the other days of the week, and have been for about 6 months. It gets a bit tedious.
Well i am sure the media are explaining the situation correctly...has a quick check..nope...yes they talk about cases were much higher in March / April, but still using date of reporting for cases and deaths, etc. Same old bollocks.
- and the debate negotiations continue.....Trump has requested that a third party should inspect whether Trump or Biden are wearing any kind of earpiece.....Trump assented, but Biden said NO.
How can Trump both request something AND assent to it?
That was my clumsy word economy. The campaign requested it, so when asked he obviously said Yes and Biden was seen to say No. It's all part of getting into the other guy's head.
Ah I see. Mind games from Trump. Like Jose Mourinho does. I might stay up and watch. I'll only be lying in bed thinking about it anyway. That seems to be the way with me now. I think about it all the time. The US election.
I hope people (in general not on PB) aren't overreacting once again to the infamous "Tuesday figures" which are always worse than the other days of the week, and have been for about 6 months. It gets a bit tedious.
Well i am sure the media are explaining the situation correctly...has a quick check..nope...yes they talk about cases were much higher in March / April, but still using date of reporting for cases and deaths, etc. Same old bollocks.
On Radio 4 a few seconds ago the presenter said "There has been a sharp jump in coronavirus cases in the uk". Trouble is, listeners may conclude from this that there has been a sharp jump in the number of coronavirus cases in the UK.
I hope people (in general not on PB) aren't overreacting once again to the infamous "Tuesday figures" which are always worse than the other days of the week, and have been for about 6 months. It gets a bit tedious.
Well i am sure the media are explaining the situation correctly...has a quick check..nope...yes they talk about cases were much higher in March / April, but still using date of reporting for cases and deaths, etc. Same old bollocks.
On Radio 4 a few seconds ago the presenter said "There has been a sharp jump in coronovirus cases in the uk". Trouble is, listeners may conclude from this that there has been a sharp jump in the number of coronavirus cases in the UK.
The media cannot be innumerate to the degree they present as innumerate.
The reporting of it is utterly disgraceful, and has been throughout. It has caused me to stop watching the BBC – a trusted source yet the worst of them all.
No wonder most people assess their risk from covid as several orders of magnitude higher than their actual risk.
I had a one liner that the Trump campaign slogan was sponsored by the Wisconsin Cheese makers, and they focus grouped both "Blessed are the cheese makers" and Make America Grate again"
- and the debate negotiations continue.....Trump has requested that a third party should inspect whether Trump or Biden are wearing any kind of earpiece.....Trump assented, but Biden said NO.
How can Trump both request something AND assent to it?
That was my clumsy word economy. The campaign requested it, so when asked he obviously said Yes and Biden was seen to say No. It's all part of getting into the other guy's head.
Ah I see. Mind games from Trump. Like Jose Mourinho does. I might stay up and watch. I'll only be lying in bed thinking about it anyway. That seems to be the way with me now. I think about it all the time. The US election.
I had to google Jose Mourinho. As I neither live in the UK nor follow soccer the reference was lost on me. I am hanging my head as I type.....
I hope people (in general not on PB) aren't overreacting once again to the infamous "Tuesday figures" which are always worse than the other days of the week, and have been for about 6 months. It gets a bit tedious.
Well i am sure the media are explaining the situation correctly...has a quick check..nope...yes they talk about cases were much higher in March / April, but still using date of reporting for cases and deaths, etc. Same old bollocks.
On Radio 4 a few seconds ago the presenter said "There has been a sharp jump in coronovirus cases in the uk". Trouble is, listeners may conclude from this that there has been a sharp jump in the number of coronavirus cases in the UK.
The media cannot be innumerate to the degree they present as innumerate.
The reporting of it is utterly disgraceful, and has been throughout. It has caused me to stop watching the BBC – a trusted source yet the worst of them all.
No wonder most people assess their risk from covid as several orders of magnitude higher than their actual risk.
6 f##king months of this bollocks, every day. Surely as well as sending them all on a diversity course to stop them saying nitty gritty they could have done a couple of hours training on covid data.
Well, you - as a presumably typical Tory - are always talking about sending the tanks into Scotland and the task forces to invade Spain.
I don't believe HYUFD is a "typical Tory".
Well I am more so than you are certainly
I don't claim to be typical.
I am me. I don't want to be typical.
How typical is that?
Good question.
My philosophy is one where I fundamentally believe in individualism and not communitarianism.
As such fitting in a mould as HYUFD tries to do as a "typical Tory" seems to be rather counter-intuitive to my philosophy.
How on earth can anyone not believe in both the significance of the individual and the significance of communities?
I believe in both. A community is made up of many individuals.
You don't. Your knee jerk espousal of the term nimby outs you as a communitarian through and through. The thinking behind the term is, how dare individual ants own private property, seek to protect its value, and seek to preserve the amenity of their own particular part of the environment, when the requirements of the hive dictate otherwise?
This has nothing at all to do with the substantive merits of any discussion about housebuilding. It's the terminology which damns you.
Don't be ridiculous.
NIMBYs are the communitarian ones wanting to halt other people developing their land in order to protect the value of the NIMBYs home.
If you don't want someone else developing their land then you buy it yourself. Otherwise its not your land and the owner should be able to do as they please.
You're doing it again. You don't recognise individuals as individuals, only as crude economic actors. You are neither an individualist nor a conservative.
Of course I recognise individuals as individuals and those individuals should be free to do what they want with their land.
You think telling people they can't build homes in order to protect the value of existing homes like some dodgy cartel is a good thing. I do not.
So no planning controls at all, then?
Classic libertarian position: my home is my castle. I couldn`t disagree more with PT over this.
Your home absolutely. Not other people's homes.
Thing is, you hold individuals in higher regard than I do. If you allow people to do what they want with their property, lack of good taste and poor choices and poor quality of workmanship works to the detriment of everyone in the communty and the environment in general.
Some of my neighbours in our village take your view and moan like heck when a conservation or planning officer refuses them permission to proceed with some abomination or another. In contrast, I see these officers as arbiters of good taste.
Taste is a matter of opinion.
If a neighbour wants to build a pink house with a chimney designed to look like a lollipop and candy cane striped roof then I might think that is in terrible taste but if that's their choice so be it. Diversity makes somewhere interesting and I'm not sure that building nothing but tiny, uniform identikit homes is progress.
Every December some neighbours go OTT in Christmas lights that may be considered "bad taste" but again that is their choice. Do with your own home whatever you find tasteful.
Shoddy workmanship is a different matter. I said that safety standards should exist. But safety standards are a different matter to taste.
What if I wanted to build a house that looked like a caricature of a Jew from Der Stürmer?
I hope people (in general not on PB) aren't overreacting once again to the infamous "Tuesday figures" which are always worse than the other days of the week, and have been for about 6 months. It gets a bit tedious.
Well i am sure the media are explaining the situation correctly...has a quick check..nope...yes they talk about cases were much higher in March / April, but still using date of reporting for cases and deaths, etc. Same old bollocks.
I mentioned what a splendid hard hitting political journalist he was on Granada Reports. Not the fluffy daytime guff he is known for nationally. He could have been a Paxman or Andrew Neill had he chosen. Didn't say I agree with him, but he is no political ingenue.
Well, you - as a presumably typical Tory - are always talking about sending the tanks into Scotland and the task forces to invade Spain.
I don't believe HYUFD is a "typical Tory".
Well I am more so than you are certainly
I don't claim to be typical.
I am me. I don't want to be typical.
How typical is that?
Good question.
My philosophy is one where I fundamentally believe in individualism and not communitarianism.
As such fitting in a mould as HYUFD tries to do as a "typical Tory" seems to be rather counter-intuitive to my philosophy.
Indeed you are more a Liberal or libertarian than a traditional Tory.
The Tory Party was originally the party of the monarchy, landed gentry and the Anglican church and as you are a republican atheist you can never really be a true Tory
Indeed. But the Conservatives have long appealed to traditional liberals and libertarians. If the Conservatives only won the votes of traditional landed gentry like yourself then the party would long since have faded away to being a tiny minority of the electorate.
Since the Liberal Democrats are as a truly liberal as a Democratic Republic is truly a democracy that leaves me nowhere else to go.
Davey is more in the traditional Liberal mould but yes I do agree both the Tories and Labour need to appeal beyond their conservative and socialist core vote to win enough liberal support to win a general election
We were reminded in one session at the recent Lib Dem Conference about the standpoint of Jo Grimond on this: I don´t like the Tories and I don´t trust Labour. Nowadays one might well add: I don´t trust the Tories either.
Poor old HY is totally confused on this. There is no way that the despicable, shambolic and oppressive Johnson-Cummings government could ever appeal to liberals.
It did for many last year when the alternative was Corbyn
No one likes spam (hyperbole I know) however if you have to eat and you are offered spam or a huge steaming pile of camel faeces I think most humans will pick spam. While the choice wasn't quite so extreme liberals voting tory in preference to Corbyn shouldn't be taken as a sign that they don't despise you. Merely they despised you less than the alternative
I bloody love spam. Spam fritters on white bread and butter with red sauce? Bloody hell that's living.
I hope people (in general not on PB) aren't overreacting once again to the infamous "Tuesday figures" which are always worse than the other days of the week, and have been for about 6 months. It gets a bit tedious.
Well i am sure the media are explaining the situation correctly...has a quick check..nope...yes they talk about cases were much higher in March / April, but still using date of reporting for cases and deaths, etc. Same old bollocks.
On Radio 4 a few seconds ago the presenter said "There has been a sharp jump in coronovirus cases in the uk". Trouble is, listeners may conclude from this that there has been a sharp jump in the number of coronavirus cases in the UK.
The media cannot be innumerate to the degree they present as innumerate.
The reporting of it is utterly disgraceful, and has been throughout. It has caused me to stop watching the BBC – a trusted source yet the worst of them all.
No wonder most people assess their risk from covid as several orders of magnitude higher than their actual risk.
6 f##king months of this bollocks, every day. Surely as well as sending them all on a diversity course to stop them saying nitty gritty they could have done a couple of hours training on covid data.
From talking to some journalists - it seems they regard as number that "creates a story" as news. When you point out the issues with lying is stats, the response is "what is truth anyway?"
Note that the analysis pieces on the BBC avoid this, for example.
It goes some way to explaining how fake news stuff works in normal media - its a number, its a story....
Well, you - as a presumably typical Tory - are always talking about sending the tanks into Scotland and the task forces to invade Spain.
I don't believe HYUFD is a "typical Tory".
Well I am more so than you are certainly
I don't claim to be typical.
I am me. I don't want to be typical.
How typical is that?
Good question.
My philosophy is one where I fundamentally believe in individualism and not communitarianism.
As such fitting in a mould as HYUFD tries to do as a "typical Tory" seems to be rather counter-intuitive to my philosophy.
How on earth can anyone not believe in both the significance of the individual and the significance of communities?
I believe in both. A community is made up of many individuals.
You don't. Your knee jerk espousal of the term nimby outs you as a communitarian through and through. The thinking behind the term is, how dare individual ants own private property, seek to protect its value, and seek to preserve the amenity of their own particular part of the environment, when the requirements of the hive dictate otherwise?
This has nothing at all to do with the substantive merits of any discussion about housebuilding. It's the terminology which damns you.
Don't be ridiculous.
NIMBYs are the communitarian ones wanting to halt other people developing their land in order to protect the value of the NIMBYs home.
If you don't want someone else developing their land then you buy it yourself. Otherwise its not your land and the owner should be able to do as they please.
You're doing it again. You don't recognise individuals as individuals, only as crude economic actors. You are neither an individualist nor a conservative.
Of course I recognise individuals as individuals and those individuals should be free to do what they want with their land.
You think telling people they can't build homes in order to protect the value of existing homes like some dodgy cartel is a good thing. I do not.
it is strange how the Conservative wish for people to live on their own land as they wish never extends to Travellers.
I have no qualms with Travellers living on their own land as they choose.
I object to Travellers invading and squating on other people's land. But what they do with their own land I couldn't care less about.
Well, you - as a presumably typical Tory - are always talking about sending the tanks into Scotland and the task forces to invade Spain.
I don't believe HYUFD is a "typical Tory".
Well I am more so than you are certainly
I don't claim to be typical.
I am me. I don't want to be typical.
How typical is that?
Good question.
My philosophy is one where I fundamentally believe in individualism and not communitarianism.
As such fitting in a mould as HYUFD tries to do as a "typical Tory" seems to be rather counter-intuitive to my philosophy.
How on earth can anyone not believe in both the significance of the individual and the significance of communities?
I believe in both. A community is made up of many individuals.
You don't. Your knee jerk espousal of the term nimby outs you as a communitarian through and through. The thinking behind the term is, how dare individual ants own private property, seek to protect its value, and seek to preserve the amenity of their own particular part of the environment, when the requirements of the hive dictate otherwise?
This has nothing at all to do with the substantive merits of any discussion about housebuilding. It's the terminology which damns you.
Don't be ridiculous.
NIMBYs are the communitarian ones wanting to halt other people developing their land in order to protect the value of the NIMBYs home.
If you don't want someone else developing their land then you buy it yourself. Otherwise its not your land and the owner should be able to do as they please.
You're doing it again. You don't recognise individuals as individuals, only as crude economic actors. You are neither an individualist nor a conservative.
Of course I recognise individuals as individuals and those individuals should be free to do what they want with their land.
You think telling people they can't build homes in order to protect the value of existing homes like some dodgy cartel is a good thing. I do not.
So no planning controls at all, then?
Classic libertarian position: my home is my castle. I couldn`t disagree more with PT over this.
Your home absolutely. Not other people's homes.
Thing is, you hold individuals in higher regard than I do. If you allow people to do what they want with their property, lack of good taste and poor choices and poor quality of workmanship works to the detriment of everyone in the communty and the environment in general.
Some of my neighbours in our village take your view and moan like heck when a conservation or planning officer refuses them permission to proceed with some abomination or another. In contrast, I see these officers as arbiters of good taste.
Taste is a matter of opinion.
If a neighbour wants to build a pink house with a chimney designed to look like a lollipop and candy cane striped roof then I might think that is in terrible taste but if that's their choice so be it. Diversity makes somewhere interesting and I'm not sure that building nothing but tiny, uniform identikit homes is progress.
Every December some neighbours go OTT in Christmas lights that may be considered "bad taste" but again that is their choice. Do with your own home whatever you find tasteful.
Shoddy workmanship is a different matter. I said that safety standards should exist. But safety standards are a different matter to taste.
What if I wanted to build a house that looked like a caricature of a Jew from Der Stürmer?
I hope people (in general not on PB) aren't overreacting once again to the infamous "Tuesday figures" which are always worse than the other days of the week, and have been for about 6 months. It gets a bit tedious.
Well i am sure the media are explaining the situation correctly...has a quick check..nope...yes they talk about cases were much higher in March / April, but still using date of reporting for cases and deaths, etc. Same old bollocks.
Does it really matter if they are using date of reporting for cases and deaths?
What is important is the trend, and that is conveyed perfectly well by the date of reporting data in this context given that it represents an integral weighted over the past few days. In fact, it makes more sense than reporting the cases by specimen date since this always gives an artificial tail-off for the last few days.
I agree though that it is not sensible to focus on individual days - the 7-day average is a much better indicator (but has a 3-day delay if used properly).
Well, you - as a presumably typical Tory - are always talking about sending the tanks into Scotland and the task forces to invade Spain.
I don't believe HYUFD is a "typical Tory".
Well I am more so than you are certainly
I don't claim to be typical.
I am me. I don't want to be typical.
How typical is that?
Good question.
My philosophy is one where I fundamentally believe in individualism and not communitarianism.
As such fitting in a mould as HYUFD tries to do as a "typical Tory" seems to be rather counter-intuitive to my philosophy.
How on earth can anyone not believe in both the significance of the individual and the significance of communities?
I believe in both. A community is made up of many individuals.
You don't. Your knee jerk espousal of the term nimby outs you as a communitarian through and through. The thinking behind the term is, how dare individual ants own private property, seek to protect its value, and seek to preserve the amenity of their own particular part of the environment, when the requirements of the hive dictate otherwise?
This has nothing at all to do with the substantive merits of any discussion about housebuilding. It's the terminology which damns you.
Don't be ridiculous.
NIMBYs are the communitarian ones wanting to halt other people developing their land in order to protect the value of the NIMBYs home.
If you don't want someone else developing their land then you buy it yourself. Otherwise its not your land and the owner should be able to do as they please.
You're doing it again. You don't recognise individuals as individuals, only as crude economic actors. You are neither an individualist nor a conservative.
Of course I recognise individuals as individuals and those individuals should be free to do what they want with their land.
You think telling people they can't build homes in order to protect the value of existing homes like some dodgy cartel is a good thing. I do not.
So no planning controls at all, then?
Classic libertarian position: my home is my castle. I couldn`t disagree more with PT over this.
Your home absolutely. Not other people's homes.
Thing is, you hold individuals in higher regard than I do. If you allow people to do what they want with their property, lack of good taste and poor choices and poor quality of workmanship works to the detriment of everyone in the communty and the environment in general.
Some of my neighbours in our village take your view and moan like heck when a conservation or planning officer refuses them permission to proceed with some abomination or another. In contrast, I see these officers as arbiters of good taste.
Taste is a matter of opinion.
If a neighbour wants to build a pink house with a chimney designed to look like a lollipop and candy cane striped roof then I might think that is in terrible taste but if that's their choice so be it. Diversity makes somewhere interesting and I'm not sure that building nothing but tiny, uniform identikit homes is progress.
Every December some neighbours go OTT in Christmas lights that may be considered "bad taste" but again that is their choice. Do with your own home whatever you find tasteful.
Shoddy workmanship is a different matter. I said that safety standards should exist. But safety standards are a different matter to taste.
What if I wanted to build a house that looked like a caricature of a Jew from Der Stürmer?
Would that be a simple matter of taste?
I don't think that should be covered by planning regulations.
More likely if someone was to design something offensive like that it would be more likely to be a hedge or similar. Doing that is illegal as a public order offence not via planning regulations.
Wasn't the red curve "what will happen if we don't do anything"? Given that we have done something, I don't understand why anyone would expect the curves to match. Being generous, the difference between the red and blue curves is a measure of the our success in slowing the spread.
Well, you - as a presumably typical Tory - are always talking about sending the tanks into Scotland and the task forces to invade Spain.
I don't believe HYUFD is a "typical Tory".
Well I am more so than you are certainly
I don't claim to be typical.
I am me. I don't want to be typical.
How typical is that?
Good question.
My philosophy is one where I fundamentally believe in individualism and not communitarianism.
As such fitting in a mould as HYUFD tries to do as a "typical Tory" seems to be rather counter-intuitive to my philosophy.
How on earth can anyone not believe in both the significance of the individual and the significance of communities?
I believe in both. A community is made up of many individuals.
You don't. Your knee jerk espousal of the term nimby outs you as a communitarian through and through. The thinking behind the term is, how dare individual ants own private property, seek to protect its value, and seek to preserve the amenity of their own particular part of the environment, when the requirements of the hive dictate otherwise?
This has nothing at all to do with the substantive merits of any discussion about housebuilding. It's the terminology which damns you.
Don't be ridiculous.
NIMBYs are the communitarian ones wanting to halt other people developing their land in order to protect the value of the NIMBYs home.
If you don't want someone else developing their land then you buy it yourself. Otherwise its not your land and the owner should be able to do as they please.
You're doing it again. You don't recognise individuals as individuals, only as crude economic actors. You are neither an individualist nor a conservative.
Of course I recognise individuals as individuals and those individuals should be free to do what they want with their land.
You think telling people they can't build homes in order to protect the value of existing homes like some dodgy cartel is a good thing. I do not.
So no planning controls at all, then?
Classic libertarian position: my home is my castle. I couldn`t disagree more with PT over this.
Your home absolutely. Not other people's homes.
Thing is, you hold individuals in higher regard than I do. If you allow people to do what they want with their property, lack of good taste and poor choices and poor quality of workmanship works to the detriment of everyone in the communty and the environment in general.
Some of my neighbours in our village take your view and moan like heck when a conservation or planning officer refuses them permission to proceed with some abomination or another. In contrast, I see these officers as arbiters of good taste.
Taste is a matter of opinion.
If a neighbour wants to build a pink house with a chimney designed to look like a lollipop and candy cane striped roof then I might think that is in terrible taste but if that's their choice so be it. Diversity makes somewhere interesting and I'm not sure that building nothing but tiny, uniform identikit homes is progress.
Every December some neighbours go OTT in Christmas lights that may be considered "bad taste" but again that is their choice. Do with your own home whatever you find tasteful.
Shoddy workmanship is a different matter. I said that safety standards should exist. But safety standards are a different matter to taste.
What if I wanted to build a house that looked like a caricature of a Jew from Der Stürmer?
Would that be a simple matter of taste?
What if Boris Johnson had applied the mortar to your brickwork ?
Positivity rates now are different so apples and oranges. True infections will be higher.
The truth looks like this, I believe -
Would be interesting to see Covid hospitalisation rates included in this graph (adjusted for a 2 or 3 week lag for infections to become hospitalisations).
Wasn't the red curve "what will happen if we don't do anything"? Given that we have done something, I don't understand why anyone would expect the curves to match. Being generous, the difference between the red and blue curves is a measure of the our success in slowing the spread.
Partly. And the red line was a worst-case scenario. Unfair to use Vallence`s projection in this way.
I hope people (in general not on PB) aren't overreacting once again to the infamous "Tuesday figures" which are always worse than the other days of the week, and have been for about 6 months. It gets a bit tedious.
Well i am sure the media are explaining the situation correctly...has a quick check..nope...yes they talk about cases were much higher in March / April, but still using date of reporting for cases and deaths, etc. Same old bollocks.
Does it really matter if they are using date of reporting for cases and deaths?
What is important is the trend, and that is conveyed perfectly well by the date of reporting data in this context given that it represents an integral weighted over the past few days. In fact, it makes more sense than reporting the cases by specimen date since this always gives an artificial tail-off for the last few days.
I agree though that it is not sensible to focus on individual days - the 7-day average is a much better indicator (but has a 3-day delay if used properly).
The problem is that the weekend effect is quite strong for cases - so they get piled on for Tuesday-Friday and then it goes quieter on the weekend...
Well, you - as a presumably typical Tory - are always talking about sending the tanks into Scotland and the task forces to invade Spain.
I don't believe HYUFD is a "typical Tory".
Well I am more so than you are certainly
I don't claim to be typical.
I am me. I don't want to be typical.
How typical is that?
Good question.
My philosophy is one where I fundamentally believe in individualism and not communitarianism.
As such fitting in a mould as HYUFD tries to do as a "typical Tory" seems to be rather counter-intuitive to my philosophy.
How on earth can anyone not believe in both the significance of the individual and the significance of communities?
I believe in both. A community is made up of many individuals.
You don't. Your knee jerk espousal of the term nimby outs you as a communitarian through and through. The thinking behind the term is, how dare individual ants own private property, seek to protect its value, and seek to preserve the amenity of their own particular part of the environment, when the requirements of the hive dictate otherwise?
This has nothing at all to do with the substantive merits of any discussion about housebuilding. It's the terminology which damns you.
Don't be ridiculous.
NIMBYs are the communitarian ones wanting to halt other people developing their land in order to protect the value of the NIMBYs home.
If you don't want someone else developing their land then you buy it yourself. Otherwise its not your land and the owner should be able to do as they please.
You're doing it again. You don't recognise individuals as individuals, only as crude economic actors. You are neither an individualist nor a conservative.
Of course I recognise individuals as individuals and those individuals should be free to do what they want with their land.
You think telling people they can't build homes in order to protect the value of existing homes like some dodgy cartel is a good thing. I do not.
So no planning controls at all, then?
Classic libertarian position: my home is my castle. I couldn`t disagree more with PT over this.
Your home absolutely. Not other people's homes.
Thing is, you hold individuals in higher regard than I do. If you allow people to do what they want with their property, lack of good taste and poor choices and poor quality of workmanship works to the detriment of everyone in the communty and the environment in general.
Some of my neighbours in our village take your view and moan like heck when a conservation or planning officer refuses them permission to proceed with some abomination or another. In contrast, I see these officers as arbiters of good taste.
Taste is a matter of opinion.
If a neighbour wants to build a pink house with a chimney designed to look like a lollipop and candy cane striped roof then I might think that is in terrible taste but if that's their choice so be it. Diversity makes somewhere interesting and I'm not sure that building nothing but tiny, uniform identikit homes is progress.
Every December some neighbours go OTT in Christmas lights that may be considered "bad taste" but again that is their choice. Do with your own home whatever you find tasteful.
Shoddy workmanship is a different matter. I said that safety standards should exist. But safety standards are a different matter to taste.
What if I wanted to build a house that looked like a caricature of a Jew from Der Stürmer?
Would that be a simple matter of taste?
The Swansea "House that looks like Hitler" is a local attraction.
I'm looking at shots of the inside of the debate hall, and those seats in the audience are not socially spaced 6 feet, and it looks like from eyeballing that there are more than 70 of them. Maybe they'll space them at the last minute.
I hope people (in general not on PB) aren't overreacting once again to the infamous "Tuesday figures" which are always worse than the other days of the week, and have been for about 6 months. It gets a bit tedious.
Well i am sure the media are explaining the situation correctly...has a quick check..nope...yes they talk about cases were much higher in March / April, but still using date of reporting for cases and deaths, etc. Same old bollocks.
Does it really matter if they are using date of reporting for cases and deaths?
What is important is the trend, and that is conveyed perfectly well by the date of reporting data in this context given that it represents an integral weighted over the past few days. In fact, it makes more sense than reporting the cases by specimen date since this always gives an artificial tail-off for the last few days.
I agree though that it is not sensible to focus on individual days - the 7-day average is a much better indicator (but has a 3-day delay if used properly).
The problem is that the weekend effect is quite strong for cases - so they get piled on for Tuesday-Friday and then it goes quieter on the weekend...
Yes, that's why I agreed that its important to use the 7-day average.
I hope people (in general not on PB) aren't overreacting once again to the infamous "Tuesday figures" which are always worse than the other days of the week, and have been for about 6 months. It gets a bit tedious.
Well i am sure the media are explaining the situation correctly...has a quick check..nope...yes they talk about cases were much higher in March / April, but still using date of reporting for cases and deaths, etc. Same old bollocks.
Does it really matter if they are using date of reporting for cases and deaths?
What is important is the trend, and that is conveyed perfectly well by the date of reporting data in this context given that it represents an integral weighted over the past few days. In fact, it makes more sense than reporting the cases by specimen date since this always gives an artificial tail-off for the last few days.
I agree though that it is not sensible to focus on individual days - the 7-day average is a much better indicator (but has a 3-day delay if used properly).
The problem is that the weekend effect is quite strong for cases - so they get piled on for Tuesday-Friday and then it goes quieter on the weekend...
Yes, that's why I agreed that its important to use the 7-day average.
Using the reporting date just bollocks things up more. Since we have the specimen date in the data - why not use it and apply the 7 day average to that?
If the Duchess of Sussex does have presidential ambitions, would she have to drop the title? The constitution only forbids someone in office from accepting one, I don't think it forbids people who already have one.
If she didn't specifically renounce it before running, I suspect that the Titles of Nobility amendment might get resurrected from its constitutional slumber and quickly acrue enough state ratifications to be adopted.
I certainly hope not though, as its prohibition on American citizens from accepting "any pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power", on pain of losing citizenship, would be a disaster for me as I'd have to chose between taking my UK local government and state pensions when I retire or retaining my American citizenship.
BTW, while the US citizenship process includes having to renounce one's previous "allegiance" the US does not require new citizens whose current country allows dual citizenship to actually go through any process with the other country to renounce that nor show evidence that they have. However, the application form also includes a question on whether one has a title of nobility and if you tick "yes" you do have to renounce it and show that you have done so before you can become a US citizen.
Having gone through the US citizenship process, as has my wife, I can tell you that there was a Supreme Court case over the requirement to renounce your previous citizenship, and they found that you did not have to renounce your previous allegiance. So we both have dual UK-US citizenship. My daughter went the other way. She started as a US citizen and got her UK citizenship afterwards. She has both also. Other countries - Norway for example - do not allow dual citizenship, so on becoming a US citizen, Norway insists on you renouncing your Norwegian citizenship.
That's not quite right. You do still have to "absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen" as part of the US citizenship oath. What SCOTUS ruled is that the US cannot compel naturalized citizens from going through any specific renunciation process with their original country either as a pre-condition of naturalizing nor afterwards. The State Department then tried to rule that if a naturalized American exercised any rights of a citizen of their other country, such as voting in its elections or serving in its government. Specifically, SCOTUS ruled that once acquired, US citizenship cannot lost through any act deemed by the US government as "expatriating" unless the US citizen clearly intended to give up their citizenship by doing so. Proving such intent unless the the citizen specifically makes a written or witnessed statement of such is of course next to impossible.
And if anything the US now actively tries to hinder Americans from losing their US citizenship even if they really want to, as the State Department perceives most such people's motivation as being primarily to avoid taxation by the US. The fee to renounce US citizenship at US consulate is now several thousand dollars, and you have to show that you're fully paid up with the IRS first.
Thing is, you hold individuals in higher regard than I do. If you allow people to do what they want with their property, lack of good taste and poor choices and poor quality of workmanship works to the detriment of everyone in the communty and the environment in general.
Some of my neighbours in our village take your view and moan like heck when a conservation or planning officer refuses them permission to proceed with some abomination or another. In contrast, I see these officers as arbiters of good taste.
It's an interesting discussion. I tend to Philip's view on this, partly because I like diversity and think it's interesting if someone wants to make their home looks like a giant snail or whatever. Those London squares where every house looks exactly like every other house look boring, in my view. That's just a difference in taste, and I'm not sure either of us should be in a position to insist.
But also, socialist though I am on economic matters, I'd like people to be free at a personal level. It seems a pity that the debate about huge inequalities of wealth - which seem to me an abomination, especially if inherited - spills over into differences in taste. I don't see why you shouldn't dress any way you want, sleep with whichever consenting adult(s) you like, eat whatever food you prefer, and decorate your home as you fancy (all subject to obvious general rules on not inciting to hatred, etc.). It's a different issue from the left/right argument on wealth.
We are approaching 100 deaths a day, which was when we locked down originally
We definitely aren't.
If the cases and deaths continue to increase, another lockdown is inevitable
We don't know that they are still increasing. Hospital admissions have already stabilised and from what the early data looks like the 23rd and 24th look a peak of sorts. We'll need to see how it develops over the next few days though. Based in hospital admissions over the last few days the R is approaching 1 already. Using single day data isn't a good way of making decisions, though I'm sure Boris and Wormtongue are already panicking because neither of them understands how to work with data.
Wasn't the red curve "what will happen if we don't do anything"? Given that we have done something, I don't understand why anyone would expect the curves to match. Being generous, the difference between the red and blue curves is a measure of the our success in slowing the spread.
Most people posting COVID-19 related graphs on their Twitter feed — obivously excluding the people here — are complete spanners making stupid points.
Unusually for this chaotic capricious government, its closing stuff at 10pm policy does appear to be being copied around the world
I believe some other countries/regions did something similar before we did, but, yes, you are right, it is a measure which others are taking.
I seem to be in a minority in thinking it's actually very sensible. A lot of the bad outbreaks around the world have been traced back to bars and nightclubs, and you have to have led a very sheltered life not to understand that as the night goes on the socialising becomes, err, less distanced (and with more shouting, and with less caution). The fact that there's a crowd at Oxford Circus just after 10pm doesn't mean it's a bad policy, and not does the fact that some people might go to someone's home and keep drinking. It's all about the numbers and the overall statistical effect.
We are approaching 100 deaths a day, which was when we locked down originally
We definitely aren't.
If the cases and deaths continue to increase, another lockdown is inevitable
No, I don't think another lockdown along the lines of March 23rd would be ordered. The current restrictions cannot be described as anything like lockdown.
We have better understanding of transmission, social distancing and mask wearing are now the norm, restaurants, churches, shops, businesses, health and educational establishments all now have reasonable protocols etc. We are in a much better place in terms of preparation for a less draconian approach.
I hope people (in general not on PB) aren't overreacting once again to the infamous "Tuesday figures" which are always worse than the other days of the week, and have been for about 6 months. It gets a bit tedious.
Well i am sure the media are explaining the situation correctly...has a quick check..nope...yes they talk about cases were much higher in March / April, but still using date of reporting for cases and deaths, etc. Same old bollocks.
Does it really matter if they are using date of reporting for cases and deaths?
What is important is the trend, and that is conveyed perfectly well by the date of reporting data in this context given that it represents an integral weighted over the past few days. In fact, it makes more sense than reporting the cases by specimen date since this always gives an artificial tail-off for the last few days.
I agree though that it is not sensible to focus on individual days - the 7-day average is a much better indicator (but has a 3-day delay if used properly).
The problem is that the weekend effect is quite strong for cases - so they get piled on for Tuesday-Friday and then it goes quieter on the weekend...
Yes, that's why I agreed that its important to use the 7-day average.
Using the reporting date just bollocks things up more. Since we have the specimen date in the data - why not use it and apply the 7 day average to that?
For the reason that I just stated. Given the delays in processing, the specimen data is not a good approximation to the actual number of cases per day for recent days because of its incompleteness. The use of the reported date, while also inaccurate, does, I think, give a better indication of the current trend in cases. It is incorrect, but it is always similarly incorrect.
Thing is, you hold individuals in higher regard than I do. If you allow people to do what they want with their property, lack of good taste and poor choices and poor quality of workmanship works to the detriment of everyone in the communty and the environment in general.
Some of my neighbours in our village take your view and moan like heck when a conservation or planning officer refuses them permission to proceed with some abomination or another. In contrast, I see these officers as arbiters of good taste.
It's an interesting discussion. I tend to Philip's view on this, partly because I like diversity and think it's interesting if someone wants to make their home looks like a giant snail or whatever. Those London squares where every house looks exactly like every other house look boring, in my view. That's just a difference in taste, and I'm not sure either of us should be in a position to insist.
But also, socialist though I am on economic matters, I'd like people to be free at a personal level. It seems a pity that the debate about huge inequalities of wealth - which seem to me an abomination, especially if inherited - spills over into differences in taste. I don't see why you shouldn't dress any way you want, sleep with whichever consenting adult(s) you like, eat whatever food you prefer, and decorate your home as you fancy (all subject to obvious general rules on not inciting to hatred, etc.). It's a different issue from the left/right argument on wealth.
So all we have to do to terminate your local government career is move into your ward, submit our giant snail proposal 🐌 and luxuriate in your fulsome support, taking care to boast about it to everyone we meet...
Wasn't the red curve "what will happen if we don't do anything"? Given that we have done something, I don't understand why anyone would expect the curves to match. Being generous, the difference between the red and blue curves is a measure of the our success in slowing the spread.
Yes, it was a free option for Vallance, Whitty et al - show a highly unlikely scenario, and then, when it doesn't happen, call the restrictions a success. If it happens, you were right to be wary. How could they lose?
Unusually for this chaotic capricious government, its closing stuff at 10pm policy does appear to be being copied around the world
I believe some other countries/regions did something similar before we did, but, yes, you are right, it is a measure which others are taking.
I seem to be in a minority in thinking it's actually very sensible. A lot of the bad outbreaks around the world have been traced back to bars and nightclubs, and you have to have led a very sheltered life not to understand that as the night goes on the socialising becomes, err, less distanced (and with more shouting, and with less caution). The fact that there's a crowd at Oxford Circus just after 10pm doesn't mean it's a bad policy, and not does the fact that some people might go to someone's home and keep drinking. It's all about the numbers and the overall statistical effect.
Yeah fuck all of those people who depend on actually working in restaurants, bars and pubs. I mean they don't really need jobs do they?
Unusually for this chaotic capricious government, its closing stuff at 10pm policy does appear to be being copied around the world
I believe some other countries/regions did something similar before we did, but, yes, you are right, it is a measure which others are taking.
I seem to be in a minority in thinking it's actually very sensible. A lot of the bad outbreaks around the world have been traced back to bars and nightclubs, and you have to have led a very sheltered life not to understand that as the night goes on the socialising becomes, err, less distanced (and with more shouting, and with less caution). The fact that there's a crowd at Oxford Circus just after 10pm doesn't mean it's a bad policy, and not does the fact that some people might go to someone's home and keep drinking. It's all about the numbers and the overall statistical effect.
I too think it a reasonable balance between keeping pubs and restaurants open, and controlling spread. The alternative is going to takeaway only, or even shutting completely.
We are approaching 100 deaths a day, which was when we locked down originally
We definitely aren't.
If the cases and deaths continue to increase, another lockdown is inevitable
No, I don't think another lockdown along the lines of March 23rd would be ordered. The current restrictions cannot be described as anything like lockdown.
We have better understanding of transmission, social distancing and mask wearing are now the norm, restaurants, churches, shops, businesses, health and educational establishments all now have reasonable protocols etc. We are in a much better place in terms of preparation for a less draconian approach.
This is all true, and yet with Boris and Wormtongue in charge we can rule nothing out. Both of them are absolutely clueless.
Well, you - as a presumably typical Tory - are always talking about sending the tanks into Scotland and the task forces to invade Spain.
I don't believe HYUFD is a "typical Tory".
Well I am more so than you are certainly
I don't claim to be typical.
I am me. I don't want to be typical.
How typical is that?
Good question.
My philosophy is one where I fundamentally believe in individualism and not communitarianism.
As such fitting in a mould as HYUFD tries to do as a "typical Tory" seems to be rather counter-intuitive to my philosophy.
How on earth can anyone not believe in both the significance of the individual and the significance of communities?
I believe in both. A community is made up of many individuals.
You don't. Your knee jerk espousal of the term nimby outs you as a communitarian through and through. The thinking behind the term is, how dare individual ants own private property, seek to protect its value, and seek to preserve the amenity of their own particular part of the environment, when the requirements of the hive dictate otherwise?
This has nothing at all to do with the substantive merits of any discussion about housebuilding. It's the terminology which damns you.
Don't be ridiculous.
NIMBYs are the communitarian ones wanting to halt other people developing their land in order to protect the value of the NIMBYs home.
If you don't want someone else developing their land then you buy it yourself. Otherwise its not your land and the owner should be able to do as they please.
You're doing it again. You don't recognise individuals as individuals, only as crude economic actors. You are neither an individualist nor a conservative.
Of course I recognise individuals as individuals and those individuals should be free to do what they want with their land.
You think telling people they can't build homes in order to protect the value of existing homes like some dodgy cartel is a good thing. I do not.
So no planning controls at all, then?
Classic libertarian position: my home is my castle. I couldn`t disagree more with PT over this.
Your home absolutely. Not other people's homes.
Thing is, you hold individuals in higher regard than I do. If you allow people to do what they want with their property, lack of good taste and poor choices and poor quality of workmanship works to the detriment of everyone in the communty and the environment in general.
Some of my neighbours in our village take your view and moan like heck when a conservation or planning officer refuses them permission to proceed with some abomination or another. In contrast, I see these officers as arbiters of good taste.
Taste is a matter of opinion.
If a neighbour wants to build a pink house with a chimney designed to look like a lollipop and candy cane striped roof then I might think that is in terrible taste but if that's their choice so be it. Diversity makes somewhere interesting and I'm not sure that building nothing but tiny, uniform identikit homes is progress.
Every December some neighbours go OTT in Christmas lights that may be considered "bad taste" but again that is their choice. Do with your own home whatever you find tasteful.
Shoddy workmanship is a different matter. I said that safety standards should exist. But safety standards are a different matter to taste.
What if I wanted to build a house that looked like a caricature of a Jew from Der Stürmer?
Would that be a simple matter of taste?
I don't think that should be covered by planning regulations.
More likely if someone was to design something offensive like that it would be more likely to be a hedge or similar. Doing that is illegal as a public order offence not via planning regulations.
Just so long as it is covered somewhere in the law. An Englishman's home is his castle, sure, but that is sometimes outweighed by other considerations, and lewd or otherwise offensive topiary is one such example.
We are approaching 100 deaths a day, which was when we locked down originally
We definitely aren't.
If the cases and deaths continue to increase, another lockdown is inevitable
No, I don't think another lockdown along the lines of March 23rd would be ordered. The current restrictions cannot be described as anything like lockdown.
We have better understanding of transmission, social distancing and mask wearing are now the norm, restaurants, churches, shops, businesses, health and educational establishments all now have reasonable protocols etc. We are in a much better place in terms of preparation for a less draconian approach.
Let`s hope that your sensible view takes hold.
On churches, a friend was telling me that her church is now open for business. They play their hymns as normal but are not allowed to sing. So they sit there wearing their masks and humming. This amused me for some reason.
We are approaching 100 deaths a day, which was when we locked down originally
We definitely aren't.
If the cases and deaths continue to increase, another lockdown is inevitable
No, I don't think another lockdown along the lines of March 23rd would be ordered. The current restrictions cannot be described as anything like lockdown.
We have better understanding of transmission, social distancing and mask wearing are now the norm, restaurants, churches, shops, businesses, health and educational establishments all now have reasonable protocols etc. We are in a much better place in terms of preparation for a less draconian approach.
This is all true, and yet with Boris and Wormtongue in charge we can rule nothing out. Both of them are absolutely clueless.
I agree and I say this as a working class Conservative
I'm looking at shots of the inside of the debate hall, and those seats in the audience are not socially spaced 6 feet, and it looks like from eyeballing that there are more than 70 of them. Maybe they'll space them at the last minute.
Nevermind the drug tests, have they been covid tested?
Wasn't the red curve "what will happen if we don't do anything"? Given that we have done something, I don't understand why anyone would expect the curves to match. Being generous, the difference between the red and blue curves is a measure of the our success in slowing the spread.
Yes, it was a free option for Vallance, Whitty et al - show a highly unlikely scenario, and then, when it doesn't happen, call the restrictions a success. If it happens, you were right to be wary. How could they lose?
WTF are you talking about? Free option?? It was simply a statement of what would be likely to happen if no action were taken. How is this so hard to understand?
God knows I'm no fan of Boris or this government, but there really is some bollocks being spouted here!
Unusually for this chaotic capricious government, its closing stuff at 10pm policy does appear to be being copied around the world
I believe some other countries/regions did something similar before we did, but, yes, you are right, it is a measure which others are taking.
I seem to be in a minority in thinking it's actually very sensible. A lot of the bad outbreaks around the world have been traced back to bars and nightclubs, and you have to have led a very sheltered life not to understand that as the night goes on the socialising becomes, err, less distanced (and with more shouting, and with less caution). The fact that there's a crowd at Oxford Circus just after 10pm doesn't mean it's a bad policy, and not does the fact that some people might go to someone's home and keep drinking. It's all about the numbers and the overall statistical effect.
Yeah fuck all of those people who depend on actually working in restaurants, bars and pubs. I mean they don't really need jobs do they?
I'm trying to recall what Admiral King said when, during the Second Happy Time off the East Coast of the US, the holiday resort mayors refused to switch off the illuminations.
Mind you, the photos the Germans were taking of the illuminations were lovely.
Unusually for this chaotic capricious government, its closing stuff at 10pm policy does appear to be being copied around the world
I believe some other countries/regions did something similar before we did, but, yes, you are right, it is a measure which others are taking.
I seem to be in a minority in thinking it's actually very sensible. A lot of the bad outbreaks around the world have been traced back to bars and nightclubs, and you have to have led a very sheltered life not to understand that as the night goes on the socialising becomes, err, less distanced (and with more shouting, and with less caution). The fact that there's a crowd at Oxford Circus just after 10pm doesn't mean it's a bad policy, and not does the fact that some people might go to someone's home and keep drinking. It's all about the numbers and the overall statistical effect.
Yeah fuck all of those people who depend on actually working in restaurants, bars and pubs. I mean they don't really need jobs do they?
Now you are being daft. The choice isn't between this measure and doing nothing, it's trying to find the least damaging set of measures which reduce the spread. If you do nothing, those jobs are definitely going, either because people will vote with their feet or more likely that the government will be forced to close those bars, restaurants and pubs* completely, as has happened here for a while and in lots of other places around the world.
* Restaurants aren't so badly hit by 10pm closing, in general.
Unusually for this chaotic capricious government, its closing stuff at 10pm policy does appear to be being copied around the world
I believe some other countries/regions did something similar before we did, but, yes, you are right, it is a measure which others are taking.
I seem to be in a minority in thinking it's actually very sensible. A lot of the bad outbreaks around the world have been traced back to bars and nightclubs, and you have to have led a very sheltered life not to understand that as the night goes on the socialising becomes, err, less distanced (and with more shouting, and with less caution). The fact that there's a crowd at Oxford Circus just after 10pm doesn't mean it's a bad policy, and not does the fact that some people might go to someone's home and keep drinking. It's all about the numbers and the overall statistical effect.
Yeah fuck all of those people who depend on actually working in restaurants, bars and pubs. I mean they don't really need jobs do they?
I don't agree with the 10pm rule (which seems to make things worse, rather than better), but crowded bars where everyone is yelling, nightclubs and karaoke would all seem to be high risk activities.
Unusually for this chaotic capricious government, its closing stuff at 10pm policy does appear to be being copied around the world
I believe some other countries/regions did something similar before we did, but, yes, you are right, it is a measure which others are taking.
I seem to be in a minority in thinking it's actually very sensible. A lot of the bad outbreaks around the world have been traced back to bars and nightclubs, and you have to have led a very sheltered life not to understand that as the night goes on the socialising becomes, err, less distanced (and with more shouting, and with less caution). The fact that there's a crowd at Oxford Circus just after 10pm doesn't mean it's a bad policy, and not does the fact that some people might go to someone's home and keep drinking. It's all about the numbers and the overall statistical effect.
IF things settle down after a week or so you would broadly expect that fewer hours open means fewer people going out drinking. Which ought to nudge infections down a notch, just as the rule of six, mandatory masks for all in shops, greater enforcement of self isolating and quarantine and so on should make a difference. Whether or not all of those factors, plus a bit frightening the public, can get the R0 back below 1.0 in a few weeks time is really the only thing that matters. If that works we will probably keep doing these things right through to next spring.
Unusually for this chaotic capricious government, its closing stuff at 10pm policy does appear to be being copied around the world
I believe some other countries/regions did something similar before we did, but, yes, you are right, it is a measure which others are taking.
I seem to be in a minority in thinking it's actually very sensible. A lot of the bad outbreaks around the world have been traced back to bars and nightclubs, and you have to have led a very sheltered life not to understand that as the night goes on the socialising becomes, err, less distanced (and with more shouting, and with less caution). The fact that there's a crowd at Oxford Circus just after 10pm doesn't mean it's a bad policy, and not does the fact that some people might go to someone's home and keep drinking. It's all about the numbers and the overall statistical effect.
Yeah fuck all of those people who depend on actually working in restaurants, bars and pubs. I mean they don't really need jobs do they?
I don't agree with the 10pm rule (which seems to make things worse, rather than better), but crowded bars where everyone is yelling, nightclubs and karaoke would all seem to be high risk activities.
Unusually for this chaotic capricious government, its closing stuff at 10pm policy does appear to be being copied around the world
I believe some other countries/regions did something similar before we did, but, yes, you are right, it is a measure which others are taking.
I seem to be in a minority in thinking it's actually very sensible. A lot of the bad outbreaks around the world have been traced back to bars and nightclubs, and you have to have led a very sheltered life not to understand that as the night goes on the socialising becomes, err, less distanced (and with more shouting, and with less caution). The fact that there's a crowd at Oxford Circus just after 10pm doesn't mean it's a bad policy, and not does the fact that some people might go to someone's home and keep drinking. It's all about the numbers and the overall statistical effect.
Yeah fuck all of those people who depend on actually working in restaurants, bars and pubs. I mean they don't really need jobs do they?
Now you are being daft. The choice isn't between this measure and doing nothing, it's trying to find the least damaging set of measures which reduce the spread. If you do nothing, those jobs are definitely going, either because people will vote with their feet or more likely that the government will be forced to close those bars, restaurants and pubs* completely, as has happened here for a while and in lots of other places around the world.
* Restaurants aren't so badly hit by 10pm closing, in general.
Doing nothing is absolutely an option, in Germany and Italy they've done nothing and they've made it work. The fault is that our testing system isn't fit for purpose and we have absolutely no follow up on whether people are isolating after a positive result. The study that showed only 18% of people actually isolate is absolutely damning. No support is given to people who need to isolate and it means 82% of people who test positive are still interacting with the wider community. We have other ways of bringing the infection rate down that aren't economically damaging, let's pursue those first. Pubs and restaurants accounted for 3% of new transmissions in week before the 10pm closing time was introduced. We're talking absolutely minute numbers here because it's not even the whole 3%, it's a some portion of the 3%.
Travel, not isolating people properly and testing are all areas that have low hanging fruit and yet the chumps making policy seem intent on taking the joy out of life and putting a million jobs at risk.
As for your comment on restaurants I have actually spoken to a friend who runs a restaurant, his dining capacity had fallen from 320 pre COVID to 140 with distancing and now just 70 with the 10pm closing time due to last orders at being at 9pm meaning there is only one dinner sitting. So no, it is hurting restaurants as well. The whole thing is a disaster and it is causing unnecessary economic damage and severe mental stress on business owners and their employees who don't know what the future holds for them any more.
Unusually for this chaotic capricious government, its closing stuff at 10pm policy does appear to be being copied around the world
I believe some other countries/regions did something similar before we did, but, yes, you are right, it is a measure which others are taking.
I seem to be in a minority in thinking it's actually very sensible. A lot of the bad outbreaks around the world have been traced back to bars and nightclubs, and you have to have led a very sheltered life not to understand that as the night goes on the socialising becomes, err, less distanced (and with more shouting, and with less caution). The fact that there's a crowd at Oxford Circus just after 10pm doesn't mean it's a bad policy, and not does the fact that some people might go to someone's home and keep drinking. It's all about the numbers and the overall statistical effect.
It's avoiding a, "I love you, you're my best mate!" policy.
Comments
https://youtu.be/k-LTRwZb35A
If a neighbour wants to build a pink house with a chimney designed to look like a lollipop and candy cane striped roof then I might think that is in terrible taste but if that's their choice so be it. Diversity makes somewhere interesting and I'm not sure that building nothing but tiny, uniform identikit homes is progress.
Every December some neighbours go OTT in Christmas lights that may be considered "bad taste" but again that is their choice. Do with your own home whatever you find tasteful.
Shoddy workmanship is a different matter. I said that safety standards should exist. But safety standards are a different matter to taste.
The reporting of it is utterly disgraceful, and has been throughout. It has caused me to stop watching the BBC – a trusted source yet the worst of them all.
No wonder most people assess their risk from covid as several orders of magnitude higher than their actual risk.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1310978751333793798?s=20
Not sure I agree with all of his conclusions but it's quite an interesting interview.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fTXxb7P4sk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjIcAqMOmWA
Would that be a simple matter of taste?
https://lockdownsceptics.org/letter-from-a-liberal-sceptic/
Didn't say I agree with him, but he is no political ingenue.
https://twitter.com/ESPNNFL/status/1310680636626276355
Note that the analysis pieces on the BBC avoid this, for example.
It goes some way to explaining how fake news stuff works in normal media - its a number, its a story....
I object to Travellers invading and squating on other people's land. But what they do with their own land I couldn't care less about.
What is important is the trend, and that is conveyed perfectly well by the date of reporting data in this context given that it represents an integral weighted over the past few days. In fact, it makes more sense than reporting the cases by specimen date since this always gives an artificial tail-off for the last few days.
I agree though that it is not sensible to focus on individual days - the 7-day average is a much better indicator (but has a 3-day delay if used properly).
Can't believe I sat through the whole game
Now Pedersen says they have to simplify the game plan.
Get a different QB.
Simple...
More likely if someone was to design something offensive like that it would be more likely to be a hedge or similar. Doing that is illegal as a public order offence not via planning regulations.
https://metro.co.uk/2012/07/23/police-order-gardener-to-cut-offensive-middle-finger-shaped-bush-505884/
https://amp.theguardian.com/science/2013/nov/17/why-we-see-hitler-house
Looking forward to Rule of 1.37 in 2022
And if anything the US now actively tries to hinder Americans from losing their US citizenship even if they really want to, as the State Department perceives most such people's motivation as being primarily to avoid taxation by the US. The fee to renounce US citizenship at US consulate is now several thousand dollars, and you have to show that you're fully paid up with the IRS first.
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1310924613174657025/photo/1
New Street Station, Grand Central, and the Bullring were all deader than a dead thing.
99% mask enforcement for those who were out.
The eggheads not a prediction during their statement did its job.
But also, socialist though I am on economic matters, I'd like people to be free at a personal level. It seems a pity that the debate about huge inequalities of wealth - which seem to me an abomination, especially if inherited - spills over into differences in taste. I don't see why you shouldn't dress any way you want, sleep with whichever consenting adult(s) you like, eat whatever food you prefer, and decorate your home as you fancy (all subject to obvious general rules on not inciting to hatred, etc.). It's a different issue from the left/right argument on wealth.
I seem to be in a minority in thinking it's actually very sensible. A lot of the bad outbreaks around the world have been traced back to bars and nightclubs, and you have to have led a very sheltered life not to understand that as the night goes on the socialising becomes, err, less distanced (and with more shouting, and with less caution). The fact that there's a crowd at Oxford Circus just after 10pm doesn't mean it's a bad policy, and not does the fact that some people might go to someone's home and keep drinking. It's all about the numbers and the overall statistical effect.
We have better understanding of transmission, social distancing and mask wearing are now the norm, restaurants, churches, shops, businesses, health and educational establishments all now have reasonable protocols etc. We are in a much better place in terms of preparation for a less draconian approach.
On churches, a friend was telling me that her church is now open for business. They play their hymns as normal but are not allowed to sing. So they sit there wearing their masks and humming. This amused me for some reason.
It's total meltdown!
God knows I'm no fan of Boris or this government, but there really is some bollocks being spouted here!
Mind you, the photos the Germans were taking of the illuminations were lovely.
* Restaurants aren't so badly hit by 10pm closing, in general.
Sweden for example only allows food and drinks to be served to seated customers.
Seems to be increasing steadily - note that testing capacity for current COVID infection is Pillar 1 + Pillar 2
Thiago tests positive.
Travel, not isolating people properly and testing are all areas that have low hanging fruit and yet the chumps making policy seem intent on taking the joy out of life and putting a million jobs at risk.
As for your comment on restaurants I have actually spoken to a friend who runs a restaurant, his dining capacity had fallen from 320 pre COVID to 140 with distancing and now just 70 with the 10pm closing time due to last orders at being at 9pm meaning there is only one dinner sitting. So no, it is hurting restaurants as well. The whole thing is a disaster and it is causing unnecessary economic damage and severe mental stress on business owners and their employees who don't know what the future holds for them any more.