I am right in thinking it is only the UK and Iran that have unelected clergy in their Parliaments?
And an appallingly unrepresentative selection, both in terms of geography and of belief (and lack of), of the UK. If you are a Free Churcher in Lewis, or a Quaker in Somerset, hard luck.
It's not the real parliament, though. I imagine that bigass quakers get peerages on an ad hoc basis anyway and that the Free Church would turn them down on principle.
He's going to end up with a Ruth Davidson problem. He's not going to be able to save the Scottish Tories because Johnson insists on shitting in his cornflakes every morning, but he's going to struggle to get back into Westminster politics even if he does as good a job as he can in the circumstances.
That depends, if Douglas Ross leads Unionists to a majority at Holyrood next year and Sturgeon loses her majority he will be the greatest Scottish Tory leader in history and worthy of a knighthood if not more.
Of course part of that would be winning the Moray seat at Holyrood held by the SNP but which he holds at Westminster
For a second there i thought you meant an SCON majority not merely a unionist one!
And of course during the election, SLab and SLD will not count as unionists.
After they will, all that matters is SCon + SLab +SLD is more than SNP + Green
Re: the wealth tax discussions this morning - I note that no-one suggested a tax on gambling winnings!
A tax on other people - I'm in!
A £10 tax on every pineapple pizza bought/sold/eaten.
If pineapple on pizza is that good people will pay tax willingly.
A 50p surcharge for every time someone who doesn't eat pineapple on pizza mentions the stuff. Like a national swear jar to which you could pay for a new hospital all by yourself.
Allowing pineapple on pizza leads to degeneracy like this.
And if I could pose a question to the group of posters (I think you know who you are) who are both keen punters and share my view that Trump will lose and it won't be close -
What iyo is a Fair Value sell price for Biden EC supremacy right now?
You need to stop wibbling about your bet.
Never close out, that`s my rule. But remind me what your bet is and on which market specifically - and what it is currently trading at.
Not sure I quite go with that rule but Ok I wibble no more. We're sorted. Kenny agrees that we stick at this point. He says the price is still too low and iho Texas is going. And he should know -
Oh there you are. Just pondering your well-reasoned argument in favour of Boris staying on. It all made sense.
Except...the man always was patently unfit to be PM as is universally accepted. As was indeed TMay. Neither was just "bad", and each had a trait which would mean that they would at some time be found out and deposed one way or another. Or leave.
These things have a habit of not working in 24-hr rolling news time but in politics time which can be months and months as it was with May. When she became PM plenty called her a dead woman walking and so it proved. It's the same with Boris imo. He is not fit to be PM, as many fundamental character and political flaws and hence it is a matter of time before he goes.
Is the reason I have backed him to be out by Sep '21.
May was much, much worse than Johnson and had a much, much worse election result - and even she survived for years. Even IDS survived for years.
Very, very unlikely Johnson will be gone next year. I doubt Boris will go before 2023 at the earliest.
As @kinabalu noted, there is no mechanism by which he could go. Except, as noted above, I believe he is manifestly unfit to be PM to the point whereby it is simply unsustainable for him to continue.
And yes you are right as I also noted, May did survive, but she was, to quote Osborne (?) a dead woman walking and so it proved.
Re: the wealth tax discussions this morning - I note that no-one suggested a tax on gambling winnings!
A tax on other people - I'm in!
A £10 tax on every pineapple pizza bought/sold/eaten.
If pineapple on pizza is that good people will pay tax willingly.
I quite like a pizza tax -people would buy more pizza for a while - it's bad though in that it encourages people to buy pizza. Pineapple divisiveness shouldn't subvert your good suggestion.
I am right in thinking it is only the UK and Iran that have unelected clergy in their Parliament?
Vatican city?
1. The Vatican doesn't have a parliament 2. It is, however, ruled by an elected monarch - who happens to be a member of the clergy, but is still far from unelected.
Do we know if the Cardinals use FPTP? Who is responsible for saying which areas get a Cardinal and thus control the electorate selection for the next race? Are there poll watchers or dies God rule on any ambiguous ballots? Has anyone drawn a penis on a ballot like in other elections.
Coronavirus outbreak at Nottingham University as 425 students and eight staff test positive as city ‘days’ from lockdown
2% of the student population. I'm surprised its that low.
Give it a couple of days...
Tbh, it's not a disaster. Students are exactly the sort of cohort we need to build herd immunity. Anyone under the age of 40 without pre-existing conditions shouldn't be afraid of catching it.
Half the kids who were hospitalised last time around had no pre-existing conditions (Of 651 hospitalised up until 3rd July, 375 had no co-morbidities; 276 had one (45 of these were simply asthma).
People seem to segue so rapidly from "the young have significantly less likely of death" to "No chance of even being put on a ventilator." (And the risk is considerably higher as you shift into even the thirties).
Plus around 2% will have very long covid (over 3 months) and 12% long covid (up to 3 months). Being young doesn't save you from that. Instead, if you have life-long impacts to your heart or lungs - well, when you're young, there's a lot of years to live with that.
Re: the wealth tax discussions this morning - I note that no-one suggested a tax on gambling winnings!
A tax on other people - I'm in!
A £10 tax on every pineapple pizza bought/sold/eaten.
If pineapple on pizza is that good people will pay tax willingly.
A 50p surcharge for every time someone who doesn't eat pineapple on pizza mentions the stuff. Like a national swear jar to which you could pay for a new hospital all by yourself.
Allowing pineapple on pizza leads to degeneracy like this.
So did the BBC eg Saville and Rolf Harris, so did many schools, so did some football clubs eg Crewe, Manchester City and Chelsea with former youth coaches, so did some political parties with the likes of Cyril Smith and Peter Morrison, so of course did the Catholic Church, the sexual abuse in the 1970s and 1980s went across the establishment, the Church was only one element.
Plus Welby has correctly issued an unqualified apology today
Coronavirus outbreak at Nottingham University as 425 students and eight staff test positive as city ‘days’ from lockdown
Why not just lock down the university?
Should have told anyone who wasn't worried about catching the virus to come early and stay in the Halls, have one big Freshers party. Treat it like Big Brother - we'll supply food and alcohol, only rule is you can't get out.
I suspect their lawyers would have fainted at the prospect! Not everyone is impervious at that age, unfortunately.
What risk would you be prepared to accept? I haven't got the latest numbers in front of me, but the number of healthy under 20s in England who have died of Covid-19 stood, on 19 August, as four.
Not four thousand.
Not four hundred.
Not forty.
Four.
A bit more background to that.
As of 3rd July, 651 under-nineteens were admitted to hospital for covid, concentrated in the range 4 months old to 14 years old. The majority of these (375) had no co-morbidities and were otherwise perfectly healthy.
Of these, 116 were admitted to ICU, all bar one of them needing ventilation (58 non-intrusive ventilation, 57 with intrusive ventilation). Of these 116, 47 also needed heart drugs.
Just under half of these 116 had no co-morbidities at all.
However, even if put into ICU and on a ventilator, children were very good at pulling through (albeit with significant suffering); only four actually died.
Sky Q any good? We've never bothered to upgrade but I understand it's the same price as Sky+ HD now.
Johnson speech thoughts?
Sky Q is great. If its the same price then I'd say its a no-brainer to implement it.
Plus we have our Netflix and Disney+ and YouTube accounts integrated with Sky Q. The box works really well with all of these as well as Sky's own programming. Very user friendly, even my four year old can load Disney+ or YouTube to put on her favourite programming using the speech functionality in the remote.
I can't be alone in wondering what your four year-old did all day while you are posting non-stop on PB! Now we know. I'd begun to think you had a nanny, and were really JRM.
He's going to end up with a Ruth Davidson problem. He's not going to be able to save the Scottish Tories because Johnson insists on shitting in his cornflakes every morning, but he's going to struggle to get back into Westminster politics even if he does as good a job as he can in the circumstances.
That depends, if Douglas Ross leads Unionists to a majority at Holyrood next year and Sturgeon loses her majority he will be the greatest Scottish Tory leader in history and worthy of a knighthood if not more.
Of course part of that would be winning the Moray seat at Holyrood held by the SNP but which he holds at Westminster
For a second there i thought you meant an SCON majority not merely a unionist one!
And of course during the election, SLab and SLD will not count as unionists.
After they will, all that matters is SCon + SLab +SLD is more than SNP + Green
Why does it matter, if you’re going to simply ignore a nationalist majority anyway?
He's going to end up with a Ruth Davidson problem. He's not going to be able to save the Scottish Tories because Johnson insists on shitting in his cornflakes every morning, but he's going to struggle to get back into Westminster politics even if he does as good a job as he can in the circumstances.
That depends, if Douglas Ross leads Unionists to a majority at Holyrood next year and Sturgeon loses her majority he will be the greatest Scottish Tory leader in history and worthy of a knighthood if not more.
Of course part of that would be winning the Moray seat at Holyrood held by the SNP but which he holds at Westminster
For a second there i thought you meant an SCON majority not merely a unionist one!
And of course during the election, SLab and SLD will not count as unionists.
After they will, all that matters is SCon + SLab +SLD is more than SNP + Green
And, is SLab > SCon, will you be supporting a SLab FM?
And if I could pose a question to the group of posters (I think you know who you are) who are both keen punters and share my view that Trump will lose and it won't be close -
What iyo is a Fair Value sell price for Biden EC supremacy right now?
You need to stop wibbling about your bet.
Never close out, that`s my rule. But remind me what your bet is and on which market specifically - and what it is currently trading at.
Not sure I quite go with that rule but Ok I wibble no more. We're sorted. Kenny agrees that we stick at this point. He says the price is still too low and iho Texas is going. And he should know -
Oh there you are. Just pondering your well-reasoned argument in favour of Boris staying on. It all made sense.
Except...the man always was patently unfit to be PM as is universally accepted. As was indeed TMay. Neither was just "bad", and each had a trait which would mean that they would at some time be found out and deposed one way or another. Or leave.
These things have a habit of not working in 24-hr rolling news time but in politics time which can be months and months as it was with May. When she became PM plenty called her a dead woman walking and so it proved. It's the same with Boris imo. He is not fit to be PM, as many fundamental character and political flaws and hence it is a matter of time before he goes.
Is the reason I have backed him to be out by Sep '21.
May was much, much worse than Johnson and had a much, much worse election result - and even she survived for years. Even IDS survived for years.
Very, very unlikely Johnson will be gone next year. I doubt Boris will go before 2023 at the earliest.
As @kinabalu noted, there is no mechanism by which he could go. Except, as noted above, I believe he is manifestly unfit to be PM to the point whereby it is simply unsustainable for him to continue.
And yes you are right as I also noted, May did survive, but she was, to quote Osborne (?) a dead woman walking and so it proved.
But of course yes we shall see.
She only went following another disastrous election result at the European elections. That was a mechanism to see her go and I know a great many Tories who voted for the Brexit Party to signal that time was up she had to go.
How is that going to happen with Boris? What is the path to see him go? Unless you have one, inertia means he is likely to stay for now.
Re: the wealth tax discussions this morning - I note that no-one suggested a tax on gambling winnings!
A tax on other people - I'm in!
A £10 tax on every pineapple pizza bought/sold/eaten.
If pineapple on pizza is that good people will pay tax willingly.
A 50p surcharge for every time someone who doesn't eat pineapple on pizza mentions the stuff. Like a national swear jar to which you could pay for a new hospital all by yourself.
Allowing pineapple on pizza leads to degeneracy like this.
As far as taxes are concerned which will be the first party I wonder to realise its better to tax cannabis sold legally, than spend millions chasing drug dealers?
He's going to end up with a Ruth Davidson problem. He's not going to be able to save the Scottish Tories because Johnson insists on shitting in his cornflakes every morning, but he's going to struggle to get back into Westminster politics even if he does as good a job as he can in the circumstances.
That depends, if Douglas Ross leads Unionists to a majority at Holyrood next year and Sturgeon loses her majority he will be the greatest Scottish Tory leader in history and worthy of a knighthood if not more.
Of course part of that would be winning the Moray seat at Holyrood held by the SNP but which he holds at Westminster
For a second there i thought you meant an SCON majority not merely a unionist one!
And of course during the election, SLab and SLD will not count as unionists.
After they will, all that matters is SCon + SLab +SLD is more than SNP + Green
And, is SLab > SCon, will you be supporting a SLab FM?
He's going to end up with a Ruth Davidson problem. He's not going to be able to save the Scottish Tories because Johnson insists on shitting in his cornflakes every morning, but he's going to struggle to get back into Westminster politics even if he does as good a job as he can in the circumstances.
That depends, if Douglas Ross leads Unionists to a majority at Holyrood next year and Sturgeon loses her majority he will be the greatest Scottish Tory leader in history and worthy of a knighthood if not more.
Of course part of that would be winning the Moray seat at Holyrood held by the SNP but which he holds at Westminster
For a second there i thought you meant an SCON majority not merely a unionist one!
And of course during the election, SLab and SLD will not count as unionists.
After they will, all that matters is SCon + SLab +SLD is more than SNP + Green
Why does it matter, if you’re going to simply ignore a nationalist majority anyway?
As it is easier though yes Westminster gets final say regardless
I am right in thinking it is only the UK and Iran that have unelected clergy in their Parliaments?
And an appallingly unrepresentative selection, both in terms of geography and of belief (and lack of), of the UK. If you are a Free Churcher in Lewis, or a Quaker in Somerset, hard luck.
It's not the real parliament, though. I imagine that bigass quakers get peerages on an ad hoc basis anyway and that the Free Church would turn them down on principle.
Quakers refuse titles of nobility, and that has been the policy since the Seventeenth Century.
Indeed Quakers are often reluctant to use even titles such as Mr or Mrs.
Coronavirus outbreak at Nottingham University as 425 students and eight staff test positive as city ‘days’ from lockdown
Why not just lock down the university?
Should have told anyone who wasn't worried about catching the virus to come early and stay in the Halls, have one big Freshers party. Treat it like Big Brother - we'll supply food and alcohol, only rule is you can't get out.
I suspect their lawyers would have fainted at the prospect! Not everyone is impervious at that age, unfortunately.
What risk would you be prepared to accept? I haven't got the latest numbers in front of me, but the number of healthy under 20s in England who have died of Covid-19 stood, on 19 August, as four.
Not four thousand.
Not four hundred.
Not forty.
Four.
A bit more background to that.
As of 3rd July, 651 under-nineteens were admitted to hospital for covid, concentrated in the range 4 months old to 14 years old. The majority of these (375) had no co-morbidities and were otherwise perfectly healthy.
Of these, 116 were admitted to ICU, all bar one of them needing ventilation (58 non-intrusive ventilation, 57 with intrusive ventilation). Of these 116, 47 also needed heart drugs.
Just under half of these 116 had no co-morbidities at all.
However, even if put into ICU and on a ventilator, children were very good at pulling through (albeit with significant suffering); only four actually died.
I love "healthy." What about the unhealthy ones? Where are they on the spectrum between "they don't really count" and "serve them right?"
And if I could pose a question to the group of posters (I think you know who you are) who are both keen punters and share my view that Trump will lose and it won't be close -
What iyo is a Fair Value sell price for Biden EC supremacy right now?
You need to stop wibbling about your bet.
Never close out, that`s my rule. But remind me what your bet is and on which market specifically - and what it is currently trading at.
Not sure I quite go with that rule but Ok I wibble no more. We're sorted. Kenny agrees that we stick at this point. He says the price is still too low and iho Texas is going. And he should know -
No I do get it. And the point is a good one. But you don't mean NEVER close. Say you buy something because you think it's underpriced and then having held it for a bit it goes iyo well overpriced. You sell it.
And if I could pose a question to the group of posters (I think you know who you are) who are both keen punters and share my view that Trump will lose and it won't be close -
What iyo is a Fair Value sell price for Biden EC supremacy right now?
You need to stop wibbling about your bet.
Never close out, that`s my rule. But remind me what your bet is and on which market specifically - and what it is currently trading at.
Not sure I quite go with that rule but Ok I wibble no more. We're sorted. Kenny agrees that we stick at this point. He says the price is still too low and iho Texas is going. And he should know -
No I do get it. And the point is a good one. But you don't mean NEVER close. Say you buy something because you think it's underpriced and then having held it for a bit it goes iyo well overpriced. You sell it.
If you think it is overpriced then consider it a new bet (that just happens to be a close) not closing it.
Coronavirus outbreak at Nottingham University as 425 students and eight staff test positive as city ‘days’ from lockdown
2% of the student population. I'm surprised its that low.
Give it a couple of days...
Tbh, it's not a disaster. Students are exactly the sort of cohort we need to build herd immunity. Anyone under the age of 40 without pre-existing conditions shouldn't be afraid of catching it.
Half the kids who were hospitalised last time around had no pre-existing conditions (Of 651 hospitalised up until 3rd July, 375 had no co-morbidities; 276 had one (45 of these were simply asthma).
People seem to segue so rapidly from "the young have significantly less likely of death" to "No chance of even being put on a ventilator." (And the risk is considerably higher as you shift into even the thirties).
Plus around 2% will have very long covid (over 3 months) and 12% long covid (up to 3 months). Being young doesn't save you from that. Instead, if you have life-long impacts to your heart or lungs - well, when you're young, there's a lot of years to live with that.
So what's the solution? Lock everyone up for their own good? Destroy the economy completey?
Coronavirus outbreak at Nottingham University as 425 students and eight staff test positive as city ‘days’ from lockdown
Why not just lock down the university?
Should have told anyone who wasn't worried about catching the virus to come early and stay in the Halls, have one big Freshers party. Treat it like Big Brother - we'll supply food and alcohol, only rule is you can't get out.
I suspect their lawyers would have fainted at the prospect! Not everyone is impervious at that age, unfortunately.
What risk would you be prepared to accept? I haven't got the latest numbers in front of me, but the number of healthy under 20s in England who have died of Covid-19 stood, on 19 August, as four.
Not four thousand.
Not four hundred.
Not forty.
Four.
A bit more background to that.
As of 3rd July, 651 under-nineteens were admitted to hospital for covid, concentrated in the range 4 months old to 14 years old. The majority of these (375) had no co-morbidities and were otherwise perfectly healthy.
Of these, 116 were admitted to ICU, all bar one of them needing ventilation (58 non-intrusive ventilation, 57 with intrusive ventilation). Of these 116, 47 also needed heart drugs.
Just under half of these 116 had no co-morbidities at all.
However, even if put into ICU and on a ventilator, children were very good at pulling through (albeit with significant suffering); only four actually died.
I love "healthy." What about the unhealthy ones? Where are they on the spectrum between "they don't really count" and "serve them right?"
What an absolutely horrible post – although sadly typical of you – of course they count, you nasty prat.
Sixteen children with comorbidities have died from Covid-19, four without, 20 in total.
Coronavirus outbreak at Nottingham University as 425 students and eight staff test positive as city ‘days’ from lockdown
Why not just lock down the university?
Should have told anyone who wasn't worried about catching the virus to come early and stay in the Halls, have one big Freshers party. Treat it like Big Brother - we'll supply food and alcohol, only rule is you can't get out.
I suspect their lawyers would have fainted at the prospect! Not everyone is impervious at that age, unfortunately.
What risk would you be prepared to accept? I haven't got the latest numbers in front of me, but the number of healthy under 20s in England who have died of Covid-19 stood, on 19 August, as four.
Not four thousand.
Not four hundred.
Not forty.
Four.
A bit more background to that.
As of 3rd July, 651 under-nineteens were admitted to hospital for covid, concentrated in the range 4 months old to 14 years old. The majority of these (375) had no co-morbidities and were otherwise perfectly healthy.
Of these, 116 were admitted to ICU, all bar one of them needing ventilation (58 non-intrusive ventilation, 57 with intrusive ventilation). Of these 116, 47 also needed heart drugs.
Just under half of these 116 had no co-morbidities at all.
However, even if put into ICU and on a ventilator, children were very good at pulling through (albeit with significant suffering); only four actually died.
I love "healthy." What about the unhealthy ones? Where are they on the spectrum between "they don't really count" and "serve them right?"
Lockdown in Nottingham seems inevitable now. I'm not too far away, so will be watching local news tonight.
Coronavirus outbreak at Nottingham University as 425 students and eight staff test positive as city ‘days’ from lockdown
2% of the student population. I'm surprised its that low.
Give it a couple of days...
Tbh, it's not a disaster. Students are exactly the sort of cohort we need to build herd immunity. Anyone under the age of 40 without pre-existing conditions shouldn't be afraid of catching it.
Half the kids who were hospitalised last time around had no pre-existing conditions (Of 651 hospitalised up until 3rd July, 375 had no co-morbidities; 276 had one (45 of these were simply asthma).
People seem to segue so rapidly from "the young have significantly less likely of death" to "No chance of even being put on a ventilator." (And the risk is considerably higher as you shift into even the thirties).
Plus around 2% will have very long covid (over 3 months) and 12% long covid (up to 3 months). Being young doesn't save you from that. Instead, if you have life-long impacts to your heart or lungs - well, when you're young, there's a lot of years to live with that.
So what's the solution? Lock everyone up for their own good? Destroy the economy completey?
Has a very 'make a desert and call it peace' vibe.
Coronavirus outbreak at Nottingham University as 425 students and eight staff test positive as city ‘days’ from lockdown
Why not just lock down the university?
Should have told anyone who wasn't worried about catching the virus to come early and stay in the Halls, have one big Freshers party. Treat it like Big Brother - we'll supply food and alcohol, only rule is you can't get out.
I suspect their lawyers would have fainted at the prospect! Not everyone is impervious at that age, unfortunately.
What risk would you be prepared to accept? I haven't got the latest numbers in front of me, but the number of healthy under 20s in England who have died of Covid-19 stood, on 19 August, as four.
Not four thousand.
Not four hundred.
Not forty.
Four.
A bit more background to that.
As of 3rd July, 651 under-nineteens were admitted to hospital for covid, concentrated in the range 4 months old to 14 years old. The majority of these (375) had no co-morbidities and were otherwise perfectly healthy.
Of these, 116 were admitted to ICU, all bar one of them needing ventilation (58 non-intrusive ventilation, 57 with intrusive ventilation). Of these 116, 47 also needed heart drugs.
Just under half of these 116 had no co-morbidities at all.
However, even if put into ICU and on a ventilator, children were very good at pulling through (albeit with significant suffering); only four actually died.
I love "healthy." What about the unhealthy ones? Where are they on the spectrum between "they don't really count" and "serve them right?"
Lockdown in Nottingham seems inevitable now. I'm not too far away, so will be watching local news tonight.
If Nottingham does go into a lockdown they should appoint a sheriff to enforce it.
Coronavirus outbreak at Nottingham University as 425 students and eight staff test positive as city ‘days’ from lockdown
Why not just lock down the university?
Should have told anyone who wasn't worried about catching the virus to come early and stay in the Halls, have one big Freshers party. Treat it like Big Brother - we'll supply food and alcohol, only rule is you can't get out.
I suspect their lawyers would have fainted at the prospect! Not everyone is impervious at that age, unfortunately.
What risk would you be prepared to accept? I haven't got the latest numbers in front of me, but the number of healthy under 20s in England who have died of Covid-19 stood, on 19 August, as four.
Not four thousand.
Not four hundred.
Not forty.
Four.
A bit more background to that.
As of 3rd July, 651 under-nineteens were admitted to hospital for covid, concentrated in the range 4 months old to 14 years old. The majority of these (375) had no co-morbidities and were otherwise perfectly healthy.
Of these, 116 were admitted to ICU, all bar one of them needing ventilation (58 non-intrusive ventilation, 57 with intrusive ventilation). Of these 116, 47 also needed heart drugs.
Just under half of these 116 had no co-morbidities at all.
However, even if put into ICU and on a ventilator, children were very good at pulling through (albeit with significant suffering); only four actually died.
651 is a vanishingly low proportion of the total cohort. It is incredibly horrible for them that they had that ordeal, but it remains a general risk of almost zero.
I have no idea whether you have children or not. But, if you do, do you send them to school?
And if I could pose a question to the group of posters (I think you know who you are) who are both keen punters and share my view that Trump will lose and it won't be close -
What iyo is a Fair Value sell price for Biden EC supremacy right now?
You need to stop wibbling about your bet.
Never close out, that`s my rule. But remind me what your bet is and on which market specifically - and what it is currently trading at.
Not sure I quite go with that rule but Ok I wibble no more. We're sorted. Kenny agrees that we stick at this point. He says the price is still too low and iho Texas is going. And he should know -
No I do get it. And the point is a good one. But you don't mean NEVER close. Say you buy something because you think it's underpriced and then having held it for a bit it goes iyo well overpriced. You sell it.
Yes, agreed, if you think it is overpriced yes, and so the second trade can be viewed as a separate bet to the first - which you would have made whether or not you had the original bet. What I avoid is allowing my current exposure to influence my future betting decisions. That way = giving more to bookies = sub-optimal outcome.
I guess there are exceptions - I`m thinking about long odds bets. For instance I`ve got a few notes on Bamford (Leeds) to be top scorer this season at 100/1. I don`t think he WILL be top scorer but think it was over-priced when I made the bet. So I`ll cash out at some point when he shortens sufficiently (hopefully). Same goes for ridiculously long-priced nil nil draws (as we`ve previously discussed).
Coronavirus outbreak at Nottingham University as 425 students and eight staff test positive as city ‘days’ from lockdown
Why not just lock down the university?
Should have told anyone who wasn't worried about catching the virus to come early and stay in the Halls, have one big Freshers party. Treat it like Big Brother - we'll supply food and alcohol, only rule is you can't get out.
I suspect their lawyers would have fainted at the prospect! Not everyone is impervious at that age, unfortunately.
What risk would you be prepared to accept? I haven't got the latest numbers in front of me, but the number of healthy under 20s in England who have died of Covid-19 stood, on 19 August, as four.
Not four thousand.
Not four hundred.
Not forty.
Four.
A bit more background to that.
As of 3rd July, 651 under-nineteens were admitted to hospital for covid, concentrated in the range 4 months old to 14 years old. The majority of these (375) had no co-morbidities and were otherwise perfectly healthy.
Of these, 116 were admitted to ICU, all bar one of them needing ventilation (58 non-intrusive ventilation, 57 with intrusive ventilation). Of these 116, 47 also needed heart drugs.
Just under half of these 116 had no co-morbidities at all.
However, even if put into ICU and on a ventilator, children were very good at pulling through (albeit with significant suffering); only four actually died.
I love "healthy." What about the unhealthy ones? Where are they on the spectrum between "they don't really count" and "serve them right?"
What an absolutely horrible post – although sadly typical of you – of course they count, you nasty prat.
Sixteen children with comorbidities have died from Covid-19, four without, 20 in total.
It's also amazing that people seem happy to pose no solutions other than "lock everyone up forever for their own good" which is not a solution.
Coronavirus outbreak at Nottingham University as 425 students and eight staff test positive as city ‘days’ from lockdown
2% of the student population. I'm surprised its that low.
Give it a couple of days...
Tbh, it's not a disaster. Students are exactly the sort of cohort we need to build herd immunity. Anyone under the age of 40 without pre-existing conditions shouldn't be afraid of catching it.
Half the kids who were hospitalised last time around had no pre-existing conditions (Of 651 hospitalised up until 3rd July, 375 had no co-morbidities; 276 had one (45 of these were simply asthma).
People seem to segue so rapidly from "the young have significantly less likely of death" to "No chance of even being put on a ventilator." (And the risk is considerably higher as you shift into even the thirties).
Plus around 2% will have very long covid (over 3 months) and 12% long covid (up to 3 months). Being young doesn't save you from that. Instead, if you have life-long impacts to your heart or lungs - well, when you're young, there's a lot of years to live with that.
So what's the solution? Lock everyone up for their own good? Destroy the economy completey?
Has a very 'make a desert and call it peace' vibe.
And also, unsurprisingly, what very few people are actually calling for. It's a strawman.
Coronavirus outbreak at Nottingham University as 425 students and eight staff test positive as city ‘days’ from lockdown
2% of the student population. I'm surprised its that low.
Give it a couple of days...
Tbh, it's not a disaster. Students are exactly the sort of cohort we need to build herd immunity. Anyone under the age of 40 without pre-existing conditions shouldn't be afraid of catching it.
Half the kids who were hospitalised last time around had no pre-existing conditions (Of 651 hospitalised up until 3rd July, 375 had no co-morbidities; 276 had one (45 of these were simply asthma).
People seem to segue so rapidly from "the young have significantly less likely of death" to "No chance of even being put on a ventilator." (And the risk is considerably higher as you shift into even the thirties).
Plus around 2% will have very long covid (over 3 months) and 12% long covid (up to 3 months). Being young doesn't save you from that. Instead, if you have life-long impacts to your heart or lungs - well, when you're young, there's a lot of years to live with that.
So what's the solution? Lock everyone up for their own good? Destroy the economy completey?
Why on Earth ask that? It seems to imply that you're angry at the facts being pointed out.
I do know that if we go around convinced that children are effectively immune, we're going to have a bunch of very angry parents and massive kickback in getting people out and about.
Parents tend to get a bit twitchy about diseases when kids are on ventilators from them.
I really don't think that ignoring downsides is the way forward. How about taking them into account? Targetting the high-dispersal scenarios as per that Atlantic article would be the best idea.
Getting millions of kids infected and acting surprised when tens of thousands of them get hospitalised and thousands end up on some form of ventilation probably doesn't contribute to a solution.
Coronavirus outbreak at Nottingham University as 425 students and eight staff test positive as city ‘days’ from lockdown
Why not just lock down the university?
Should have told anyone who wasn't worried about catching the virus to come early and stay in the Halls, have one big Freshers party. Treat it like Big Brother - we'll supply food and alcohol, only rule is you can't get out.
I suspect their lawyers would have fainted at the prospect! Not everyone is impervious at that age, unfortunately.
What risk would you be prepared to accept? I haven't got the latest numbers in front of me, but the number of healthy under 20s in England who have died of Covid-19 stood, on 19 August, as four.
Not four thousand.
Not four hundred.
Not forty.
Four.
A bit more background to that.
As of 3rd July, 651 under-nineteens were admitted to hospital for covid, concentrated in the range 4 months old to 14 years old. The majority of these (375) had no co-morbidities and were otherwise perfectly healthy.
Of these, 116 were admitted to ICU, all bar one of them needing ventilation (58 non-intrusive ventilation, 57 with intrusive ventilation). Of these 116, 47 also needed heart drugs.
Just under half of these 116 had no co-morbidities at all.
However, even if put into ICU and on a ventilator, children were very good at pulling through (albeit with significant suffering); only four actually died.
I love "healthy." What about the unhealthy ones? Where are they on the spectrum between "they don't really count" and "serve them right?"
What an absolutely horrible post – although sadly typical of you – of course they count, you nasty prat.
Sixteen children with comorbidities have died from Covid-19, four without, 20 in total.
It's also amazing that people seem happy to pose no solutions other than "lock everyone up forever for their own good" which is not a solution.
Indeed. There is far, far too much of that behaviour on PB.
When one asks what such posters advocate in place of endless total lockdown, one is almost invariably hit with a wall of silence.
So did the BBC eg Saville and Rolf Harris, so did many schools, so did some football clubs eg Crewe, Manchester City and Chelsea with former coaches, so did some political parties with the likes of Cyril Smith and Peter Morrison, the sexual abuse in the 1970s and 1980s went across the establishment, the Church was only one element.
Plus Welby has correctly issued an unqualified apology today
It's very far from enough though.
(To my mind Rolf Harris isn't in this category)
The BBC, the Church, and many other organisations should be having to answer questions as to why they shouldn't be closed down forthwith.
A forcible closedown of the CoE would be interesting. It'd remove a good portion of idiocy from the House of Lords for example. Welby is obviously a witch anyway, so we should warm up the fires. (Not serious of course, but who'd he be to argue?)
Coronavirus outbreak at Nottingham University as 425 students and eight staff test positive as city ‘days’ from lockdown
Why not just lock down the university?
Should have told anyone who wasn't worried about catching the virus to come early and stay in the Halls, have one big Freshers party. Treat it like Big Brother - we'll supply food and alcohol, only rule is you can't get out.
I suspect their lawyers would have fainted at the prospect! Not everyone is impervious at that age, unfortunately.
What risk would you be prepared to accept? I haven't got the latest numbers in front of me, but the number of healthy under 20s in England who have died of Covid-19 stood, on 19 August, as four.
Not four thousand.
Not four hundred.
Not forty.
Four.
A bit more background to that.
As of 3rd July, 651 under-nineteens were admitted to hospital for covid, concentrated in the range 4 months old to 14 years old. The majority of these (375) had no co-morbidities and were otherwise perfectly healthy.
Of these, 116 were admitted to ICU, all bar one of them needing ventilation (58 non-intrusive ventilation, 57 with intrusive ventilation). Of these 116, 47 also needed heart drugs.
Just under half of these 116 had no co-morbidities at all.
However, even if put into ICU and on a ventilator, children were very good at pulling through (albeit with significant suffering); only four actually died.
I love "healthy." What about the unhealthy ones? Where are they on the spectrum between "they don't really count" and "serve them right?"
Lockdown in Nottingham seems inevitable now. I'm not too far away, so will be watching local news tonight.
If Nottingham does go into a lockdown they should appoint a sheriff to enforce it.
There is still a sheriff. I've even been to his office. Nearly got married in it, but it was too big for our small do.
And if I could pose a question to the group of posters (I think you know who you are) who are both keen punters and share my view that Trump will lose and it won't be close -
What iyo is a Fair Value sell price for Biden EC supremacy right now?
You need to stop wibbling about your bet.
Never close out, that`s my rule. But remind me what your bet is and on which market specifically - and what it is currently trading at.
Not sure I quite go with that rule but Ok I wibble no more. We're sorted. Kenny agrees that we stick at this point. He says the price is still too low and iho Texas is going. And he should know -
Oh there you are. Just pondering your well-reasoned argument in favour of Boris staying on. It all made sense.
Except...the man always was patently unfit to be PM as is universally accepted. As was indeed TMay. Neither was just "bad", and each had a trait which would mean that they would at some time be found out and deposed one way or another. Or leave.
These things have a habit of not working in 24-hr rolling news time but in politics time which can be months and months as it was with May. When she became PM plenty called her a dead woman walking and so it proved. It's the same with Boris imo. He is not fit to be PM, as many fundamental character and political flaws and hence it is a matter of time before he goes.
Is the reason I have backed him to be out by Sep '21.
May was much, much worse than Johnson and had a much, much worse election result - and even she survived for years. Even IDS survived for years.
Very, very unlikely Johnson will be gone next year. I doubt Boris will go before 2023 at the earliest.
As @kinabalu noted, there is no mechanism by which he could go. Except, as noted above, I believe he is manifestly unfit to be PM to the point whereby it is simply unsustainable for him to continue.
And yes you are right as I also noted, May did survive, but she was, to quote Osborne (?) a dead woman walking and so it proved.
But of course yes we shall see.
She only went following another disastrous election result at the European elections. That was a mechanism to see her go and I know a great many Tories who voted for the Brexit Party to signal that time was up she had to go.
How is that going to happen with Boris? What is the path to see him go? Unless you have one, inertia means he is likely to stay for now.
I think he could be found to have been asleep on the job at one stage which will catch peoples' attention given the high stakes of Covid and its handling - could be the care homes, could be test & trace, could be some other smoking gun.
Plus, he has Cummings at his side and people are gunning for Cummings so there will possibly some collateral damage.
Coronavirus outbreak at Nottingham University as 425 students and eight staff test positive as city ‘days’ from lockdown
Why not just lock down the university?
Should have told anyone who wasn't worried about catching the virus to come early and stay in the Halls, have one big Freshers party. Treat it like Big Brother - we'll supply food and alcohol, only rule is you can't get out.
I suspect their lawyers would have fainted at the prospect! Not everyone is impervious at that age, unfortunately.
What risk would you be prepared to accept? I haven't got the latest numbers in front of me, but the number of healthy under 20s in England who have died of Covid-19 stood, on 19 August, as four.
Not four thousand.
Not four hundred.
Not forty.
Four.
A bit more background to that.
As of 3rd July, 651 under-nineteens were admitted to hospital for covid, concentrated in the range 4 months old to 14 years old. The majority of these (375) had no co-morbidities and were otherwise perfectly healthy.
Of these, 116 were admitted to ICU, all bar one of them needing ventilation (58 non-intrusive ventilation, 57 with intrusive ventilation). Of these 116, 47 also needed heart drugs.
Just under half of these 116 had no co-morbidities at all.
However, even if put into ICU and on a ventilator, children were very good at pulling through (albeit with significant suffering); only four actually died.
I love "healthy." What about the unhealthy ones? Where are they on the spectrum between "they don't really count" and "serve them right?"
What an absolutely horrible post – although sadly typical of you – of course they count, you nasty prat.
Sixteen children with comorbidities have died from Covid-19, four without, 20 in total.
OK. Just think throught the logic, on those figures, of not bothering to mention them.
Gonna need to ramp that up a long way if we want to get 2.5 million students infected in under a month.
Need an average of 100,000 infections per day just amongst the students.
Herd immunity will be substantially less. I suspect we will have it amongst students within a couple of weeks.
I`m not sure what herd immunity amongst students really means. Herd immunity must be to do with the whole herd, surely? If all students because immune they can still pick it up and pass it on can`t they?
And if I could pose a question to the group of posters (I think you know who you are) who are both keen punters and share my view that Trump will lose and it won't be close -
What iyo is a Fair Value sell price for Biden EC supremacy right now?
You need to stop wibbling about your bet.
Never close out, that`s my rule. But remind me what your bet is and on which market specifically - and what it is currently trading at.
Not sure I quite go with that rule but Ok I wibble no more. We're sorted. Kenny agrees that we stick at this point. He says the price is still too low and iho Texas is going. And he should know -
Oh there you are. Just pondering your well-reasoned argument in favour of Boris staying on. It all made sense.
Except...the man always was patently unfit to be PM as is universally accepted. As was indeed TMay. Neither was just "bad", and each had a trait which would mean that they would at some time be found out and deposed one way or another. Or leave.
These things have a habit of not working in 24-hr rolling news time but in politics time which can be months and months as it was with May. When she became PM plenty called her a dead woman walking and so it proved. It's the same with Boris imo. He is not fit to be PM, as many fundamental character and political flaws and hence it is a matter of time before he goes.
Is the reason I have backed him to be out by Sep '21.
May was much, much worse than Johnson and had a much, much worse election result - and even she survived for years. Even IDS survived for years.
Very, very unlikely Johnson will be gone next year. I doubt Boris will go before 2023 at the earliest.
As @kinabalu noted, there is no mechanism by which he could go. Except, as noted above, I believe he is manifestly unfit to be PM to the point whereby it is simply unsustainable for him to continue.
And yes you are right as I also noted, May did survive, but she was, to quote Osborne (?) a dead woman walking and so it proved.
But of course yes we shall see.
I take the opposite betting view on this as you know. The 1.8 for Johnson to make it beyond July 2022 is imo a stonking bet. I've put a wedge on it.
BUT to just support your "MO" here. Forget the detailed reasoning, the possible mechanisms, precedent, all of that bunkum, if your strong intuition is that him being PM is not only absurd but SO absurd that it simply cannot go on for that long, you go with that
I do this a lot. Identify what I call Not Happening Events which the consensus thinks are quite likely and then lay them. Recent good examples, Corbyn becoming PM, a 2nd EU Referendum, a No Deal Brexit, a 2nd term for Donald Trump.
So, here, for you, Boris Johnson lasting the course as PM is a Not Happening Event.
The virus is running out of control again and the Government seems to have completely given up doing anything.
Rule of six seems to have made little difference as has pub curfew
What do you think they should CHB? Are you in favour of drachonian measures or are you more of a "we`ve got to learn to live with a new risk in life" kind of guy?
Doesn't the fact that social security is on the agenda belie the idea we are just seeking a Canadian-style deal? It sounds more like there will be continued free movement under another name.
Coronavirus outbreak at Nottingham University as 425 students and eight staff test positive as city ‘days’ from lockdown
Why not just lock down the university?
Should have told anyone who wasn't worried about catching the virus to come early and stay in the Halls, have one big Freshers party. Treat it like Big Brother - we'll supply food and alcohol, only rule is you can't get out.
I suspect their lawyers would have fainted at the prospect! Not everyone is impervious at that age, unfortunately.
What risk would you be prepared to accept? I haven't got the latest numbers in front of me, but the number of healthy under 20s in England who have died of Covid-19 stood, on 19 August, as four.
Not four thousand.
Not four hundred.
Not forty.
Four.
A bit more background to that.
As of 3rd July, 651 under-nineteens were admitted to hospital for covid, concentrated in the range 4 months old to 14 years old. The majority of these (375) had no co-morbidities and were otherwise perfectly healthy.
Of these, 116 were admitted to ICU, all bar one of them needing ventilation (58 non-intrusive ventilation, 57 with intrusive ventilation). Of these 116, 47 also needed heart drugs.
Just under half of these 116 had no co-morbidities at all.
However, even if put into ICU and on a ventilator, children were very good at pulling through (albeit with significant suffering); only four actually died.
I love "healthy." What about the unhealthy ones? Where are they on the spectrum between "they don't really count" and "serve them right?"
Some of them had asthma, others had neurological conditions, others had heart or oncological issues.
"The most common comorbidities were neurological (11%; 65/614), haematological/oncological/immunological (combined category as described in supplementary methods: 8%; 48/615), and asthma (7%; 45/615)."
I'm not sure "serve them right" was implied by anyone in the conversation, even those who were saying that only children with underlying health conditions were at risk.
But then again, I'm somewhat on the ASD spectrum so I might not be picking up on what you're trying to signal.
Coronavirus outbreak at Nottingham University as 425 students and eight staff test positive as city ‘days’ from lockdown
2% of the student population. I'm surprised its that low.
Give it a couple of days...
Tbh, it's not a disaster. Students are exactly the sort of cohort we need to build herd immunity. Anyone under the age of 40 without pre-existing conditions shouldn't be afraid of catching it.
Half the kids who were hospitalised last time around had no pre-existing conditions (Of 651 hospitalised up until 3rd July, 375 had no co-morbidities; 276 had one (45 of these were simply asthma).
People seem to segue so rapidly from "the young have significantly less likely of death" to "No chance of even being put on a ventilator." (And the risk is considerably higher as you shift into even the thirties).
Plus around 2% will have very long covid (over 3 months) and 12% long covid (up to 3 months). Being young doesn't save you from that. Instead, if you have life-long impacts to your heart or lungs - well, when you're young, there's a lot of years to live with that.
So what's the solution? Lock everyone up for their own good? Destroy the economy completey?
Why on Earth ask that? It seems to imply that you're angry at the facts being pointed out.
I do know that if we go around convinced that children are effectively immune, we're going to have a bunch of very angry parents and massive kickback in getting people out and about.
Parents tend to get a bit twitchy about diseases when kids are on ventilators from them.
I really don't think that ignoring downsides is the way forward. How about taking them into account? Targetting the high-dispersal scenarios as per that Atlantic article would be the best idea.
Getting millions of kids infected and acting surprised when tens of thousands of them get hospitalised and thousands end up on some form of ventilation probably doesn't contribute to a solution.
Because you have no solutions. You're the person carping from the sidelines. As has been pointed out, as a proportion of those who were infected in the cohort the numbers are vanishingly small, the risk is absolutely tiny. The risks associated with long term unemployment are far, far worse than anything related to COVID wrt young people, and yet you seem relaxed about it and seem to think locking people away forever and a day is a viable solution. It isn't.
Coronavirus outbreak at Nottingham University as 425 students and eight staff test positive as city ‘days’ from lockdown
Why not just lock down the university?
Should have told anyone who wasn't worried about catching the virus to come early and stay in the Halls, have one big Freshers party. Treat it like Big Brother - we'll supply food and alcohol, only rule is you can't get out.
I suspect their lawyers would have fainted at the prospect! Not everyone is impervious at that age, unfortunately.
What risk would you be prepared to accept? I haven't got the latest numbers in front of me, but the number of healthy under 20s in England who have died of Covid-19 stood, on 19 August, as four.
Not four thousand.
Not four hundred.
Not forty.
Four.
A bit more background to that.
As of 3rd July, 651 under-nineteens were admitted to hospital for covid, concentrated in the range 4 months old to 14 years old. The majority of these (375) had no co-morbidities and were otherwise perfectly healthy.
Of these, 116 were admitted to ICU, all bar one of them needing ventilation (58 non-intrusive ventilation, 57 with intrusive ventilation). Of these 116, 47 also needed heart drugs.
Just under half of these 116 had no co-morbidities at all.
However, even if put into ICU and on a ventilator, children were very good at pulling through (albeit with significant suffering); only four actually died.
I love "healthy." What about the unhealthy ones? Where are they on the spectrum between "they don't really count" and "serve them right?"
What an absolutely horrible post – although sadly typical of you – of course they count, you nasty prat.
Sixteen children with comorbidities have died from Covid-19, four without, 20 in total.
It's also amazing that people seem happy to pose no solutions other than "lock everyone up forever for their own good" which is not a solution.
Have you even been reading this board? We've had every solution from risk grading, hospitality closures and fiscal support, border closures, testing at airports, local lockdowns but limited national measures, moderate national measures but no local lockdown, closing pubs but not restaurants for a period, leaving hospitality open but tougher enforcement, and just about everything else. The only one I don't give credence to is "let it rip" because, frankly, I've seen what it can do to someone first hand and I really don't want it.
Gonna need to ramp that up a long way if we want to get 2.5 million students infected in under a month.
Need an average of 100,000 infections per day just amongst the students.
Herd immunity will be substantially less. I suspect we will have it amongst students within a couple of weeks.
I`m not sure what herd immunity amongst students really means. Herd immunity must be to do with the whole herd, surely? If all students because immune they can still pick it up and pass it on can`t they?
Students are pretty insular in my experience. That could be made even firmer by keeping them on campus until end of the month. It would be like the cruise ship early on in this crisis.
As far as taxes are concerned which will be the first party I wonder to realise its better to tax cannabis sold legally, than spend millions chasing drug dealers?
So did the BBC eg Saville and Rolf Harris, so did many schools, so did some football clubs eg Crewe, Manchester City and Chelsea with former coaches, so did some political parties with the likes of Cyril Smith and Peter Morrison, the sexual abuse in the 1970s and 1980s went across the establishment, the Church was only one element.
Plus Welby has correctly issued an unqualified apology today
It's very far from enough though.
(To my mind Rolf Harris isn't in this category)
The BBC, the Church, and many other organisations should be having to answer questions as to why they shouldn't be closed down forthwith.
A forcible closedown of the CoE would be interesting. It'd remove a good portion of idiocy from the House of Lords for example. Welby is obviously a witch anyway, so we should warm up the fires. (Not serious of course, but who'd he be to argue?)
Utter rubbish, you would have to close down the BBC, the Churches Anglican and Catholic and Imams were not immune either in covering up abuse.
Our major political parties, most of our top private schools, many of our top football clubs and their youth team coaches even the Scouts all had abusers within them, the importance is the lessons learned
And if I could pose a question to the group of posters (I think you know who you are) who are both keen punters and share my view that Trump will lose and it won't be close -
What iyo is a Fair Value sell price for Biden EC supremacy right now?
You need to stop wibbling about your bet.
Never close out, that`s my rule. But remind me what your bet is and on which market specifically - and what it is currently trading at.
Not sure I quite go with that rule but Ok I wibble no more. We're sorted. Kenny agrees that we stick at this point. He says the price is still too low and iho Texas is going. And he should know -
Oh there you are. Just pondering your well-reasoned argument in favour of Boris staying on. It all made sense.
Except...the man always was patently unfit to be PM as is universally accepted. As was indeed TMay. Neither was just "bad", and each had a trait which would mean that they would at some time be found out and deposed one way or another. Or leave.
These things have a habit of not working in 24-hr rolling news time but in politics time which can be months and months as it was with May. When she became PM plenty called her a dead woman walking and so it proved. It's the same with Boris imo. He is not fit to be PM, as many fundamental character and political flaws and hence it is a matter of time before he goes.
Is the reason I have backed him to be out by Sep '21.
May was much, much worse than Johnson and had a much, much worse election result - and even she survived for years. Even IDS survived for years.
Very, very unlikely Johnson will be gone next year. I doubt Boris will go before 2023 at the earliest.
As @kinabalu noted, there is no mechanism by which he could go. Except, as noted above, I believe he is manifestly unfit to be PM to the point whereby it is simply unsustainable for him to continue.
And yes you are right as I also noted, May did survive, but she was, to quote Osborne (?) a dead woman walking and so it proved.
But of course yes we shall see.
I take the opposite betting view on this as you know. The 1.8 for Johnson to make it beyond July 2022 is imo a stonking bet. I've put a wedge on it.
BUT to just support your "MO" here. Forget the detailed reasoning, the possible mechanisms, precedent, all of that bunkum, if your strong intuition is that him being PM is not only absurd but SO absurd that it simply cannot go on for that long, you go with that
I do this a lot. Identify what I call Not Happening Events which the consensus thinks are quite likely and then lay them. Recent good examples, Corbyn becoming PM, a 2nd EU Referendum, a No Deal Brexit, a 2nd term for Donald Trump.
So, here, for you, Boris Johnson lasting the course as PM is a Not Happening Event.
I agree that 1.8 for Johnson to make it beyond July 2022 is a stonking bet. Shame you have to tie the cash up though. Still, low interest rates and all. I`m waiting until November when I`ll take this bet by using some of my Biden winnings! The arrogance of the gambler.
Coronavirus outbreak at Nottingham University as 425 students and eight staff test positive as city ‘days’ from lockdown
Why not just lock down the university?
Should have told anyone who wasn't worried about catching the virus to come early and stay in the Halls, have one big Freshers party. Treat it like Big Brother - we'll supply food and alcohol, only rule is you can't get out.
I suspect their lawyers would have fainted at the prospect! Not everyone is impervious at that age, unfortunately.
What risk would you be prepared to accept? I haven't got the latest numbers in front of me, but the number of healthy under 20s in England who have died of Covid-19 stood, on 19 August, as four.
Not four thousand.
Not four hundred.
Not forty.
Four.
A bit more background to that.
As of 3rd July, 651 under-nineteens were admitted to hospital for covid, concentrated in the range 4 months old to 14 years old. The majority of these (375) had no co-morbidities and were otherwise perfectly healthy.
Of these, 116 were admitted to ICU, all bar one of them needing ventilation (58 non-intrusive ventilation, 57 with intrusive ventilation). Of these 116, 47 also needed heart drugs.
Just under half of these 116 had no co-morbidities at all.
However, even if put into ICU and on a ventilator, children were very good at pulling through (albeit with significant suffering); only four actually died.
I love "healthy." What about the unhealthy ones? Where are they on the spectrum between "they don't really count" and "serve them right?"
What an absolutely horrible post – although sadly typical of you – of course they count, you nasty prat.
Sixteen children with comorbidities have died from Covid-19, four without, 20 in total.
It's also amazing that people seem happy to pose no solutions other than "lock everyone up forever for their own good" which is not a solution.
Exactly. PB being PB, over-represented by well off perhaps single (!) white blokes, the idea of locking everyone down comes easily and quickly. But it is impractical for economic, social, and psychological reasons.
We are going to have to come to terms with a modus vivendi that respects the virus but that works with it. We must not let it dominate us. Now....who said that....?
As far as taxes are concerned which will be the first party I wonder to realise its better to tax cannabis sold legally, than spend millions chasing drug dealers?
I'm pretty sure that legalising (and taxing) cannabis has been Lib Dem policy for ages.
Coronavirus outbreak at Nottingham University as 425 students and eight staff test positive as city ‘days’ from lockdown
Why not just lock down the university?
Should have told anyone who wasn't worried about catching the virus to come early and stay in the Halls, have one big Freshers party. Treat it like Big Brother - we'll supply food and alcohol, only rule is you can't get out.
I suspect their lawyers would have fainted at the prospect! Not everyone is impervious at that age, unfortunately.
What risk would you be prepared to accept? I haven't got the latest numbers in front of me, but the number of healthy under 20s in England who have died of Covid-19 stood, on 19 August, as four.
Not four thousand.
Not four hundred.
Not forty.
Four.
A bit more background to that.
As of 3rd July, 651 under-nineteens were admitted to hospital for covid, concentrated in the range 4 months old to 14 years old. The majority of these (375) had no co-morbidities and were otherwise perfectly healthy.
Of these, 116 were admitted to ICU, all bar one of them needing ventilation (58 non-intrusive ventilation, 57 with intrusive ventilation). Of these 116, 47 also needed heart drugs.
Just under half of these 116 had no co-morbidities at all.
However, even if put into ICU and on a ventilator, children were very good at pulling through (albeit with significant suffering); only four actually died.
I love "healthy." What about the unhealthy ones? Where are they on the spectrum between "they don't really count" and "serve them right?"
What an absolutely horrible post – although sadly typical of you – of course they count, you nasty prat.
Sixteen children with comorbidities have died from Covid-19, four without, 20 in total.
It's also amazing that people seem happy to pose no solutions other than "lock everyone up forever for their own good" which is not a solution.
Have you even been reading this board? We've had every solution from risk grading, hospitality closures and fiscal support, border closures, testing at airports, local lockdowns but limited national measures, moderate national measures but no local lockdown, closing pubs but not restaurants for a period, leaving hospitality open but tougher enforcement, and just about everything else. The only one I don't give credence to is "let it rip" because, frankly, I've seen what it can do to someone first hand and I really don't want it.
Every time one of those is mentioned the usual suspects pop up and mention the same "oh but 20 people out of 2 million had problems" we can't take the risk. Except we can and do every winter with the flu.
The virus is running out of control again and the Government seems to have completely given up doing anything.
Rule of six seems to have made little difference as has pub curfew
I don't know anyone in real life who did not accept that there would be a second wave in cases and deaths. Doesn't mean they all give the government a pass - airports remain a gripe - but grim as it is a second wave seems almost priced in as it were.
Coronavirus outbreak at Nottingham University as 425 students and eight staff test positive as city ‘days’ from lockdown
Why not just lock down the university?
Should have told anyone who wasn't worried about catching the virus to come early and stay in the Halls, have one big Freshers party. Treat it like Big Brother - we'll supply food and alcohol, only rule is you can't get out.
I suspect their lawyers would have fainted at the prospect! Not everyone is impervious at that age, unfortunately.
What risk would you be prepared to accept? I haven't got the latest numbers in front of me, but the number of healthy under 20s in England who have died of Covid-19 stood, on 19 August, as four.
Not four thousand.
Not four hundred.
Not forty.
Four.
A bit more background to that.
As of 3rd July, 651 under-nineteens were admitted to hospital for covid, concentrated in the range 4 months old to 14 years old. The majority of these (375) had no co-morbidities and were otherwise perfectly healthy.
Of these, 116 were admitted to ICU, all bar one of them needing ventilation (58 non-intrusive ventilation, 57 with intrusive ventilation). Of these 116, 47 also needed heart drugs.
Just under half of these 116 had no co-morbidities at all.
However, even if put into ICU and on a ventilator, children were very good at pulling through (albeit with significant suffering); only four actually died.
I love "healthy." What about the unhealthy ones? Where are they on the spectrum between "they don't really count" and "serve them right?"
Some of them had asthma, others had neurological conditions, others had heart or oncological issues.
"The most common comorbidities were neurological (11%; 65/614), haematological/oncological/immunological (combined category as described in supplementary methods: 8%; 48/615), and asthma (7%; 45/615)."
I'm not sure "serve them right" was implied by anyone in the conversation, even those who were saying that only children with underlying health conditions were at risk.
But then again, I'm somewhat on the ASD spectrum so I might not be picking up on what you're trying to signal.
Thank you. It certainly wasn't implied by anyone in the discussion, other than by Ishmael who did not imply it but in fact wrote it explicitly.
Coronavirus outbreak at Nottingham University as 425 students and eight staff test positive as city ‘days’ from lockdown
2% of the student population. I'm surprised its that low.
Give it a couple of days...
Tbh, it's not a disaster. Students are exactly the sort of cohort we need to build herd immunity. Anyone under the age of 40 without pre-existing conditions shouldn't be afraid of catching it.
Half the kids who were hospitalised last time around had no pre-existing conditions (Of 651 hospitalised up until 3rd July, 375 had no co-morbidities; 276 had one (45 of these were simply asthma).
People seem to segue so rapidly from "the young have significantly less likely of death" to "No chance of even being put on a ventilator." (And the risk is considerably higher as you shift into even the thirties).
Plus around 2% will have very long covid (over 3 months) and 12% long covid (up to 3 months). Being young doesn't save you from that. Instead, if you have life-long impacts to your heart or lungs - well, when you're young, there's a lot of years to live with that.
So what's the solution? Lock everyone up for their own good? Destroy the economy completey?
Why on Earth ask that? It seems to imply that you're angry at the facts being pointed out.
I do know that if we go around convinced that children are effectively immune, we're going to have a bunch of very angry parents and massive kickback in getting people out and about.
Parents tend to get a bit twitchy about diseases when kids are on ventilators from them.
I really don't think that ignoring downsides is the way forward. How about taking them into account? Targetting the high-dispersal scenarios as per that Atlantic article would be the best idea.
Getting millions of kids infected and acting surprised when tens of thousands of them get hospitalised and thousands end up on some form of ventilation probably doesn't contribute to a solution.
But millions of children have been at school these past few weeks. Have you walked past a school recently? A happy, cacophonous din (tautological?). Just as children should be. And not, yet, "tens of thousands on some form of ventilation".
Gonna need to ramp that up a long way if we want to get 2.5 million students infected in under a month.
Need an average of 100,000 infections per day just amongst the students.
Herd immunity will be substantially less. I suspect we will have it amongst students within a couple of weeks.
Herd immunity slowly kicks in from around 60%, which is 2 million, that would still be a huge number, and remember students do also meet a few older people.
Coronavirus outbreak at Nottingham University as 425 students and eight staff test positive as city ‘days’ from lockdown
Why not just lock down the university?
Should have told anyone who wasn't worried about catching the virus to come early and stay in the Halls, have one big Freshers party. Treat it like Big Brother - we'll supply food and alcohol, only rule is you can't get out.
I suspect their lawyers would have fainted at the prospect! Not everyone is impervious at that age, unfortunately.
What risk would you be prepared to accept? I haven't got the latest numbers in front of me, but the number of healthy under 20s in England who have died of Covid-19 stood, on 19 August, as four.
Not four thousand.
Not four hundred.
Not forty.
Four.
A bit more background to that.
As of 3rd July, 651 under-nineteens were admitted to hospital for covid, concentrated in the range 4 months old to 14 years old. The majority of these (375) had no co-morbidities and were otherwise perfectly healthy.
Of these, 116 were admitted to ICU, all bar one of them needing ventilation (58 non-intrusive ventilation, 57 with intrusive ventilation). Of these 116, 47 also needed heart drugs.
Just under half of these 116 had no co-morbidities at all.
However, even if put into ICU and on a ventilator, children were very good at pulling through (albeit with significant suffering); only four actually died.
651 is a vanishingly low proportion of the total cohort. It is incredibly horrible for them that they had that ordeal, but it remains a general risk of almost zero.
I have no idea whether you have children or not. But, if you do, do you send them to school?
It's around 2% of the cohort at that time. A lot less likely than the rest of the population, but not zero. Scale it up by at least a factor of twenty if we put all kids through it.
I have three kids; one an adult, one now at University, one at school. And both the University and school ones are at University and school because the risk is very low at the moment.
Not, however, if we decide to let it rip through the kids.
If we overload the NHS (easily done if we let it go exponential), most of those who would pull through with ventilation support and some of those who need hospital treatment without ICU wouldn't pull through. And even if we managed to keep it within NHS capability - what do you think would happen to public opinion and willingness to go out and about if there were thousands of kids on ventilators?
Cineworld would be just the start. We were just getting back to some semblance of normal and people getting too blase messed it up. If we had kids pouring into hospitals and pictures and videos of that, no-one would give two wet farts about what proportion of them it was - they'd keep them home in droves.
So did the BBC eg Saville and Rolf Harris, so did many schools, so did some football clubs eg Crewe, Manchester City and Chelsea with former coaches, so did some political parties with the likes of Cyril Smith and Peter Morrison, the sexual abuse in the 1970s and 1980s went across the establishment, the Church was only one element.
Plus Welby has correctly issued an unqualified apology today
It's very far from enough though.
(To my mind Rolf Harris isn't in this category)
The BBC, the Church, and many other organisations should be having to answer questions as to why they shouldn't be closed down forthwith.
A forcible closedown of the CoE would be interesting. It'd remove a good portion of idiocy from the House of Lords for example. Welby is obviously a witch anyway, so we should warm up the fires. (Not serious of course, but who'd he be to argue?)
Utter rubbish, you would have to close down the BBC, the Churches Anglican and Catholic and Imams were not immune either in covering up abuse.
Our major political parties, most of our top private schools, many of our top football clubs and their youth team coaches even the Scouts all had abusers within them, the importance is the lessons learned
They always seem to need to relearn very obvious lessons, like don't cover things up, though.
I'm not advocating just shutting everyone down, but most lessons from these situations should have been pre learned.
So did the BBC eg Saville and Rolf Harris, so did many schools, so did some football clubs eg Crewe, Manchester City and Chelsea with former coaches, so did some political parties with the likes of Cyril Smith and Peter Morrison, the sexual abuse in the 1970s and 1980s went across the establishment, the Church was only one element.
Plus Welby has correctly issued an unqualified apology today
It's very far from enough though.
(To my mind Rolf Harris isn't in this category)
The BBC, the Church, and many other organisations should be having to answer questions as to why they shouldn't be closed down forthwith.
A forcible closedown of the CoE would be interesting. It'd remove a good portion of idiocy from the House of Lords for example. Welby is obviously a witch anyway, so we should warm up the fires. (Not serious of course, but who'd he be to argue?)
Utter rubbish, you would have to close down the BBC, the Churches Anglican and Catholic and Imams were not immune either in covering up abuse.
Our major political parties, most of our top private schools, many of our top football clubs and their youth team coaches even the Scouts all had abusers within them, the importance is the lessons learned
Too important to have to answer the allegations then?
Coronavirus outbreak at Nottingham University as 425 students and eight staff test positive as city ‘days’ from lockdown
Why not just lock down the university?
Should have told anyone who wasn't worried about catching the virus to come early and stay in the Halls, have one big Freshers party. Treat it like Big Brother - we'll supply food and alcohol, only rule is you can't get out.
I suspect their lawyers would have fainted at the prospect! Not everyone is impervious at that age, unfortunately.
What risk would you be prepared to accept? I haven't got the latest numbers in front of me, but the number of healthy under 20s in England who have died of Covid-19 stood, on 19 August, as four.
Not four thousand.
Not four hundred.
Not forty.
Four.
A bit more background to that.
As of 3rd July, 651 under-nineteens were admitted to hospital for covid, concentrated in the range 4 months old to 14 years old. The majority of these (375) had no co-morbidities and were otherwise perfectly healthy.
Of these, 116 were admitted to ICU, all bar one of them needing ventilation (58 non-intrusive ventilation, 57 with intrusive ventilation). Of these 116, 47 also needed heart drugs.
Just under half of these 116 had no co-morbidities at all.
However, even if put into ICU and on a ventilator, children were very good at pulling through (albeit with significant suffering); only four actually died.
I love "healthy." What about the unhealthy ones? Where are they on the spectrum between "they don't really count" and "serve them right?"
Lockdown in Nottingham seems inevitable now. I'm not too far away, so will be watching local news tonight.
If Nottingham does go into a lockdown they should appoint a sheriff to enforce it.
The virus is running out of control again and the Government seems to have completely given up doing anything.
Rule of six seems to have made little difference as has pub curfew
What do you think they should CHB? Are you in favour of drachonian measures or are you more of a "we`ve got to learn to live with a new risk in life" kind of guy?
Thanks for not shouting down my throat.
Personally I'm in favour of banning meetings of groups larger than 4 and only allowing meetings outdoors.
I would close pubs and restaurants completely and provide Government support.
Coronavirus outbreak at Nottingham University as 425 students and eight staff test positive as city ‘days’ from lockdown
Why not just lock down the university?
Should have told anyone who wasn't worried about catching the virus to come early and stay in the Halls, have one big Freshers party. Treat it like Big Brother - we'll supply food and alcohol, only rule is you can't get out.
I suspect their lawyers would have fainted at the prospect! Not everyone is impervious at that age, unfortunately.
What risk would you be prepared to accept? I haven't got the latest numbers in front of me, but the number of healthy under 20s in England who have died of Covid-19 stood, on 19 August, as four.
Not four thousand.
Not four hundred.
Not forty.
Four.
A bit more background to that.
As of 3rd July, 651 under-nineteens were admitted to hospital for covid, concentrated in the range 4 months old to 14 years old. The majority of these (375) had no co-morbidities and were otherwise perfectly healthy.
Of these, 116 were admitted to ICU, all bar one of them needing ventilation (58 non-intrusive ventilation, 57 with intrusive ventilation). Of these 116, 47 also needed heart drugs.
Just under half of these 116 had no co-morbidities at all.
However, even if put into ICU and on a ventilator, children were very good at pulling through (albeit with significant suffering); only four actually died.
I love "healthy." What about the unhealthy ones? Where are they on the spectrum between "they don't really count" and "serve them right?"
What an absolutely horrible post – although sadly typical of you – of course they count, you nasty prat.
Sixteen children with comorbidities have died from Covid-19, four without, 20 in total.
It's also amazing that people seem happy to pose no solutions other than "lock everyone up forever for their own good" which is not a solution.
Have you even been reading this board? We've had every solution from risk grading, hospitality closures and fiscal support, border closures, testing at airports, local lockdowns but limited national measures, moderate national measures but no local lockdown, closing pubs but not restaurants for a period, leaving hospitality open but tougher enforcement, and just about everything else. The only one I don't give credence to is "let it rip" because, frankly, I've seen what it can do to someone first hand and I really don't want it.
Every time one of those is mentioned the usual suspects pop up and mention the same "oh but 20 people out of 2 million had problems" we can't take the risk. Except we can and do every winter with the flu.
And on the roads. It`s the speed limit fallacy. The limit should be cut from 70 to 69 because if it saves one life it is the right thing to do, the limit should be cut from 69 to 68 because if it saves one life it is the right thing to do .... rinse and repeat right down to 0 mph. Reductio ad absurdum.
Coronavirus outbreak at Nottingham University as 425 students and eight staff test positive as city ‘days’ from lockdown
Why not just lock down the university?
Should have told anyone who wasn't worried about catching the virus to come early and stay in the Halls, have one big Freshers party. Treat it like Big Brother - we'll supply food and alcohol, only rule is you can't get out.
I suspect their lawyers would have fainted at the prospect! Not everyone is impervious at that age, unfortunately.
What risk would you be prepared to accept? I haven't got the latest numbers in front of me, but the number of healthy under 20s in England who have died of Covid-19 stood, on 19 August, as four.
Not four thousand.
Not four hundred.
Not forty.
Four.
A bit more background to that.
As of 3rd July, 651 under-nineteens were admitted to hospital for covid, concentrated in the range 4 months old to 14 years old. The majority of these (375) had no co-morbidities and were otherwise perfectly healthy.
Of these, 116 were admitted to ICU, all bar one of them needing ventilation (58 non-intrusive ventilation, 57 with intrusive ventilation). Of these 116, 47 also needed heart drugs.
Just under half of these 116 had no co-morbidities at all.
However, even if put into ICU and on a ventilator, children were very good at pulling through (albeit with significant suffering); only four actually died.
I love "healthy." What about the unhealthy ones? Where are they on the spectrum between "they don't really count" and "serve them right?"
What an absolutely horrible post – although sadly typical of you – of course they count, you nasty prat.
Sixteen children with comorbidities have died from Covid-19, four without, 20 in total.
It's also amazing that people seem happy to pose no solutions other than "lock everyone up forever for their own good" which is not a solution.
Exactly. PB being PB, over-represented by well off perhaps single (!) white blokes, the idea of locking everyone down comes easily and quickly. But it is impractical for economic, social, and psychological reasons.
We are going to have to come to terms with a modus vivendi that respects the virus but that works with it. We must not let it dominate us. Now....who said that....?
I think that we are creating a modus vivendi as you put it, and it is largely people being sensible. Increased distance and masks seem to be a way forward that lets most things happen rather than locking everything down.
Eventually there will be a vaccine or herd immunity will be achieved and things like pubs and cinemas can resume, but perhaps packing people in like peas in a pod will not be happening any more....
Gonna need to ramp that up a long way if we want to get 2.5 million students infected in under a month.
Need an average of 100,000 infections per day just amongst the students.
Herd immunity will be substantially less. I suspect we will have it amongst students within a couple of weeks.
I`m not sure what herd immunity amongst students really means. Herd immunity must be to do with the whole herd, surely? If all students because immune they can still pick it up and pass it on can`t they?
Students are pretty insular in my experience. That could be made even firmer by keeping them on campus until end of the month. It would be like the cruise ship early on in this crisis.
I appreciate the breathless excitement for the dazzling candidate, the second Obama, that is Joe Biden, but I would be wary of getting sucked into Biden now the markets have already moved.
I don't think anyone thinks he is dazzling or the second Obama. Just not being Donald Trump is good enough.
I preferred Warren and Sanders but I'm warming to Joe. I like him. Feel some affection even.
Gonna need to ramp that up a long way if we want to get 2.5 million students infected in under a month.
Need an average of 100,000 infections per day just amongst the students.
Herd immunity will be substantially less. I suspect we will have it amongst students within a couple of weeks.
Herd immunity slowly kicks in from around 60%, which is 2 million, that would still be a huge number, and remember students do also meet a few older people.
I don't think that figure has been shown for this virus. See Gupta at Oxford et al.
The virus is running out of control again and the Government seems to have completely given up doing anything.
Rule of six seems to have made little difference as has pub curfew
What do you think they should CHB? Are you in favour of drachonian measures or are you more of a "we`ve got to learn to live with a new risk in life" kind of guy?
Thanks for not shouting down my throat.
Personally I'm in favour of banning meetings of groups larger than 4 and only allowing meetings outdoors.
I would close pubs and restaurants completely and provide Government support.
I`m not sure what the science currently says about the risks posed by pubs and restaurants. I`m all for a more targeted approach as well. The Atlantic article last week has influenced me a lot on this. The significance of super-spreader events and effective track and trace may be the way forward - and this would release the majority to get on with our lives accepting personal responsibility for our own decisions and health.
Coronavirus outbreak at Nottingham University as 425 students and eight staff test positive as city ‘days’ from lockdown
Why not just lock down the university?
Should have told anyone who wasn't worried about catching the virus to come early and stay in the Halls, have one big Freshers party. Treat it like Big Brother - we'll supply food and alcohol, only rule is you can't get out.
I suspect their lawyers would have fainted at the prospect! Not everyone is impervious at that age, unfortunately.
What risk would you be prepared to accept? I haven't got the latest numbers in front of me, but the number of healthy under 20s in England who have died of Covid-19 stood, on 19 August, as four.
Not four thousand.
Not four hundred.
Not forty.
Four.
A bit more background to that.
As of 3rd July, 651 under-nineteens were admitted to hospital for covid, concentrated in the range 4 months old to 14 years old. The majority of these (375) had no co-morbidities and were otherwise perfectly healthy.
Of these, 116 were admitted to ICU, all bar one of them needing ventilation (58 non-intrusive ventilation, 57 with intrusive ventilation). Of these 116, 47 also needed heart drugs.
Just under half of these 116 had no co-morbidities at all.
However, even if put into ICU and on a ventilator, children were very good at pulling through (albeit with significant suffering); only four actually died.
I love "healthy." What about the unhealthy ones? Where are they on the spectrum between "they don't really count" and "serve them right?"
What an absolutely horrible post – although sadly typical of you – of course they count, you nasty prat.
Sixteen children with comorbidities have died from Covid-19, four without, 20 in total.
It's also amazing that people seem happy to pose no solutions other than "lock everyone up forever for their own good" which is not a solution.
Exactly. PB being PB, over-represented by well off perhaps single (!) white blokes, the idea of locking everyone down comes easily and quickly. But it is impractical for economic, social, and psychological reasons.
We are going to have to come to terms with a modus vivendi that respects the virus but that works with it. We must not let it dominate us. Now....who said that....?
I think that we are creating a modus vivendi as you put it, and it is largely people being sensible. Increased distance and masks seem to be a way forward that lets most things happen rather than locking everything down.
Eventually there will be a vaccine or herd immunity will be achieved and things like pubs and cinemas can resume, but perhaps packing people in like peas in a pod will not be happening any more....
Herd immunity will take around 3 years to achieve at infection rates similar to now with an acceptable CFR. That's three years of living like this. No thanks.
Coronavirus outbreak at Nottingham University as 425 students and eight staff test positive as city ‘days’ from lockdown
2% of the student population. I'm surprised its that low.
Give it a couple of days...
Tbh, it's not a disaster. Students are exactly the sort of cohort we need to build herd immunity. Anyone under the age of 40 without pre-existing conditions shouldn't be afraid of catching it.
Half the kids who were hospitalised last time around had no pre-existing conditions (Of 651 hospitalised up until 3rd July, 375 had no co-morbidities; 276 had one (45 of these were simply asthma).
People seem to segue so rapidly from "the young have significantly less likely of death" to "No chance of even being put on a ventilator." (And the risk is considerably higher as you shift into even the thirties).
Plus around 2% will have very long covid (over 3 months) and 12% long covid (up to 3 months). Being young doesn't save you from that. Instead, if you have life-long impacts to your heart or lungs - well, when you're young, there's a lot of years to live with that.
So what's the solution? Lock everyone up for their own good? Destroy the economy completey?
Why on Earth ask that? It seems to imply that you're angry at the facts being pointed out.
I do know that if we go around convinced that children are effectively immune, we're going to have a bunch of very angry parents and massive kickback in getting people out and about.
Parents tend to get a bit twitchy about diseases when kids are on ventilators from them.
I really don't think that ignoring downsides is the way forward. How about taking them into account? Targetting the high-dispersal scenarios as per that Atlantic article would be the best idea.
Getting millions of kids infected and acting surprised when tens of thousands of them get hospitalised and thousands end up on some form of ventilation probably doesn't contribute to a solution.
Because you have no solutions. You're the person carping from the sidelines. As has been pointed out, as a proportion of those who were infected in the cohort the numbers are vanishingly small, the risk is absolutely tiny. The risks associated with long term unemployment are far, far worse than anything related to COVID wrt young people, and yet you seem relaxed about it and seem to think locking people away forever and a day is a viable solution. It isn't.
Bollocks I do. My solutions would be to focus on potential superspreader scenarios, aim for the less-reliable-but-rapid-and-easy testing capabilities (eg saliva tests within minutes), enforce mask-wearing and social distancing properly, continue with our current restrictions until infections start falling, look at progressively releasing restrictions when we can, vaccinate everyone as soon as available.
"you seem relaxed about it and seem to think locking people away forever and a day is a viable solution. It isn't" I've been opposed to a renewed lockdown consistently. I've advocated "finding the low hanging fruit" and going for it ever since March.
Kindly don't ascribe motives to people out of ignorance or anger that your own preferences aren't reflected by reality.
As @rcs1000 keeps pointing out - we get de facto lockdown when people respond to what they see.
Give them thousands of kids in hospitals to see, what do you think will happen?
So - how about NOT aiming to get all the kids and students infected? Because as solutions go, that's not looking likely to help anyone, and likely to end up with us actually locked away again - de facto if not de jure.
My youngest is severely autistic and he didn't cope well with the first lockdown. I'm bloody terrified that people shooting from the hip on solutions (all the way up to Boris) will end up with that happening again.
Coronavirus outbreak at Nottingham University as 425 students and eight staff test positive as city ‘days’ from lockdown
Why not just lock down the university?
Should have told anyone who wasn't worried about catching the virus to come early and stay in the Halls, have one big Freshers party. Treat it like Big Brother - we'll supply food and alcohol, only rule is you can't get out.
I suspect their lawyers would have fainted at the prospect! Not everyone is impervious at that age, unfortunately.
What risk would you be prepared to accept? I haven't got the latest numbers in front of me, but the number of healthy under 20s in England who have died of Covid-19 stood, on 19 August, as four.
Not four thousand.
Not four hundred.
Not forty.
Four.
A bit more background to that.
As of 3rd July, 651 under-nineteens were admitted to hospital for covid, concentrated in the range 4 months old to 14 years old. The majority of these (375) had no co-morbidities and were otherwise perfectly healthy.
Of these, 116 were admitted to ICU, all bar one of them needing ventilation (58 non-intrusive ventilation, 57 with intrusive ventilation). Of these 116, 47 also needed heart drugs.
Just under half of these 116 had no co-morbidities at all.
However, even if put into ICU and on a ventilator, children were very good at pulling through (albeit with significant suffering); only four actually died.
651 is a vanishingly low proportion of the total cohort. It is incredibly horrible for them that they had that ordeal, but it remains a general risk of almost zero.
I have no idea whether you have children or not. But, if you do, do you send them to school?
It's around 2% of the cohort at that time. A lot less likely than the rest of the population, but not zero. Scale it up by at least a factor of twenty if we put all kids through it.
I have three kids; one an adult, one now at University, one at school. And both the University and school ones are at University and school because the risk is very low at the moment.
Not, however, if we decide to let it rip through the kids.
If we overload the NHS (easily done if we let it go exponential), most of those who would pull through with ventilation support and some of those who need hospital treatment without ICU wouldn't pull through. And even if we managed to keep it within NHS capability - what do you think would happen to public opinion and willingness to go out and about if there were thousands of kids on ventilators?
Cineworld would be just the start. We were just getting back to some semblance of normal and people getting too blase messed it up. If we had kids pouring into hospitals and pictures and videos of that, no-one would give two wet farts about what proportion of them it was - they'd keep them home in droves.
I don't think we want that.
2% of the infected cohort? Or 2% of the tested positive cohort? (two very different things, the majority of infected children will never know they had it).
Of the total cohort there are approx 14 million under 20s in England. Of that total cohort, 615 (according to your data) have been hospitalised by covid-19.
I am right in thinking it is only the UK and Iran that have unelected clergy in their Parliaments?
And an appallingly unrepresentative selection, both in terms of geography and of belief (and lack of), of the UK. If you are a Free Churcher in Lewis, or a Quaker in Somerset, hard luck.
It's not the real parliament, though. I imagine that bigass quakers get peerages on an ad hoc basis anyway and that the Free Church would turn them down on principle.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern was a Wee Wee Free until he very correctly told them where to stick it. Of course his ennoblement had not much to do with his religion.
Comments
https://twitter.com/CAP10AMERICA/status/1311840259538399239
And yes you are right as I also noted, May did survive, but she was, to quote Osborne (?) a dead woman walking and so it proved.
But of course yes we shall see.
These are important questions.
People seem to segue so rapidly from "the young have significantly less likely of death" to "No chance of even being put on a ventilator."
(And the risk is considerably higher as you shift into even the thirties).
Plus around 2% will have very long covid (over 3 months) and 12% long covid (up to 3 months). Being young doesn't save you from that. Instead, if you have life-long impacts to your heart or lungs - well, when you're young, there's a lot of years to live with that.
You should broaden your horizons and not be such a snob.
Plus Welby has correctly issued an unqualified apology today
As of 3rd July, 651 under-nineteens were admitted to hospital for covid, concentrated in the range 4 months old to 14 years old. The majority of these (375) had no co-morbidities and were otherwise perfectly healthy.
Of these, 116 were admitted to ICU, all bar one of them needing ventilation (58 non-intrusive ventilation, 57 with intrusive ventilation). Of these 116, 47 also needed heart drugs.
Just under half of these 116 had no co-morbidities at all.
However, even if put into ICU and on a ventilator, children were very good at pulling through (albeit with significant suffering); only four actually died.
It's getting a 'David Brent about to be sacked' feel to it.
How is that going to happen with Boris? What is the path to see him go? Unless you have one, inertia means he is likely to stay for now.
https://twitter.com/MtgGuyDan/status/1313223881134534656?s=20
Indeed Quakers are often reluctant to use even titles such as Mr or Mrs.
Sixteen children with comorbidities have died from Covid-19, four without, 20 in total.
Need an average of 100,000 infections per day just amongst the students.
I have no idea whether you have children or not. But, if you do, do you send them to school?
Take back control we were told.
I guess there are exceptions - I`m thinking about long odds bets. For instance I`ve got a few notes on Bamford (Leeds) to be top scorer this season at 100/1. I don`t think he WILL be top scorer but think it was over-priced when I made the bet. So I`ll cash out at some point when he shortens sufficiently (hopefully). Same goes for ridiculously long-priced nil nil draws (as we`ve previously discussed).
I do know that if we go around convinced that children are effectively immune, we're going to have a bunch of very angry parents and massive kickback in getting people out and about.
Parents tend to get a bit twitchy about diseases when kids are on ventilators from them.
I really don't think that ignoring downsides is the way forward. How about taking them into account?
Targetting the high-dispersal scenarios as per that Atlantic article would be the best idea.
Getting millions of kids infected and acting surprised when tens of thousands of them get hospitalised and thousands end up on some form of ventilation probably doesn't contribute to a solution.
https://twitter.com/PoliticsReid/status/1313491056118444033?s=20
No doubt this favours Trump though, somehow.
When one asks what such posters advocate in place of endless total lockdown, one is almost invariably hit with a wall of silence.
(To my mind Rolf Harris isn't in this category)
The BBC, the Church, and many other organisations should be having to answer questions as to why they shouldn't be closed down forthwith.
A forcible closedown of the CoE would be interesting. It'd remove a good portion of idiocy from the House of Lords for example. Welby is obviously a witch anyway, so we should warm up the fires. (Not serious of course, but who'd he be to argue?)
Plus, he has Cummings at his side and people are gunning for Cummings so there will possibly some collateral damage.
Rule of six seems to have made little difference as has pub curfew
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54435240
That's a very good poll for Big Joe. The trend is interesting.
BUT to just support your "MO" here. Forget the detailed reasoning, the possible mechanisms, precedent, all of that bunkum, if your strong intuition is that him being PM is not only absurd but SO absurd that it simply cannot go on for that long, you go with that
I do this a lot. Identify what I call Not Happening Events which the consensus thinks are quite likely and then lay them. Recent good examples, Corbyn becoming PM, a 2nd EU Referendum, a No Deal Brexit, a 2nd term for Donald Trump.
So, here, for you, Boris Johnson lasting the course as PM is a Not Happening Event.
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1313474607609978880?s=19
"The most common comorbidities were neurological (11%; 65/614), haematological/oncological/immunological (combined category as described in supplementary methods: 8%; 48/615), and asthma (7%; 45/615)."
I'm not sure "serve them right" was implied by anyone in the conversation, even those who were saying that only children with underlying health conditions were at risk.
But then again, I'm somewhat on the ASD spectrum so I might not be picking up on what you're trying to signal.
Obviously uni staff is a problem though.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8314795/Child-sexual-abuse-Muslim-communities-underreported-say-Britains-big-Islamic-authorities.html
Our major political parties, most of our top private schools, many of our top football clubs and their youth team coaches even the Scouts all had abusers within them, the importance is the lessons learned
We are going to have to come to terms with a modus vivendi that respects the virus but that works with it. We must not let it dominate us. Now....who said that....?
Biden: $5.8m in Texas
(Trump $??? on Tacos)
Why he did that, I cannot say.
A lot less likely than the rest of the population, but not zero.
Scale it up by at least a factor of twenty if we put all kids through it.
I have three kids; one an adult, one now at University, one at school. And both the University and school ones are at University and school because the risk is very low at the moment.
Not, however, if we decide to let it rip through the kids.
If we overload the NHS (easily done if we let it go exponential), most of those who would pull through with ventilation support and some of those who need hospital treatment without ICU wouldn't pull through. And even if we managed to keep it within NHS capability - what do you think would happen to public opinion and willingness to go out and about if there were thousands of kids on ventilators?
Cineworld would be just the start. We were just getting back to some semblance of normal and people getting too blase messed it up. If we had kids pouring into hospitals and pictures and videos of that, no-one would give two wet farts about what proportion of them it was - they'd keep them home in droves.
I don't think we want that.
I'm not advocating just shutting everyone down, but most lessons from these situations should have been pre learned.
My utter rubbish seems to be your denial.
Personally I'm in favour of banning meetings of groups larger than 4 and only allowing meetings outdoors.
I would close pubs and restaurants completely and provide Government support.
Eventually there will be a vaccine or herd immunity will be achieved and things like pubs and cinemas can resume, but perhaps packing people in like peas in a pod will not be happening any more....
Biden 54
Trump 42
My solutions would be to focus on potential superspreader scenarios, aim for the less-reliable-but-rapid-and-easy testing capabilities (eg saliva tests within minutes), enforce mask-wearing and social distancing properly, continue with our current restrictions until infections start falling, look at progressively releasing restrictions when we can, vaccinate everyone as soon as available.
"you seem relaxed about it and seem to think locking people away forever and a day is a viable solution. It isn't"
I've been opposed to a renewed lockdown consistently. I've advocated "finding the low hanging fruit" and going for it ever since March.
Kindly don't ascribe motives to people out of ignorance or anger that your own preferences aren't reflected by reality.
As @rcs1000 keeps pointing out - we get de facto lockdown when people respond to what they see.
Give them thousands of kids in hospitals to see, what do you think will happen?
So - how about NOT aiming to get all the kids and students infected? Because as solutions go, that's not looking likely to help anyone, and likely to end up with us actually locked away again - de facto if not de jure.
My youngest is severely autistic and he didn't cope well with the first lockdown. I'm bloody terrified that people shooting from the hip on solutions (all the way up to Boris) will end up with that happening again.
Of the total cohort there are approx 14 million under 20s in England. Of that total cohort, 615 (according to your data) have been hospitalised by covid-19.