They locked down hard and contained and suppressed the virus.
They have pretty much sealed their borders, too.
But at some point soon, someone, somewhere in a Chinese city of 10 million that no-one has heard of, is going to feel the irresistable need to eat a half-cooked, covid-carrying bat once more - and it will all begin again.
You're the only Tory I know of that seems to actually accept Johnson will end up capitulating, I can respect you for that POV
The only way there is any kind of deal is if Sections 41 to 45 of the Internal Market Bill are entirely redrafted or withdrawn. That will be Brussels dictating to the UK government what should and should not be in internal UK legislation. If it happens, the ERG will go berserk, as will the DUP. And so the endless war will continue.
I imagine Mr Cunningham will be breathing a sigh of relief that "Cunningham accused of having affair" will probably get replaced with "Senator accused of wife-beating".
21 covid deaths in Royal Glamorgan Hospital who did not pick it up in the community, but in the hospital itself
BigG:
The dreadful situation that you outline today is, I believe, analogous to visiting rights in care homes (which I have posted about previously). A campaign group called "John`s Campaign" is challenging the government by way of judicial review.
From webpage: "At the heart of the John’s Campaign case is the belief that closest family are not visitors – an optional extra in care home residents’ lives – but are integral to their well-being and happiness. An article in the Sunday Times last weekend criticized the Government’s visiting rules as ‘hazy’: ‘When you can see your relative, for how long and in what circumstances can seem like a lottery.’ John’s Campaign believes that the flaws are fundamental, rooted in the government’s failure to take account of human rights."
This is to do with care homes, and dementia residents in particular, but parallels can be drawn with hospital visiting.
Our friend`s father (over 90) was taken into hospital a couple of weeks ago and, once admitted, his wife and children were prevented from visiting. My friend, a solicitor, called the hospital and very firmly told them to reverse this decision in the case of her father. The hospital countered that they would only allow visitors in an end-of-life-situation. Given my friend`s father`s age and numerous conditions my friend argued that it was impossible to ascertain whether this was an end-of-life-situation and urged the hospital to work on the assumption that it might be. In the end the hospital relented and allowed visitors.
I think you should challenge the hospital in this case.
You're the only Tory I know of that seems to actually accept Johnson will end up capitulating, I can respect you for that POV
Whether he capitulates or not I just want a deal
Honestly, that's where I am right now. I don't care about the point scoring, no matter how stupid and fruitless this exercise is. I just want to avoid the lorry park pileup and all the supply chains getting spectacularly fucked come Jan 1st.
You're the only Tory I know of that seems to actually accept Johnson will end up capitulating, I can respect you for that POV
The only way there is any kind of deal is if Sections 41 to 45 of the Internal Market Bill are entirely redrafted or withdrawn. That will be Brussels dictating to the UK government what should and should not be in internal UK legislation. If it happens, the ERG will go berserk, as will the DUP. And so the endless war will continue.
It is not beyond imagination that the deal will make those clauses irrelevant
21 covid deaths in Royal Glamorgan Hospital who did not pick it up in the community, but in the hospital itself
Terrible but not unexpected. HAIs even get their own acronym, and have always been an unintended side effect of stuffing sick people all into the one big building.
Never expected to be so happy to see a man kicked when he's down. I'd be wary of that poll though. Doesn't pass the smell test in various respects.
Thanks, Peter. I take most polls with a grain of salt, even the "gold standards". What is noteworthy to me about this is that it is The Hill publishing it. They are certainly right of centre, albeit way more Establishment than Trump, so there is that.
Yeah, but the problem isn't their political orientation. There's sample size for a start but more significant to me is that they are polling in an affluent area. This is exactly where you would expect to find Shy Trump Voter Syndrome. Nationally STVS is insignificant after netting out against its mirror image Shy Biden Voter Syndrome, but of course in a single County poll, it could be substantial.
I read it otherwise, Peter - that they polled the entire Congressional district, which so happens to contain those affluent areas - not that they cherry-picked an affluent area.
It is an affluent district (mean income $75k), and mostly white, so I can see your point that this district might be more susceptible to STVS, but they are comparing like for like - the entire district now against the same district in 2016. And there must be some value in polling such seemingly good for Trump districts rather than just doing battleground states and districts.
They locked down hard and contained and suppressed the virus.
They have pretty much sealed their borders, too.
But at some point soon, someone, somewhere in a Chinese city of 10 million that no-one has heard of, is going to feel the irresistable need to eat a half-cooked, covid-carrying bat once more - and it will all begin again.
Ordering well done Covid bat is a faux pas in Chinese foodie cliques
21 covid deaths in Royal Glamorgan Hospital who did not pick it up in the community, but in the hospital itself
BigG:
The dreadful situation that you outline today is, I believe, analogous to visiting rights in care homes (which I have posted about previously). A campaign group called "John`s Campaign" is challenging the government by way of judicial review.
From webpage: "At the heart of the John’s Campaign case is the belief that closest family are not visitors – an optional extra in care home residents’ lives – but are integral to their well-being and happiness. An article in the Sunday Times last weekend criticized the Government’s visiting rules as ‘hazy’: ‘When you can see your relative, for how long and in what circumstances can seem like a lottery.’ John’s Campaign believes that the flaws are fundamental, rooted in the government’s failure to take account of human rights."
This is to do with care homes, and dementia residents in particular, but parallels can be drawn with hospital visiting.
Our friend`s father (over 90) was taken into hospital a couple of weeks ago and, once admitted, his wife and children were prevented from visiting. My friend, a solicitor, called the hospital and very firmly told them to reverse this decision in the case of her father. The hospital countered that they would only allow visitors in an end-of-life-situation. Given my friend`s father`s age and numerous conditions my friend argues that it was impossible to ascertain whether this was an end-of-life-situation and urged the hospital to work on the assumption that it might be. In the end the hospital relented and allowed visitors.
I think you should challenge the hospital in this case.
Thank you and I will pass this on to my son in law
You're the only Tory I know of that seems to actually accept Johnson will end up capitulating, I can respect you for that POV
Whether he capitulates or not I just want a deal
He can capitulate on state aid, which was not in the winning Tory manifesto, he cannot capitulate on reclaiming our fishing waters, which was in the Tory manifesto
You're the only Tory I know of that seems to actually accept Johnson will end up capitulating, I can respect you for that POV
Whether he capitulates or not I just want a deal
He can capitulate on state aid, which was not in the winning Tory manifesto, he cannot capitulate on reclaiming our fishing waters, which was in the Tory manifesto
How long an implementation period do you think he can concede?
You're the only Tory I know of that seems to actually accept Johnson will end up capitulating, I can respect you for that POV
Whether he capitulates or not I just want a deal
He can capitulate on state aid, which was not in the winning Tory manifesto, he cannot capitulate on reclaiming our fishing waters, which was in the Tory manifesto
He can, and he probably will. And then you'll write a long and interesting post on why this was absolutely the right thing to do all along and this is completely compliant with the manifesto, while most of us are glad that the economy isn't being trashed over bloody fishermen.
You're the only Tory I know of that seems to actually accept Johnson will end up capitulating, I can respect you for that POV
Whether he capitulates or not I just want a deal
He can capitulate on state aid, which was not in the winning Tory manifesto, he cannot capitulate on reclaiming our fishing waters, which was in the Tory manifesto
Do you think he can fudge this, by agreeing a deal and parking fishing for, say, two or three years? My hunch is that this is where we are heading.
Any explanations on how China is now basically back to normal?
In a word, lockdowns.
Have you been asleep or on another planet for most of the year?
Lockdowns may suppress they do not eliminate.
Lockdowns only postpone. But the collateral damage they do is very large. Economic. Health. Mental and emotional wellbeing. I wonder how many people have a terrible story like the one related to us by Big G today.
You're the only Tory I know of that seems to actually accept Johnson will end up capitulating, I can respect you for that POV
Whether he capitulates or not I just want a deal
He can capitulate on state aid, which was not in the winning Tory manifesto, he cannot capitulate on reclaiming our fishing waters, which was in the Tory manifesto
How long an implementation period do you think he can concede?
You're the only Tory I know of that seems to actually accept Johnson will end up capitulating, I can respect you for that POV
Whether he capitulates or not I just want a deal
He can capitulate on state aid, which was not in the winning Tory manifesto, he cannot capitulate on reclaiming our fishing waters, which was in the Tory manifesto
He can, and he probably will. And then you'll write a long and interesting post on why this was absolutely the right thing to do all along and this is completely compliant with the manifesto, while most of us are glad that the economy isn't being trashed over bloody fishermen.
It`s not about fisherman, or at least not predominately so. For leavers (I`m not in their number) it is about the principle of access to our waters. A totemic sovereignty issue to do with borders. It is no different to foreigners taking coal from a UK coalmine. If foreign countries want access to the natural resources from our sea, or the natural resources from our land, they must pay bigly.
I sense that if Johnson gives this away he will be buggered Trump-toast style.
I am beyond caring over point scoring - just do a deal
My point BigG, is if we accede to the EU'S every whim, what was the point of Brexit in the first place, except as a vehicle to propel Johnson to Prime Minister.
Let us wait to see the deal but Boris was not PM when the referendum took place
Come off it, Mr Wales! Brexit was Johnson´s platform.
There was no point to Brexit, except to promote Johnson and his quest to the preiership. .
You're the only Tory I know of that seems to actually accept Johnson will end up capitulating, I can respect you for that POV
Whether he capitulates or not I just want a deal
He can capitulate on state aid, which was not in the winning Tory manifesto, he cannot capitulate on reclaiming our fishing waters, which was in the Tory manifesto
He can, and he probably will. And then you'll write a long and interesting post on why this was absolutely the right thing to do all along and this is completely compliant with the manifesto, while most of us are glad that the economy isn't being trashed over bloody fishermen.
He won't given so many Tory MPs now represent fishing ports from Peterhead to Grimsby, to Harwich, Folkestone, Hastings and St Ives.
If he does he loses much of his majority, those Tory MPs will try and push a no confidence vote in Boris and Tory voters in those fishing port seats would go to Farage and the Brexit party
You're the only Tory I know of that seems to actually accept Johnson will end up capitulating, I can respect you for that POV
Whether he capitulates or not I just want a deal
He can capitulate on state aid, which was not in the winning Tory manifesto, he cannot capitulate on reclaiming our fishing waters, which was in the Tory manifesto
Do you think he can fudge this, by agreeing a deal and parking fishing for, say, two or three years? My hunch is that this is where we are heading.
He can get gradual reclamation but not no reclaimation
You're the only Tory I know of that seems to actually accept Johnson will end up capitulating, I can respect you for that POV
Whether he capitulates or not I just want a deal
He can capitulate on state aid, which was not in the winning Tory manifesto, he cannot capitulate on reclaiming our fishing waters, which was in the Tory manifesto
He can, and he probably will. And then you'll write a long and interesting post on why this was absolutely the right thing to do all along and this is completely compliant with the manifesto, while most of us are glad that the economy isn't being trashed over bloody fishermen.
It`s not about fisherman, or at least not predominately so. For leavers (I`m not in their number) it is about the principle of access to our waters. A totemic sovereignty issue to do with borders. It is no different to foreigners taking coal from a UK coalmine. If foreign countries want access to the natural resources from our sea, or the natural resources from our land, they must pay bigly.
I sense that if Johnson gives this away he will be buggered Trump-toast style.
I have posted this before, but a fishing betrayal, on top of everything else Johnson has done in the last seven months, would give Farage the momentum he needs to re-launch.
Both sides are guilty of diplomacy by tweet but this kind of holier than thou smart arsing is precisely the sort of thing that contributed to damaging the EU over here in the first place.
We could equally say exactly the same thing the other way round.
Not having the likes of Charles Michel on our media quite so much post January 1 reminds me why I voted to leave in the first place.
Any explanations on how China is now basically back to normal?
In a word, lockdowns.
Have you been asleep or on another planet for most of the year?
Lockdowns may suppress they do not eliminate.
Lockdowns only postpone. But the collateral damage they do is very large. Economic. Health. Mental and emotional wellbeing. I wonder how many people have a terrible story like the one related to us by Big G today.
Even if there was no lockdown, @Big_G_NorthWales hospital would still take steps to minimise the risk of infections entering their facilities.
Both sides are guilty of diplomacy by tweet but this kind of holier than thou smart arsing is precisely the sort of thing that contributed to damaging the EU over here in the first place.
We could equally say exactly the same thing the other way round.
Not having the likes of Charles Michel on our media quite so much post January 1 reminds me why I voted to leave in the first place.
And would again.
They certainly don’t care what you think now. We’re out. So it doesn’t have to “achieve” anything.
Any explanations on how China is now basically back to normal?
In a word, lockdowns.
Have you been asleep or on another planet for most of the year?
Lockdowns may suppress they do not eliminate.
Lockdowns only postpone. But the collateral damage they do is very large. Economic. Health. Mental and emotional wellbeing. I wonder how many people have a terrible story like the one related to us by Big G today.
Even if there was no lockdown, @Big_G_NorthWales hospital would still take steps to minimise the risk of infections entering their facilities.
Not to the extent of banning visitors.
They could, for instance, insist on PPE or that visitor`s are allowed with a negative Covid test withing three days, or whatever.
21 covid deaths in Royal Glamorgan Hospital who did not pick it up in the community, but in the hospital itself
Terrible but not unexpected. HAIs even get their own acronym, and have always been an unintended side effect of stuffing sick people all into the one big building.
We have had a couple of minor outbreaks on wards, but nothing like that scale.
It is why it is difficult to get back to good productivity in non covid diseases. There do need to be changes to make treatment safe.
Any explanations on how China is now basically back to normal?
In a word, lockdowns.
Have you been asleep or on another planet for most of the year?
Lockdowns may suppress they do not eliminate.
Lockdowns only postpone. But the collateral damage they do is very large. Economic. Health. Mental and emotional wellbeing. I wonder how many people have a terrible story like the one related to us by Big G today.
Even if there was no lockdown, @Big_G_NorthWales hospital would still take steps to minimise the risk of infections entering their facilities.
Not to the extent of banning visitors.
They could, for instance, insist on PPE or that visitor`s are allowed with a negative Covid test withing three days, or whatever.
I agree.
My point is that there seems to be a terrible false dichotomy on here, where people imagine that life in places without CV19 restrictions (Sweden, Arizona, Georgia) continues largely as it was before.
So hospitals in these places are going to be erring on the side of caution. Because you being upset now is one thing, but them being held responsible for a CV19 outbreak among the most vulnerable is another.
I would be staggered if hospitals in non-lockdown places have very different rules to the UK.
Where the UK has totally f*cked things up is not having a consistent, long-term liveable set of government restrictions for everyone else, that (in particular).
Any explanations on how China is now basically back to normal?
In a word, lockdowns.
Have you been asleep or on another planet for most of the year?
Lockdowns may suppress they do not eliminate.
Lockdowns only postpone. But the collateral damage they do is very large. Economic. Health. Mental and emotional wellbeing. I wonder how many people have a terrible story like the one related to us by Big G today.
Even if there was no lockdown, @Big_G_NorthWales hospital would still take steps to minimise the risk of infections entering their facilities.
Not to the extent of banning visitors.
They could, for instance, insist on PPE or that visitor`s are allowed with a negative Covid test withing three days, or whatever.
I agree.
My point is that there seems to be a terrible false dichotomy on here, where people imagine that life in places without CV19 restrictions (Sweden, Arizona, Georgia) continues largely as it was before.
So hospitals in these places are going to be erring on the side of caution. Because you being upset now is one thing, but them being held responsible for a CV19 outbreak among the most vulnerable is another.
I would be staggered if hospitals in non-lockdown places have very different rules to the UK.
Where the UK has totally f*cked things up is not having a consistent, long-term liveable set of government restrictions for everyone else, that (in particular).
No organisation, private or state, a should be held legally responsible for a virus outbreak. This should be in legislation already as I, and Cyclefree, have said many times.
Both sides are guilty of diplomacy by tweet but this kind of holier than thou smart arsing is precisely the sort of thing that contributed to damaging the EU over here in the first place.
We could equally say exactly the same thing the other way round.
Not having the likes of Charles Michel on our media quite so much post January 1 reminds me why I voted to leave in the first place.
And would again.
They certainly don’t care what you think now. We’re out. So it doesn’t have to “achieve” anything.
Well he does care because he wants a deal, hence the clumsy tweet.
Doubtless some other Euro types will pop along shortly demanding we be more “realistic”, “serious”, stop “playing games” or whatever the latest euphemism is for “just roll over and do what we want” is.
Any explanations on how China is now basically back to normal?
In a word, lockdowns.
Have you been asleep or on another planet for most of the year?
Lockdowns may suppress they do not eliminate.
Lockdowns only postpone. But the collateral damage they do is very large. Economic. Health. Mental and emotional wellbeing. I wonder how many people have a terrible story like the one related to us by Big G today.
Even if there was no lockdown, @Big_G_NorthWales hospital would still take steps to minimise the risk of infections entering their facilities.
Not to the extent of banning visitors.
They could, for instance, insist on PPE or that visitor`s are allowed with a negative Covid test withing three days, or whatever.
I agree.
My point is that there seems to be a terrible false dichotomy on here, where people imagine that life in places without CV19 restrictions (Sweden, Arizona, Georgia) continues largely as it was before.
So hospitals in these places are going to be erring on the side of caution. Because you being upset now is one thing, but them being held responsible for a CV19 outbreak among the most vulnerable is another.
I would be staggered if hospitals in non-lockdown places have very different rules to the UK.
Where the UK has totally f*cked things up is not having a consistent, long-term liveable set of government restrictions for everyone else, that (in particular).
Why are they being held responsible for corona outbreaks, and not flu outbreaks, when right now flu outbreaks are killing more people than corona outbreaks.
Any explanations on how China is now basically back to normal?
In a word, lockdowns.
Have you been asleep or on another planet for most of the year?
Lockdowns may suppress they do not eliminate.
Lockdowns only postpone. But the collateral damage they do is very large. Economic. Health. Mental and emotional wellbeing. I wonder how many people have a terrible story like the one related to us by Big G today.
Even if there was no lockdown, @Big_G_NorthWales hospital would still take steps to minimise the risk of infections entering their facilities.
Not to the extent of banning visitors.
They could, for instance, insist on PPE or that visitor`s are allowed with a negative Covid test withing three days, or whatever.
My wife is an anesthesiologist (she's American, so I'll use the American word) working mainly in the ORs in a regional town hospital. That is precisely the combination they use for elective case patients and their companions (those who drive them home after surgery) - recent negative COVID test, plus masks.
Non-elective urgent cases get rapid tests, but have surgery before the results. The OR staff all wear full PPE in those cases, but the results of the rapid test inform the OR cleaning regime once results are back. And my wife's behaviour - if positive, shower and full change of PPE and clothes, before seeing any other cases or going back into public areas.
Strange days when you find the LDs the most Thatcherite in attitude. I suppose though that very few LDs have any direct contact with people suffering economically from all this.
Covid is like most diseases, it disproportionaly affects the poor. Overcrowded housing, jobs that cannot be done from home, difficulty managing isolation.
You're the only Tory I know of that seems to actually accept Johnson will end up capitulating, I can respect you for that POV
Whether he capitulates or not I just want a deal
He can capitulate on state aid, which was not in the winning Tory manifesto, he cannot capitulate on reclaiming our fishing waters, which was in the Tory manifesto
He can, and he probably will. And then you'll write a long and interesting post on why this was absolutely the right thing to do all along and this is completely compliant with the manifesto, while most of us are glad that the economy isn't being trashed over bloody fishermen.
It`s not about fisherman, or at least not predominately so. For leavers (I`m not in their number) it is about the principle of access to our waters. A totemic sovereignty issue to do with borders. It is no different to foreigners taking coal from a UK coalmine. If foreign countries want access to the natural resources from our sea, or the natural resources from our land, they must pay bigly.
I sense that if Johnson gives this away he will be buggered Trump-toast style.
I have posted this before, but a fishing betrayal, on top of everything else Johnson has done in the last seven months, would give Farage the momentum he needs to re-launch.
He spends half his life at sea on a boat these days so Fish is the perfect issue for him. He could film illegal migrants and encroaching Belgian trawlers at the same time.
Any explanations on how China is now basically back to normal?
In a word, lockdowns.
Have you been asleep or on another planet for most of the year?
Lockdowns may suppress they do not eliminate.
Lockdowns only postpone. But the collateral damage they do is very large. Economic. Health. Mental and emotional wellbeing. I wonder how many people have a terrible story like the one related to us by Big G today.
Even if there was no lockdown, @Big_G_NorthWales hospital would still take steps to minimise the risk of infections entering their facilities.
Not to the extent of banning visitors.
They could, for instance, insist on PPE or that visitor`s are allowed with a negative Covid test withing three days, or whatever.
I agree.
My point is that there seems to be a terrible false dichotomy on here, where people imagine that life in places without CV19 restrictions (Sweden, Arizona, Georgia) continues largely as it was before.
So hospitals in these places are going to be erring on the side of caution. Because you being upset now is one thing, but them being held responsible for a CV19 outbreak among the most vulnerable is another.
I would be staggered if hospitals in non-lockdown places have very different rules to the UK.
Where the UK has totally f*cked things up is not having a consistent, long-term liveable set of government restrictions for everyone else, that (in particular).
No organisation, private or state, a should be held legally responsible for a virus outbreak. This should be in legislation already as I, and Cyclefree, have said many times.
Its like holding people responsible for a tsunami.
Not having the likes of Charles Michel on our media quite so much post January 1 reminds me why I voted to leave in the first place.
And would again.
Leaving the EU doesn’t make the EU go away.
Of course not, but it will mean there’s less need to have their irritating cast of characters on the TV or radio quite so much, pontificating at us for having had the temerity to see things differently to them, and, unlike all the other times people tried to stop the juggernaut, stick with it.
Any explanations on how China is now basically back to normal?
In a word, lockdowns.
Have you been asleep or on another planet for most of the year?
Lockdowns may suppress they do not eliminate.
Lockdowns only postpone. But the collateral damage they do is very large. Economic. Health. Mental and emotional wellbeing. I wonder how many people have a terrible story like the one related to us by Big G today.
Even if there was no lockdown, @Big_G_NorthWales hospital would still take steps to minimise the risk of infections entering their facilities.
Not to the extent of banning visitors.
They could, for instance, insist on PPE or that visitor`s are allowed with a negative Covid test withing three days, or whatever.
I agree.
My point is that there seems to be a terrible false dichotomy on here, where people imagine that life in places without CV19 restrictions (Sweden, Arizona, Georgia) continues largely as it was before.
So hospitals in these places are going to be erring on the side of caution. Because you being upset now is one thing, but them being held responsible for a CV19 outbreak among the most vulnerable is another.
I would be staggered if hospitals in non-lockdown places have very different rules to the UK.
Where the UK has totally f*cked things up is not having a consistent, long-term liveable set of government restrictions for everyone else, that (in particular).
No organisation, private or state, a should be held legally responsible for a virus outbreak. This should be in legislation already as I, and Cyclefree, have said many times.
Not as black and white as that. If there is criminal negligence or willful endangerment, such as knowingly not following best practice, or making a business decision not to provide PPE to personnel and patients necessary for safe work, then the institution should absolutely be held liable.
You're the only Tory I know of that seems to actually accept Johnson will end up capitulating, I can respect you for that POV
The only way there is any kind of deal is if Sections 41 to 45 of the Internal Market Bill are entirely redrafted or withdrawn. That will be Brussels dictating to the UK government what should and should not be in internal UK legislation. If it happens, the ERG will go berserk, as will the DUP. And so the endless war will continue.
You still don't seem to understand the significance of the Internal Market Bill.
Those clauses are only there for if there's a No Deal scenario. If there's a deal then those sections can be repealed because they would become redundant.
Covid is like most diseases, it disproportionaly affects the poor. Overcrowded housing, jobs that cannot be done from home, difficulty managing isolation.
Covid is like Tory Govts. it disproportionaly affects the poor
Any explanations on how China is now basically back to normal?
In a word, lockdowns.
Have you been asleep or on another planet for most of the year?
Lockdowns may suppress they do not eliminate.
Lockdowns only postpone. But the collateral damage they do is very large. Economic. Health. Mental and emotional wellbeing. I wonder how many people have a terrible story like the one related to us by Big G today.
Even if there was no lockdown, @Big_G_NorthWales hospital would still take steps to minimise the risk of infections entering their facilities.
Not to the extent of banning visitors.
They could, for instance, insist on PPE or that visitor`s are allowed with a negative Covid test withing three days, or whatever.
I agree.
My point is that there seems to be a terrible false dichotomy on here, where people imagine that life in places without CV19 restrictions (Sweden, Arizona, Georgia) continues largely as it was before.
So hospitals in these places are going to be erring on the side of caution. Because you being upset now is one thing, but them being held responsible for a CV19 outbreak among the most vulnerable is another.
I would be staggered if hospitals in non-lockdown places have very different rules to the UK.
Where the UK has totally f*cked things up is not having a consistent, long-term liveable set of government restrictions for everyone else, that (in particular).
No organisation, private or state, a should be held legally responsible for a virus outbreak. This should be in legislation already as I, and Cyclefree, have said many times.
Not as black and white as that. If there is criminal negligence or willful endangerment, such as knowingly not following best practice, or making a business decision not to provide PPE to personnel and patients necessary for safe work, then the institution should absolutely be held liable.
Absolutely.
If an organisation has followed all reasonable guidance, then it should have a defence, but if a pub or hospital has failed to enforce the rules, and is the focus of an outbreak, then they have been negligent.
You're the only Tory I know of that seems to actually accept Johnson will end up capitulating, I can respect you for that POV
Whether he capitulates or not I just want a deal
He can capitulate on state aid, which was not in the winning Tory manifesto, he cannot capitulate on reclaiming our fishing waters, which was in the Tory manifesto
How long an implementation period do you think he can concede?
Any amount, he has a big enough majority that on most issues rebellions would not be big enough to trouble him. A bigger question is how much of a poll hit is he willing to take by being seen to concede, since that would definitely happen.
Not having the likes of Charles Michel on our media quite so much post January 1 reminds me why I voted to leave in the first place.
And would again.
Leaving the EU doesn’t make the EU go away.
Of course not, but it will mean there’s less need to have their irritating cast of characters on the TV or radio quite so much, pontificating at us for having had the temerity to see things differently to them, and, unlike all the other times people tried to stop the juggernaut, stick with it.
No more irritating than the muppet show running the UK
You're the only Tory I know of that seems to actually accept Johnson will end up capitulating, I can respect you for that POV
Whether he capitulates or not I just want a deal
He can capitulate on state aid, which was not in the winning Tory manifesto, he cannot capitulate on reclaiming our fishing waters, which was in the Tory manifesto
He can, and he probably will. And then you'll write a long and interesting post on why this was absolutely the right thing to do all along and this is completely compliant with the manifesto, while most of us are glad that the economy isn't being trashed over bloody fishermen.
It`s not about fisherman, or at least not predominately so. For leavers (I`m not in their number) it is about the principle of access to our waters. A totemic sovereignty issue to do with borders. It is no different to foreigners taking coal from a UK coalmine. If foreign countries want access to the natural resources from our sea, or the natural resources from our land, they must pay bigly.
I sense that if Johnson gives this away he will be buggered Trump-toast style.
I have posted this before, but a fishing betrayal, on top of everything else Johnson has done in the last seven months, would give Farage the momentum he needs to re-launch.
He spends half his life at sea on a boat these days so Fish is the perfect issue for him. He could film illegal migrants and encroaching Belgian trawlers at the same time.
Perhaps a migrant trawling out a mackerel line from a RIB ravishing UK's territorial waters? Could Nige's smoking occluded arteries take it?
You're the only Tory I know of that seems to actually accept Johnson will end up capitulating, I can respect you for that POV
Whether he capitulates or not I just want a deal
He can capitulate on state aid, which was not in the winning Tory manifesto, he cannot capitulate on reclaiming our fishing waters, which was in the Tory manifesto
He can, and he probably will. And then you'll write a long and interesting post on why this was absolutely the right thing to do all along and this is completely compliant with the manifesto, while most of us are glad that the economy isn't being trashed over bloody fishermen.
It`s not about fisherman, or at least not predominately so. For leavers (I`m not in their number) it is about the principle of access to our waters. A totemic sovereignty issue to do with borders. It is no different to foreigners taking coal from a UK coalmine. If foreign countries want access to the natural resources from our sea, or the natural resources from our land, they must pay bigly.
I sense that if Johnson gives this away he will be buggered Trump-toast style.
I have posted this before, but a fishing betrayal, on top of everything else Johnson has done in the last seven months, would give Farage the momentum he needs to re-launch.
He spends half his life at sea on a boat these days so Fish is the perfect issue for him. He could film illegal migrants and encroaching Belgian trawlers at the same time.
I suppose it might be too much to ask the government to try to do something about illegal migrants instead.
You're the only Tory I know of that seems to actually accept Johnson will end up capitulating, I can respect you for that POV
Whether he capitulates or not I just want a deal
He can capitulate on state aid, which was not in the winning Tory manifesto, he cannot capitulate on reclaiming our fishing waters, which was in the Tory manifesto
He can, and he probably will. And then you'll write a long and interesting post on why this was absolutely the right thing to do all along and this is completely compliant with the manifesto, while most of us are glad that the economy isn't being trashed over bloody fishermen.
It`s not about fisherman, or at least not predominately so. For leavers (I`m not in their number) it is about the principle of access to our waters. A totemic sovereignty issue to do with borders. It is no different to foreigners taking coal from a UK coalmine. If foreign countries want access to the natural resources from our sea, or the natural resources from our land, they must pay bigly.
I sense that if Johnson gives this away he will be buggered Trump-toast style.
I have posted this before, but a fishing betrayal, on top of everything else Johnson has done in the last seven months, would give Farage the momentum he needs to re-launch.
Maybe, although one wonders how many times Farage can pull off his 'I'm in the game, I'm out of it, I'm in it again' routine. He's successfully influence the Tories multiple times by doing so, and helped draw on some former Labour voters too, but he seems like he wants to be a pressure group more than a party, and at some point the relaunches seem silly.
You're the only Tory I know of that seems to actually accept Johnson will end up capitulating, I can respect you for that POV
Whether he capitulates or not I just want a deal
He can capitulate on state aid, which was not in the winning Tory manifesto, he cannot capitulate on reclaiming our fishing waters, which was in the Tory manifesto
How long an implementation period do you think he can concede?
Preferable would be 3 years. That way the period is over before the next election.
You're the only Tory I know of that seems to actually accept Johnson will end up capitulating, I can respect you for that POV
Whether he capitulates or not I just want a deal
He can capitulate on state aid, which was not in the winning Tory manifesto, he cannot capitulate on reclaiming our fishing waters, which was in the Tory manifesto
He can, and he probably will. And then you'll write a long and interesting post on why this was absolutely the right thing to do all along and this is completely compliant with the manifesto, while most of us are glad that the economy isn't being trashed over bloody fishermen.
It`s not about fisherman, or at least not predominately so. For leavers (I`m not in their number) it is about the principle of access to our waters. A totemic sovereignty issue to do with borders. It is no different to foreigners taking coal from a UK coalmine. If foreign countries want access to the natural resources from our sea, or the natural resources from our land, they must pay bigly.
I sense that if Johnson gives this away he will be buggered Trump-toast style.
I have posted this before, but a fishing betrayal, on top of everything else Johnson has done in the last seven months, would give Farage the momentum he needs to re-launch.
Maybe, although one wonders how many times Farage can pull off his 'I'm in the game, I'm out of it, I'm in it again' routine. He's successfully influence the Tories multiple times by doing so, and helped draw on some former Labour voters too, but he seems like he wants to be a pressure group more than a party, and at some point the relaunches seem silly.
You're the only Tory I know of that seems to actually accept Johnson will end up capitulating, I can respect you for that POV
Whether he capitulates or not I just want a deal
He can capitulate on state aid, which was not in the winning Tory manifesto, he cannot capitulate on reclaiming our fishing waters, which was in the Tory manifesto
He can, and he probably will. And then you'll write a long and interesting post on why this was absolutely the right thing to do all along and this is completely compliant with the manifesto, while most of us are glad that the economy isn't being trashed over bloody fishermen.
It`s not about fisherman, or at least not predominately so. For leavers (I`m not in their number) it is about the principle of access to our waters. A totemic sovereignty issue to do with borders. It is no different to foreigners taking coal from a UK coalmine. If foreign countries want access to the natural resources from our sea, or the natural resources from our land, they must pay bigly.
I sense that if Johnson gives this away he will be buggered Trump-toast style.
I have posted this before, but a fishing betrayal, on top of everything else Johnson has done in the last seven months, would give Farage the momentum he needs to re-launch.
He spends half his life at sea on a boat these days so Fish is the perfect issue for him. He could film illegal migrants and encroaching Belgian trawlers at the same time.
I suppose it might be too much to ask the government to try to do something about illegal migrants instead.
Well considering “illegal migrants” are not actually a big problem in the grand scheme of things, yes it is “too much to ask”. It’s only a big problem in the mind of frothers.
But regardless I’m in favour of the Swiss model as previously detailed by @rcs1000. I.e. If an illegal migrant dobs in an employer employing migrants illegally, they are given an amnesty. Thus almost zero illegal immigration.
Not having the likes of Charles Michel on our media quite so much post January 1 reminds me why I voted to leave in the first place.
And would again.
Leaving the EU doesn’t make the EU go away.
Of course not, but it will mean there’s less need to have their irritating cast of characters on the TV or radio quite so much, pontificating at us for having had the temerity to see things differently to them, and, unlike all the other times people tried to stop the juggernaut, stick with it.
No more irritating than the muppet show running the UK
Quite possibly so. But I can vote to fire them. Unlike M. Michel.
Not having the likes of Charles Michel on our media quite so much post January 1 reminds me why I voted to leave in the first place.
And would again.
Leaving the EU doesn’t make the EU go away.
Of course not, but it will mean there’s less need to have their irritating cast of characters on the TV or radio quite so much, pontificating at us for having had the temerity to see things differently to them, and, unlike all the other times people tried to stop the juggernaut, stick with it.
No more irritating than the muppet show running the UK
Quite possibly so. But I can vote to fire them. Unlike M. Michel.
I can’t vote to fire my government, considering my MP is already a Labour MP.
You're the only Tory I know of that seems to actually accept Johnson will end up capitulating, I can respect you for that POV
Whether he capitulates or not I just want a deal
He can capitulate on state aid, which was not in the winning Tory manifesto, he cannot capitulate on reclaiming our fishing waters, which was in the Tory manifesto
He can, and he probably will. And then you'll write a long and interesting post on why this was absolutely the right thing to do all along and this is completely compliant with the manifesto, while most of us are glad that the economy isn't being trashed over bloody fishermen.
It`s not about fisherman, or at least not predominately so. For leavers (I`m not in their number) it is about the principle of access to our waters. A totemic sovereignty issue to do with borders. It is no different to foreigners taking coal from a UK coalmine. If foreign countries want access to the natural resources from our sea, or the natural resources from our land, they must pay bigly.
I sense that if Johnson gives this away he will be buggered Trump-toast style.
I have posted this before, but a fishing betrayal, on top of everything else Johnson has done in the last seven months, would give Farage the momentum he needs to re-launch.
He spends half his life at sea on a boat these days so Fish is the perfect issue for him. He could film illegal migrants and encroaching Belgian trawlers at the same time.
I suppose it might be too much to ask the government to try to do something about illegal migrants instead.
Well considering “illegal migrants” are not actually a big problem in the grand scheme of things, yes it is “too much to ask”. It’s only a big problem in the mind of frothers.
But regardless I’m in favour of the Swiss model as previously detailed by @rcs1000. I.e. If an illegal migrant dobs in an employer employing migrants illegally, they are given an amnesty. Thus almost zero illegal immigration.
My version of that gives the migrant a share in the fine of the employer.
Suddenly, photocopies of passports will be in vogue at every dodgy sweatshop.....
Not having the likes of Charles Michel on our media quite so much post January 1 reminds me why I voted to leave in the first place.
And would again.
Leaving the EU doesn’t make the EU go away.
Of course not, but it will mean there’s less need to have their irritating cast of characters on the TV or radio quite so much, pontificating at us for having had the temerity to see things differently to them, and, unlike all the other times people tried to stop the juggernaut, stick with it.
No more irritating than the muppet show running the UK
Quite possibly so. But I can vote to fire them. Unlike M. Michel.
I can’t vote to fire my government, considering my MP is already a Labour MP.
Yes you can.
You just need enough of your fellow countrymen and women to agree with you. Just because you didn't win didn't mean you couldn't vote.
Someone on Betfair has laid all the money for Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama and all the other impossible candidates, so everyone except Trump, Biden, Pence and Harris is at 1000.
The risk premium on both main candidates (compared with backing their parties) is now only two basis points.
Assuming these phenomena are due to the arrival of non-specialist big hitters, it is mildly surprising Biden/Dem prices are holding up but then again, there are four weeks and two or three debates to go.
Not having the likes of Charles Michel on our media quite so much post January 1 reminds me why I voted to leave in the first place.
And would again.
Leaving the EU doesn’t make the EU go away.
Of course not, but it will mean there’s less need to have their irritating cast of characters on the TV or radio quite so much, pontificating at us for having had the temerity to see things differently to them, and, unlike all the other times people tried to stop the juggernaut, stick with it.
No more irritating than the muppet show running the UK
Quite possibly so. But I can vote to fire them. Unlike M. Michel.
I can’t vote to fire my government, considering my MP is already a Labour MP.
Yes you can.
You just need enough of your fellow countrymen to agree with you. Just because you didn't win didn't mean you couldn't vote.
You’re talking about something different.
Me and my fellow constituents cannot “vote out the government” because we never voted for the government.
I’m not saying anything about the legitimacy of that, nor am I complaining about it. I’m merely highlighting a fact.
Not having the likes of Charles Michel on our media quite so much post January 1 reminds me why I voted to leave in the first place.
And would again.
Leaving the EU doesn’t make the EU go away.
Of course not, but it will mean there’s less need to have their irritating cast of characters on the TV or radio quite so much, pontificating at us for having had the temerity to see things differently to them, and, unlike all the other times people tried to stop the juggernaut, stick with it.
There were two main reasons, I believe, why people voted Leave: (1) To take control and be Masters of Our Own Ship; (2) We aren't interested in the EU, we don't like it very much and want to get it out of our lives.
The exact opposites of those two things will actually happen. We will have less influence over things that matter to us; the EU will never impinge on our lives more than now. Which is the biggest reason why Brexit is such a huge mistake for the UK.
Any explanations on how China is now basically back to normal?
In a word, lockdowns.
Have you been asleep or on another planet for most of the year?
Lockdowns may suppress they do not eliminate.
Lockdowns only postpone. But the collateral damage they do is very large. Economic. Health. Mental and emotional wellbeing. I wonder how many people have a terrible story like the one related to us by Big G today.
Even if there was no lockdown, @Big_G_NorthWales hospital would still take steps to minimise the risk of infections entering their facilities.
Not to the extent of banning visitors.
They could, for instance, insist on PPE or that visitor`s are allowed with a negative Covid test withing three days, or whatever.
I agree.
My point is that there seems to be a terrible false dichotomy on here, where people imagine that life in places without CV19 restrictions (Sweden, Arizona, Georgia) continues largely as it was before.
So hospitals in these places are going to be erring on the side of caution. Because you being upset now is one thing, but them being held responsible for a CV19 outbreak among the most vulnerable is another.
I would be staggered if hospitals in non-lockdown places have very different rules to the UK.
Where the UK has totally f*cked things up is not having a consistent, long-term liveable set of government restrictions for everyone else, that (in particular).
No organisation, private or state, a should be held legally responsible for a virus outbreak. This should be in legislation already as I, and Cyclefree, have said many times.
Its like holding people responsible for a tsunami.
I think it should have a reasonable precautions test - if you run a sweatshop with no masks, no separation and generally not giving two shits, then you are liable.
You're the only Tory I know of that seems to actually accept Johnson will end up capitulating, I can respect you for that POV
Whether he capitulates or not I just want a deal
He can capitulate on state aid, which was not in the winning Tory manifesto, he cannot capitulate on reclaiming our fishing waters, which was in the Tory manifesto
He can, and he probably will. And then you'll write a long and interesting post on why this was absolutely the right thing to do all along and this is completely compliant with the manifesto, while most of us are glad that the economy isn't being trashed over bloody fishermen.
It`s not about fisherman, or at least not predominately so. For leavers (I`m not in their number) it is about the principle of access to our waters. A totemic sovereignty issue to do with borders. It is no different to foreigners taking coal from a UK coalmine. If foreign countries want access to the natural resources from our sea, or the natural resources from our land, they must pay bigly.
I sense that if Johnson gives this away he will be buggered Trump-toast style.
I have posted this before, but a fishing betrayal, on top of everything else Johnson has done in the last seven months, would give Farage the momentum he needs to re-launch.
He spends half his life at sea on a boat these days so Fish is the perfect issue for him. He could film illegal migrants and encroaching Belgian trawlers at the same time.
I suppose it might be too much to ask the government to try to do something about illegal migrants instead.
Well considering “illegal migrants” are not actually a big problem in the grand scheme of things, yes it is “too much to ask”. It’s only a big problem in the mind of frothers.
But regardless I’m in favour of the Swiss model as previously detailed by @rcs1000. I.e. If an illegal migrant dobs in an employer employing migrants illegally, they are given an amnesty. Thus almost zero illegal immigration.
Well it's generally considered that people committing crimes is a problem.
The Swiss seem to be the only country in the West to have their heads screwed on when it comes to immigration.
Comments
So how does Starmer vote against it when labour in Wales endorses it
But at some point soon, someone, somewhere in a Chinese city of 10 million that no-one has heard of, is going to feel the irresistable need to eat a half-cooked, covid-carrying bat once more - and it will all begin again.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/07/poorest-areas-of-england-four-times-as-likely-to-face-lockdown-as-richest
https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1313857129120509952?s=20
The dreadful situation that you outline today is, I believe, analogous to visiting rights in care homes (which I have posted about previously). A campaign group called "John`s Campaign" is challenging the government by way of judicial review.
From webpage: "At the heart of the John’s Campaign case is the belief that closest family are not visitors – an optional extra in care home residents’ lives – but are integral to their well-being and happiness. An article in the Sunday Times last weekend criticized the Government’s visiting rules as ‘hazy’: ‘When you can see your relative, for how long and in what circumstances can seem like a lottery.’ John’s Campaign believes that the flaws are fundamental, rooted in the government’s failure to take account of human rights."
This is to do with care homes, and dementia residents in particular, but parallels can be drawn with hospital visiting.
Our friend`s father (over 90) was taken into hospital a couple of weeks ago and, once admitted, his wife and children were prevented from visiting. My friend, a solicitor, called the hospital and very firmly told them to reverse this decision in the case of her father. The hospital countered that they would only allow visitors in an end-of-life-situation. Given my friend`s father`s age and numerous conditions my friend argued that it was impossible to ascertain whether this was an end-of-life-situation and urged the hospital to work on the assumption that it might be. In the end the hospital relented and allowed visitors.
I think you should challenge the hospital in this case.
It is an affluent district (mean income $75k), and mostly white, so I can see your point that this district might be more susceptible to STVS, but they are comparing like for like - the entire district now against the same district in 2016. And there must be some value in polling such seemingly good for Trump districts rather than just doing battleground states and districts.
But as you said, interpret with caution.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1313885499086565376?s=20
I sense that if Johnson gives this away he will be buggered Trump-toast style.
There was no point to Brexit, except to promote Johnson and his quest to the preiership. .
'with money that comes from your taxes'
If he does he loses much of his majority, those Tory MPs will try and push a no confidence vote in Boris and Tory voters in those fishing port seats would go to Farage and the Brexit party
I have posted this before, but a fishing betrayal, on top of everything else Johnson has done in the last seven months, would give Farage the momentum he needs to re-launch.
Both sides are guilty of diplomacy by tweet but this kind of holier than thou smart arsing is precisely the sort of thing that contributed to damaging the EU over here in the first place.
We could equally say exactly the same thing the other way round.
Not having the likes of Charles Michel on our media quite so much post January 1 reminds me why I voted to leave in the first place.
And would again.
Ohio - Biden +1
Iowa - Biden +1
So that's four polls today all showing Biden in with a real chance in states way beyond those he needs to win.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/
They could, for instance, insist on PPE or that visitor`s are allowed with a negative Covid test withing three days, or whatever.
It is why it is difficult to get back to good productivity in non covid diseases. There do need to be changes to make treatment safe.
NC voters just flooded with great Senate options.
My point is that there seems to be a terrible false dichotomy on here, where people imagine that life in places without CV19 restrictions (Sweden, Arizona, Georgia) continues largely as it was before.
So hospitals in these places are going to be erring on the side of caution. Because you being upset now is one thing, but them being held responsible for a CV19 outbreak among the most vulnerable is another.
I would be staggered if hospitals in non-lockdown places have very different rules to the UK.
Where the UK has totally f*cked things up is not having a consistent, long-term liveable set of government restrictions for everyone else, that (in particular).
They had to wear a mask, and only 1 person on each ward could have 1 visitor at any one time. It worked fairly well.
https://twitter.com/meridithmcgraw/status/1313871860115931137
Doubtless some other Euro types will pop along shortly demanding we be more “realistic”, “serious”, stop “playing games” or whatever the latest euphemism is for “just roll over and do what we want” is.
It’s tedious and counterproductive.
Indeed, why are we still getting flu outbreaks?
Non-elective urgent cases get rapid tests, but have surgery before the results. The OR staff all wear full PPE in those cases, but the results of the rapid test inform the OR cleaning regime once results are back. And my wife's behaviour - if positive, shower and full change of PPE and clothes, before seeing any other cases or going back into public areas.
Star Spreads 312-319
Those clauses are only there for if there's a No Deal scenario. If there's a deal then those sections can be repealed because they would become redundant.
If an organisation has followed all reasonable guidance, then it should have a defence, but if a pub or hospital has failed to enforce the rules, and is the focus of an outbreak, then they have been negligent.
https://twitter.com/AnnaBrichacek/status/1313812938587865089?s=19
https://twitter.com/BCDreyer/status/1313871249668440067?s=19
But regardless I’m in favour of the Swiss model as previously detailed by @rcs1000. I.e. If an illegal migrant dobs in an employer employing migrants illegally, they are given an amnesty. Thus almost zero illegal immigration.
Suddenly, photocopies of passports will be in vogue at every dodgy sweatshop.....
You just need enough of your fellow countrymen and women to agree with you. Just because you didn't win didn't mean you couldn't vote.
The risk premium on both main candidates (compared with backing their parties) is now only two basis points.
Assuming these phenomena are due to the arrival of non-specialist big hitters, it is mildly surprising Biden/Dem prices are holding up but then again, there are four weeks and two or three debates to go.
Me and my fellow constituents cannot “vote out the government” because we never voted for the government.
I’m not saying anything about the legitimacy of that, nor am I complaining about it. I’m merely highlighting a fact.
The exact opposites of those two things will actually happen. We will have less influence over things that matter to us; the EU will never impinge on our lives more than now. Which is the biggest reason why Brexit is such a huge mistake for the UK.
Florida
Biden 51
Trump 40
Pennsylvania
Biden 54
Trump 41
Iowa
Biden 50
Trump 45
Next up President Trump picked up a telephone directory and tore asunder.
The Swiss seem to be the only country in the West to have their heads screwed on when it comes to immigration.