The idea that you can replace ordinary face-to-face life with online life is ridiculous. The idea that the government can keep paying out money to people for doing nothing is ridiculous.
I wonder what other ridiculous ideas this crisis will bring out into the open.
The worrying thing is that if you replace ordinary face-to-face life with online life for too long, it is quite difficult to resume the former. I speak from experience of being single and WFH 2013-2018. Small journeys become missions, little chit chats are like job interviews
The idea that you can replace ordinary life with online life is ridiculous. The idea that the government can keep paying out money to people for doing nothing is ridiculous.
I wonder what other ridiculous ideas this crisis will bring out into the open.
That it's not real? That if we did nothing things would get back to normal? That it only affects the old, or is no worse than flu? That bringing it under control proves we didn't need to bring it under control? That we could get to herd immunity quickly and with minimal damage?
I've seen all of those being spouted.
You want a ridiculous take, how about this from March?
Well the Excel balls up was PHE, so I think it more shines a light into how crap lota of quangos are....the same people who couldn't manage more than 20k tests a day.
Yet the same people squealing about how everything’s going sh!t, are equally seqealing about the PM’s right hand man in charge of reforming the civil service and sorting out this mess of uselessness. It’s almost as if they want it to be sh!t, if it means they can blame a government they don’t like.
There's a feeling these days that a short hike from the US coast and you'll enter a vast hinterland of racist and religious bigots. This was what I thought 12 years ago when I dismissed Mike's famous 50/1 tip on OBAMA. These people do exist but so do those who got Obama over the line and fortunately there are sufficient numbers to see Trump loses whoever his opponent
Yeah, funny how it's the coastal US that is woke and the coastal UK that is unwoke.
By US standards the whole of the UK is coastal!
Indeed. In DC we have a tidal basin, but we are further from the Atlantic coast than Coton in the Elms.
Very beautiful it is too, especially with the cherry trees in blossom.
"two bags of grass, 75 pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, and a whole galaxy of multicolored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers ... and also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of Budweiser, a pint of raw ether, and two dozen amyls."
Hold on there...Boris has just announced basically there is 3.5 tiers....in that there will be local negotiations for extra restrictions in areas in the highest level....
The idea that you can replace ordinary life with online life is ridiculous. The idea that the government can keep paying out money to people for doing nothing is ridiculous.
I wonder what other ridiculous ideas this crisis will bring out into the open.
That it's not real? That if we did nothing things would get back to normal? That it only affects the old, or is no worse than flu? That bringing it under control proves we didn't need to bring it under control? That we could get to herd immunity quickly and with minimal damage?
I've seen all of those being spouted.
The inference that flu isn't a killer disease is another
Well the Excel balls up was PHE, so I think it more shines a light into how crap lota of quangos are....the same people who couldn't manage more than 20k tests a day.
Yet the same people squealing about how everything’s going sh!t, are equally seqealing about the PM’s right hand man in charge of reforming the civil service and sorting out this mess of uselessness. It’s almost as if they want it to be sh!t, if it means they can blame a government they don’t like.
We should copy Germany....we copy Germany...oh no not like that ...
- being too complacent about travel from Europe in January and February - moving OAPs into homes from hospitals without testing them - developing the NHS-X app rather than using Apple/Google technology - closing schools at all, or at least without a clear plan to reopen them.
The first let the virus in in the first place (at least with the numbers and speed it came), the second may have cost 10-20k lives, the third has meant we're unprepared for the second wave and the fourth has blighted a year's schooling for a generation.
However, no. 1 accorded with expert advice, so I think it's mainly the other three I'd hold them responsible for.
And afaik there's no evidence that Prime Minister Starmer would have done anything different on any of them.
Fair enough take. But politics does not work this way. When things go horribly run under a government the public do not conduct forensic counterfactuals asking themselves if the opposition would have been any better. For example, the financial crash and resulting economic downturn and crisis in the public finances which dominated the GE of 2010. There was no evidence that the situation would have been better or would have been better handled by a Cameron Conservative government rather than Brown's Labour one - the opposite if anything - but this did not prevent a narrative of "Labour's mess" taking root. Similarly here, regardless of how you think Starmer would have performed relative to Johnson, if this pans out as badly as it looks like doing, this government will own it.
The reason that Labour owned the Financial Crash in 2008 was because Cameron and Osborne were effective in pinning the blame to them. They had a simple story, "Labour didn't fix the roof when the sun was shining," which was true enough to pass muster, even if it had nothing to do with banking regulation. And they repeated it enough so that it became part of the common consciousness.
Starmer has not found the simple message to use to pin the blame for Covid onto the Conservatives in general and Johnson in particular. It's not inevitable that they will take the majority of the blame. Labour have to convince the public that they should.
One simple narrative might have been "reactive, not proactive". And they react bloody slowly, too.
But Starmer doesn't appear very proactive himself.
Thinking back to the very effective "Labour's Mess" at GE 2010 persisting to GE 2015, what I'd go for is something like "Tory Covid Shambles".
Short, simple, blunt. Gets over the idea perfectly with no room for nuance or complexity.
Well, he is not far wrong with California, at least LA. Downtown is apparently totally dystopian
LA Downtown, like most other downtowns in the US (or the UK for that matter) is a lot less dystopian than it used to be.
When I first visited LA in 1998 (for E3!), downtown was completely dead. There was nothing there other than aggressive panhandlers and a few rundown looking office buildings. Skid row had spilled out over several streets and it as pretty awful. The only hotels were cheap ones for the convention center. (And if you had half a brain you stayed somewhere nice like Santa Monica or Beverly Hills.)
In the last 22 years, nice hotels, restaurants, apartments, theatres and bars have moved in. Downtown is cool - you can be near the Staples Center (go Lakers!), close to the Coliseum and USC. There is much better public transport. And the police have done a much better job (massively better than in SF or NY) of dealing with aggressive pan handlers.
I would say that downtown LA is much better than SF these days.
The same is true in Baltimore. Sure, there is still huge urban blight and derelict areas within the city. But Capitol Hill, the harbour, and Fell's Point in particular are wonderful places to visit and live. That was not the case 20-30 years ago.
If i heard this right, this isn't simplifying the system at all, we are still potentially going to have different local restrictions for regions in the highest level.
Hold on there...Boris has just announced basically there is 3.5 tiers....in that there will be local negotiations for extra restrictions in areas in the highest level....
Their consultation with local authorities simply allows Level 3 councils to volunteer extra businesses to close down. Liverpool chose betting shops.
The takeaway is that the government thought twice about taking on Burnham and the whole of the North.
If i heard this right, this isn't simplifying the system at all, we are still potentially going to have different local restrictions for regions in the highest level.
Second national lockdown 'not the right course' - PM The prime minister begins his statement to MPs by explaining why he won't be announcing a second national lockdown for the UK.
"I do not believe that would be the right course," he says, citing damage to the economy and to children who would miss out on school.
He says there are others who disagree with measures entirely and would like to see them lifted.
But if we were to follow that course, "and let the virus rip", then the "bleak mathematics dictate that we would suffer not only an intolerable death toll" but would also put "huge strain" on the NHS and doctors and nurses would be unable to treat patients for cancer, heart disease and other conditions, he says.
The PM says further restrictions will help to save lives and protect the NHS while keeping children in school and protecting livelihoods.
--
I believe this will come to be a grave mistake but fair play for setting out his view.
The idea that you can replace ordinary face-to-face life with online life is ridiculous. The idea that the government can keep paying out money to people for doing nothing is ridiculous.
I wonder what other ridiculous ideas this crisis will bring out into the open.
The worrying thing is that if you replace ordinary face-to-face life with online life for too long, it is quite difficult to resume the former. I speak from experience of being single and WFH 2013-2018. Small journeys become missions, little chit chats are like job interviews
Plus the rhetoric is such that people will fear walking down the street and going to Tescos for some time to come.
Not only was it just 0.38, but it's not like US States limit themselves to only changing one rule at a time. So, increases in restaurant spending almost certainly correlate with other loosening measures.
Not seen the original report but the suggestion is that all categories of credit card spending were reviewed and restaurants were the best match of all. Though of course that limits it to things which cost money.
As sell side research goes it is a decent report. The author is a smart guy and the JP Morgan research team is excellent, especially on the US. Seriously, when you are looking at variation across the US states with lots of other stuff happening at the same time, an R^2 of almost 0.4 is pretty good and suggestive that there is something there. I wouldn't necessarily run my public health policy off this kind of piece, but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand, either.
The idea that you can replace ordinary face-to-face life with online life is ridiculous. The idea that the government can keep paying out money to people for doing nothing is ridiculous.
I wonder what other ridiculous ideas this crisis will bring out into the open.
The worrying thing is that if you replace ordinary face-to-face life with online life for too long, it is quite difficult to resume the former. I speak from experience of being single and WFH 2013-2018. Small journeys become missions, little chit chats are like job interviews
Plus the rhetoric is such that people will fear walking down the street and going to Tescos for some time to come.
Frankly in the short term that's probably not a bad idea, if it gets the infection rates down.
There's a feeling these days that a short hike from the US coast and you'll enter a vast hinterland of racist and religious bigots. This was what I thought 12 years ago when I dismissed Mike's famous 50/1 tip on OBAMA. These people do exist but so do those who got Obama over the line and fortunately there are sufficient numbers to see Trump loses whoever his opponent
Yeah, funny how it's the coastal US that is woke and the coastal UK that is unwoke.
By US standards the whole of the UK is coastal!
Indeed. In DC we have a tidal basin, but we are further from the Atlantic coast than Coton in the Elms.
Very beautiful it is too, especially with the cherry trees in blossom.
Is that where that marshy botanic area with the walkways is? I went there last year
Bozo has perked up at the prospect of a political knockabout. He'd do better to at least try and be a statesman given the gravity and potential duration of what he is announcing.
Starmer really is useless isn't he. The goal is completely open, the goalkeeper has been sent off as well as the whole blood defence and he's smashed it over the bar. The lack of talent in both political parties is absolutely shocking.
He needs to take a position now, he should be IMHO, backing a full lockdown.
And lose all remaining support?
It's the right position to take. What position would you like him to take?
Support people to isolate with cash payments and hotel rooms/food/entertainment.
Push for widespread roll out of rapid testing at indoor venues and transit hubs.
Tough restrictions on arriving travellers and forced hotel isolation for 5 days and a negative PCR test.
Allow pubs to reopen to full hours, institute table service and sitting only room with mask wearing while standing for anyone.
Mandatory mask wearing in all indoor places, no exceptions even for health reasons. People who are unable to work due to this are supported with 100% wage subsidies based on their average wage over the 12 months before the virus.
These are all practical policies that will support the economy and people without destroying the social fabric of the nation.
All good stuff and certainly better than what has been proposed so far. I still think it's too late but as an interim measure, better than nothing.
Except for pubs, I would close them entirely.
There's still no logical reasoning behind that, you just seem to have this weird obsession with closing down pubs despite little evidence it will make any difference. We know the major transmission vector is people's front rooms. Closing down pubs sends people into front rooms. So you also have to stop household mixing, but that is notoriously difficult to police and requires an army of citizen snitches which is no way to conduct a free society.
No, the answer is making the community safe by removing people with the virus from the community until they don't have it. Hotel based separation is the answer, it works in the short and medium term until there is a vaccine.
The policies to remove people from the population aren't currently working, or are non-existent.
I think you're right with what you say - I think it's too late to implement it though. This should have been in place from July.
It actually isn't too late, the government could push through the policy tomorrow and start doing it next week with all new positive cases (and families if necessary) in all of the empty hotels across the country and let the councils run the programmes, they'll know local catering companies and delivery mechanisms better than someone in Whitehall.
It's a policy which brings down transmission very fast and has proven to work.
Take a look at China. An outbreak in one area, and they propose to test all 9m people in a week. I acknowledge there's an element of state propaganda in everything that China puts out, but such numbers are not at all unrealistic. Do that in the NE, for example, isolate as you suggest, and R is about 0.1 by the end of the month.
It would not have been impossible to build that capacity over the summer (and still isn't).
Doing so would shortcircuit every inefficiency and problem with track & trace, too.
Leaving up to local councils also means not needing to build an unweildy national system which takes months to prepare and put in place. Local councils could probably get this up and running overnight and the £500 per week cash inducement would be a nothing thing to figure out for the treasury.
I don't understand why no one in the government has got the capability to push this option. Starmer is perfectly placed to push it because he doesn't have to implement it and if the government fuck it up he can just say they did it badly.
You're being quite persuasive on this 'isolate in hotels' thing.
Bozo has perked up at the prospect of a political knockabout. He'd do better to at least try and be a statesman given the gravity and potential duration of what he is announcing.
Quite. He gives the impression that government is a bore to him, but the chance for a ding-dong he comes alive.
So it seems like the tiers are just as confusing as I said they were, nice job Johnson, nice job
Most predictable response of the year. I think the introduction of the new tier system is long overdue, and WILL make it clearer to people. The bigger problem will be criteria for going into and out of a tier.
So it seems like the tiers are just as confusing as I said they were, nice job Johnson, nice job
Most predictable response of the year. I think the introduction of the new tier system is long overdue, and WILL make it clearer to people. The bigger problem will be criteria for going into and out of a tier.
Which part about them is supposedly confusing? The concession to local leaders to allow them to further restrict what businesses can open it not ideal, but that isn't confusing. Unless you are confused by a 'closed' sign on the door, of course.
I think that was a very poor response from Johnson, bluster simply doesn't work for this kind of issue, in my view.
Of course, Keir didn't lay out his plan. Why not?
Because his job is to probe the government's plan.
But it does come across as implying that it ought to be possible to have the best of both worlds. I'm not sure it's possible without some serious challenges to our civil liberties.
So it seems like the tiers are just as confusing as I said they were, nice job Johnson, nice job
Most predictable response of the year. I think the introduction of the new tier system is long overdue, and WILL make it clearer to people. The bigger problem will be criteria for going into and out of a tier.
Which part about them is supposedly confusing? The concession to local leaders to allow them to further restrict what businesses can open it not ideal, but that isn't confusing. Unless you are confused by a 'closed' sign on the door, of course.
What if the business behind that sign had just ordered in a month's worth of supplies? Or the supplier to that business finds that there is now that sign there?
Bozo taking a much less combative line with Davey. Suggests he is worried about the LibDems championing the same line as some of his anti-restriction right wingers.
So it seems like the tiers are just as confusing as I said they were, nice job Johnson, nice job
Most predictable response of the year. I think the introduction of the new tier system is long overdue, and WILL make it clearer to people. The bigger problem will be criteria for going into and out of a tier.
Which part about them is supposedly confusing? The concession to local leaders to allow them to further restrict what businesses can open it not ideal, but that isn't confusing. Unless you are confused by a 'closed' sign on the door, of course.
What if the business behind that sign had just ordered in a month's worth of supplies?
While that's unfortunate for the business, it isn't confusing. I am not going to concede the point that reading something makes it confusing!
Starmer really is useless isn't he. The goal is completely open, the goalkeeper has been sent off as well as the whole blood defence and he's smashed it over the bar. The lack of talent in both political parties is absolutely shocking.
He needs to take a position now, he should be IMHO, backing a full lockdown.
And lose all remaining support?
It's the right position to take. What position would you like him to take?
Support people to isolate with cash payments and hotel rooms/food/entertainment.
Push for widespread roll out of rapid testing at indoor venues and transit hubs.
Tough restrictions on arriving travellers and forced hotel isolation for 5 days and a negative PCR test.
Allow pubs to reopen to full hours, institute table service and sitting only room with mask wearing while standing for anyone.
Mandatory mask wearing in all indoor places, no exceptions even for health reasons. People who are unable to work due to this are supported with 100% wage subsidies based on their average wage over the 12 months before the virus.
These are all practical policies that will support the economy and people without destroying the social fabric of the nation.
All good stuff and certainly better than what has been proposed so far. I still think it's too late but as an interim measure, better than nothing.
Except for pubs, I would close them entirely.
There's still no logical reasoning behind that, you just seem to have this weird obsession with closing down pubs despite little evidence it will make any difference. We know the major transmission vector is people's front rooms. Closing down pubs sends people into front rooms. So you also have to stop household mixing, but that is notoriously difficult to police and requires an army of citizen snitches which is no way to conduct a free society.
No, the answer is making the community safe by removing people with the virus from the community until they don't have it. Hotel based separation is the answer, it works in the short and medium term until there is a vaccine.
The policies to remove people from the population aren't currently working, or are non-existent.
I think you're right with what you say - I think it's too late to implement it though. This should have been in place from July.
It actually isn't too late, the government could push through the policy tomorrow and start doing it next week with all new positive cases (and families if necessary) in all of the empty hotels across the country and let the councils run the programmes, they'll know local catering companies and delivery mechanisms better than someone in Whitehall.
It's a policy which brings down transmission very fast and has proven to work.
Take a look at China. An outbreak in one area, and they propose to test all 9m people in a week. I acknowledge there's an element of state propaganda in everything that China puts out, but such numbers are not at all unrealistic. Do that in the NE, for example, isolate as you suggest, and R is about 0.1 by the end of the month.
It would not have been impossible to build that capacity over the summer (and still isn't).
Doing so would shortcircuit every inefficiency and problem with track & trace, too.
Leaving up to local councils also means not needing to build an unweildy national system which takes months to prepare and put in place. Local councils could probably get this up and running overnight and the £500 per week cash inducement would be a nothing thing to figure out for the treasury.
I don't understand why no one in the government has got the capability to push this option. Starmer is perfectly placed to push it because he doesn't have to implement it and if the government fuck it up he can just say they did it badly.
You're being quite persuasive on this 'isolate in hotels' thing.
Why do you think it is not being considered?
It's very expensive, probably £6-7bn per week at the moment, maybe even up to £10bn. It also has bad optics because it will be "paid holiday for nothing" headlines in the mail. It would also be tough to get it passed the right wing of the Tory party because it "rewards" irresponsibility. Even so none of those are serious concerns compared to a second national lockdown.
I also think the machinery of the British state is simply incapable of thinking of the most simple solutions to problems. Lockdown is simple, solution to lots of immediate problems even though it stores up significant issues for the future, that's something that can be dealt with later.
The problems we face need lots of small measures, not one big one, even this policy would need to be backed up by loads of other smaller ones.
For all that I've found the Scottish Government has been lacking lately in their response (having done a really good job in the Summer, including the Aberdeen local lockdown) I felt like they had some handle on the enhanced restrictions announced and imposed them with a lot more empathy and consideration than Johnson has just done. He seems to be making no effort to carry anyone with him. You can question whether Sturgeon's more recent choices are correct but she works hard rhetorically to carry people with her. Johnson just... announces and the has a fit when anyone challenges him on it. Look at today's FM briefing. She had an answer to every question (YMMV on how good they were), while Johnson just willfully ignores it. I really struggle with our government, they're just so crap.
Boris the idiot arguing against the non-existent "let it rip" group. No one is saying we should do that. C***.
It is a total straw man, the only people arguing this are the likes of Piers Corbyn, who claim it is all a hoax.
Quite a few of my Facebook friends (genuinely) support Let it Rip.
They often think that the whole thing is a plot to make them get a Bill Gates tracking vaccine injected.
"Stratified risk" or whatever it's called is "let it rip (except among the elderly)".
I would be very interested to know what the hospitalisation/ventilation/death rate is of the student population, seemingly the majority of which now have or live with someone who has the virus.
Starmer really is useless isn't he. The goal is completely open, the goalkeeper has been sent off as well as the whole blood defence and he's smashed it over the bar. The lack of talent in both political parties is absolutely shocking.
He needs to take a position now, he should be IMHO, backing a full lockdown.
And lose all remaining support?
It's the right position to take. What position would you like him to take?
Support people to isolate with cash payments and hotel rooms/food/entertainment.
Push for widespread roll out of rapid testing at indoor venues and transit hubs.
Tough restrictions on arriving travellers and forced hotel isolation for 5 days and a negative PCR test.
Allow pubs to reopen to full hours, institute table service and sitting only room with mask wearing while standing for anyone.
Mandatory mask wearing in all indoor places, no exceptions even for health reasons. People who are unable to work due to this are supported with 100% wage subsidies based on their average wage over the 12 months before the virus.
These are all practical policies that will support the economy and people without destroying the social fabric of the nation.
All good stuff and certainly better than what has been proposed so far. I still think it's too late but as an interim measure, better than nothing.
Except for pubs, I would close them entirely.
There's still no logical reasoning behind that, you just seem to have this weird obsession with closing down pubs despite little evidence it will make any difference. We know the major transmission vector is people's front rooms. Closing down pubs sends people into front rooms. So you also have to stop household mixing, but that is notoriously difficult to police and requires an army of citizen snitches which is no way to conduct a free society.
No, the answer is making the community safe by removing people with the virus from the community until they don't have it. Hotel based separation is the answer, it works in the short and medium term until there is a vaccine.
The policies to remove people from the population aren't currently working, or are non-existent.
I think you're right with what you say - I think it's too late to implement it though. This should have been in place from July.
It actually isn't too late, the government could push through the policy tomorrow and start doing it next week with all new positive cases (and families if necessary) in all of the empty hotels across the country and let the councils run the programmes, they'll know local catering companies and delivery mechanisms better than someone in Whitehall.
It's a policy which brings down transmission very fast and has proven to work.
Take a look at China. An outbreak in one area, and they propose to test all 9m people in a week. I acknowledge there's an element of state propaganda in everything that China puts out, but such numbers are not at all unrealistic. Do that in the NE, for example, isolate as you suggest, and R is about 0.1 by the end of the month.
It would not have been impossible to build that capacity over the summer (and still isn't).
Doing so would shortcircuit every inefficiency and problem with track & trace, too.
Leaving up to local councils also means not needing to build an unweildy national system which takes months to prepare and put in place. Local councils could probably get this up and running overnight and the £500 per week cash inducement would be a nothing thing to figure out for the treasury.
I don't understand why no one in the government has got the capability to push this option. Starmer is perfectly placed to push it because he doesn't have to implement it and if the government fuck it up he can just say they did it badly.
You're being quite persuasive on this 'isolate in hotels' thing.
Why do you think it is not being considered?
It's very expensive, probably £6-7bn per week at the moment, maybe even up to £10bn. It also has bad optics because it will be "paid holiday for nothing" headlines in the mail. It would also be tough to get it passed the right wing of the Tory party because it "rewards" irresponsibility. Even so none of those are serious concerns compared to a second national lockdown.
I also think the machinery of the British state is simply incapable of thinking of the most simple solutions to problems. Lockdown is simple, solution to lots of immediate problems even though it stores up significant issues for the future, that's something that can be dealt with later.
The problems we face need lots of small measures, not one big one, even this policy would need to be backed up by loads of other smaller ones.
It probably isn't that expensive "all in", when you consider that you keep the organisations operating and paying tax. (Plus you keep people from being infected.)
Starmer really is useless isn't he. The goal is completely open, the goalkeeper has been sent off as well as the whole blood defence and he's smashed it over the bar. The lack of talent in both political parties is absolutely shocking.
He needs to take a position now, he should be IMHO, backing a full lockdown.
And lose all remaining support?
It's the right position to take. What position would you like him to take?
Support people to isolate with cash payments and hotel rooms/food/entertainment.
Push for widespread roll out of rapid testing at indoor venues and transit hubs.
Tough restrictions on arriving travellers and forced hotel isolation for 5 days and a negative PCR test.
Allow pubs to reopen to full hours, institute table service and sitting only room with mask wearing while standing for anyone.
Mandatory mask wearing in all indoor places, no exceptions even for health reasons. People who are unable to work due to this are supported with 100% wage subsidies based on their average wage over the 12 months before the virus.
These are all practical policies that will support the economy and people without destroying the social fabric of the nation.
All good stuff and certainly better than what has been proposed so far. I still think it's too late but as an interim measure, better than nothing.
Except for pubs, I would close them entirely.
There's still no logical reasoning behind that, you just seem to have this weird obsession with closing down pubs despite little evidence it will make any difference. We know the major transmission vector is people's front rooms. Closing down pubs sends people into front rooms. So you also have to stop household mixing, but that is notoriously difficult to police and requires an army of citizen snitches which is no way to conduct a free society.
No, the answer is making the community safe by removing people with the virus from the community until they don't have it. Hotel based separation is the answer, it works in the short and medium term until there is a vaccine.
The policies to remove people from the population aren't currently working, or are non-existent.
I think you're right with what you say - I think it's too late to implement it though. This should have been in place from July.
It actually isn't too late, the government could push through the policy tomorrow and start doing it next week with all new positive cases (and families if necessary) in all of the empty hotels across the country and let the councils run the programmes, they'll know local catering companies and delivery mechanisms better than someone in Whitehall.
It's a policy which brings down transmission very fast and has proven to work.
Take a look at China. An outbreak in one area, and they propose to test all 9m people in a week. I acknowledge there's an element of state propaganda in everything that China puts out, but such numbers are not at all unrealistic. Do that in the NE, for example, isolate as you suggest, and R is about 0.1 by the end of the month.
It would not have been impossible to build that capacity over the summer (and still isn't).
Doing so would shortcircuit every inefficiency and problem with track & trace, too.
Leaving up to local councils also means not needing to build an unweildy national system which takes months to prepare and put in place. Local councils could probably get this up and running overnight and the £500 per week cash inducement would be a nothing thing to figure out for the treasury.
I don't understand why no one in the government has got the capability to push this option. Starmer is perfectly placed to push it because he doesn't have to implement it and if the government fuck it up he can just say they did it badly.
You're being quite persuasive on this 'isolate in hotels' thing.
Why do you think it is not being considered?
It's very expensive, probably £6-7bn per week at the moment, maybe even up to £10bn. It also has bad optics because it will be "paid holiday for nothing" headlines in the mail. It would also be tough to get it passed the right wing of the Tory party because it "rewards" irresponsibility. Even so none of those are serious concerns compared to a second national lockdown.
I also think the machinery of the British state is simply incapable of thinking of the most simple solutions to problems. Lockdown is simple, solution to lots of immediate problems even though it stores up significant issues for the future, that's something that can be dealt with later.
The problems we face need lots of small measures, not one big one, even this policy would need to be backed up by loads of other smaller ones.
It would also require us to learn the lessons from other nations that do this like South Korea, Taiwan and New Zealand. But we won't because of this bloody "wE'RE dA BeSt" attitude that eminates from the witless public schoolboys running the country.
So it seems like the tiers are just as confusing as I said they were, nice job Johnson, nice job
Most predictable response of the year. I think the introduction of the new tier system is long overdue, and WILL make it clearer to people. The bigger problem will be criteria for going into and out of a tier.
Thank you, I do try. If you don't disagree I'm doing something wrong.
So go on then Keir, what's your plan? Let's hear it.
I love your sense of humour.
That even you're coming to realise Keir is an empty suit really shows something.
Today's politicians just aren't suited to this sort of crisis. I'd prefer to have Harold Wilson, John Major, Mrs Thatcher or Jim Callaghan in charge at the moment. It's got nothing to do with party politics, it's more to do with character and statesmanship.
Boris the idiot arguing against the non-existent "let it rip" group. No one is saying we should do that. C***.
It is a total straw man, the only people arguing this are the likes of Piers Corbyn, who claim it is all a hoax.
Quite a few of my Facebook friends (genuinely) support Let it Rip.
They often think that the whole thing is a plot to make them get a Bill Gates tracking vaccine injected.
"Stratified risk" or whatever it's called is "let it rip (except among the elderly)".
I would be very interested to know what the hospitalisation/ventilation/death rate is of the student population, seemingly the majority of which now have or live with someone who has the virus.
During education Qs prior to this debate I believe the minister said we currently have just over 9,000 positive cases among about two million current students. (edit/ that might have been new cases over the past week)
He's lumped in with Nottinghamshire when he's miles away from Nottingham, but people who are closer to Nottingham in Derby have no restrictions.
All my friends and family are in Derbyshire, Yorkshire, Manchester and Coventry. I don't actually know anyone in Nottinghamshire unless you're counting the staff of the local chinese takeaway.
Boris the idiot arguing against the non-existent "let it rip" group. No one is saying we should do that. C***.
It is a total straw man, the only people arguing this are the likes of Piers Corbyn, who claim it is all a hoax.
Quite a few of my Facebook friends (genuinely) support Let it Rip.
They often think that the whole thing is a plot to make them get a Bill Gates tracking vaccine injected.
"Stratified risk" or whatever it's called is "let it rip (except among the elderly)".
I would be very interested to know what the hospitalisation/ventilation/death rate is of the student population, seemingly the majority of which now have or live with someone who has the virus.
During education Qs prior to this debate I believe the minister said we currently have just over 9,000 positive cases among about two million current students. (edit/ that might have been new cases over the past week)
That doesn't bode well for it burning itself out amongst the student population.
He's lumped in with Nottinghamshire when he's miles away from Nottingham, but people who are closer to Nottingham in Derby have no restrictions.
All my friends and family are in Derbyshire, Yorkshire, Manchester and Coventry. I don't actually know anyone in Nottinghamshire unless you're counting the staff of the local chinese takeaway.
My friend is a redundancy consultation. Now, in her case, getting the redundancy wouldn't be too bad – she has been at her employer for 20 years and in any case the company pays more than the statutory. She also has three months' notice –– so her potential payoff is substantial.
Now, she has spotted an internal job advertised which is outside her own department and not in the jobs pool for the redundancy consultation. She fancies applying for it.
Her question is, will the actual act of her applying compromise her ability to walk away if she isn't offered any of the original pooled jobs? I.e. would the employer be able to force her to take the job she applied for whether she decided she wanted to or not?
Starmer really is useless isn't he. The goal is completely open, the goalkeeper has been sent off as well as the whole blood defence and he's smashed it over the bar. The lack of talent in both political parties is absolutely shocking.
He needs to take a position now, he should be IMHO, backing a full lockdown.
And lose all remaining support?
It's the right position to take. What position would you like him to take?
Support people to isolate with cash payments and hotel rooms/food/entertainment.
Push for widespread roll out of rapid testing at indoor venues and transit hubs.
Tough restrictions on arriving travellers and forced hotel isolation for 5 days and a negative PCR test.
Allow pubs to reopen to full hours, institute table service and sitting only room with mask wearing while standing for anyone.
Mandatory mask wearing in all indoor places, no exceptions even for health reasons. People who are unable to work due to this are supported with 100% wage subsidies based on their average wage over the 12 months before the virus.
These are all practical policies that will support the economy and people without destroying the social fabric of the nation.
All good stuff and certainly better than what has been proposed so far. I still think it's too late but as an interim measure, better than nothing.
Except for pubs, I would close them entirely.
There's still no logical reasoning behind that, you just seem to have this weird obsession with closing down pubs despite little evidence it will make any difference. We know the major transmission vector is people's front rooms. Closing down pubs sends people into front rooms. So you also have to stop household mixing, but that is notoriously difficult to police and requires an army of citizen snitches which is no way to conduct a free society.
No, the answer is making the community safe by removing people with the virus from the community until they don't have it. Hotel based separation is the answer, it works in the short and medium term until there is a vaccine.
The policies to remove people from the population aren't currently working, or are non-existent.
I think you're right with what you say - I think it's too late to implement it though. This should have been in place from July.
It actually isn't too late, the government could push through the policy tomorrow and start doing it next week with all new positive cases (and families if necessary) in all of the empty hotels across the country and let the councils run the programmes, they'll know local catering companies and delivery mechanisms better than someone in Whitehall.
It's a policy which brings down transmission very fast and has proven to work.
Take a look at China. An outbreak in one area, and they propose to test all 9m people in a week. I acknowledge there's an element of state propaganda in everything that China puts out, but such numbers are not at all unrealistic. Do that in the NE, for example, isolate as you suggest, and R is about 0.1 by the end of the month.
It would not have been impossible to build that capacity over the summer (and still isn't).
Doing so would shortcircuit every inefficiency and problem with track & trace, too.
Leaving up to local councils also means not needing to build an unweildy national system which takes months to prepare and put in place. Local councils could probably get this up and running overnight and the £500 per week cash inducement would be a nothing thing to figure out for the treasury.
I don't understand why no one in the government has got the capability to push this option. Starmer is perfectly placed to push it because he doesn't have to implement it and if the government fuck it up he can just say they did it badly.
You're being quite persuasive on this 'isolate in hotels' thing.
Why do you think it is not being considered?
It's very expensive, probably £6-7bn per week at the moment, maybe even up to £10bn. It also has bad optics because it will be "paid holiday for nothing" headlines in the mail. It would also be tough to get it passed the right wing of the Tory party because it "rewards" irresponsibility. Even so none of those are serious concerns compared to a second national lockdown.
I also think the machinery of the British state is simply incapable of thinking of the most simple solutions to problems. Lockdown is simple, solution to lots of immediate problems even though it stores up significant issues for the future, that's something that can be dealt with later.
The problems we face need lots of small measures, not one big one, even this policy would need to be backed up by loads of other smaller ones.
It probably isn't that expensive "all in", when you consider that you keep the organisations operating and paying tax. (Plus you keep people from being infected.)
Yes, it's a huge boost to the UK hotels, hospitality and catering industries, the net cost would be a lot lower as it saves money in furlough, business support and other schemes as well as not needing destructive lockdown measures and even being able to ease indoor distancing once the R is down to 0.1 and cases are down to a nominal level.
Boris the idiot arguing against the non-existent "let it rip" group. No one is saying we should do that. C***.
It is a total straw man, the only people arguing this are the likes of Piers Corbyn, who claim it is all a hoax.
Quite a few of my Facebook friends (genuinely) support Let it Rip.
They often think that the whole thing is a plot to make them get a Bill Gates tracking vaccine injected.
"Stratified risk" or whatever it's called is "let it rip (except among the elderly)".
I would be very interested to know what the hospitalisation/ventilation/death rate is of the student population, seemingly the majority of which now have or live with someone who has the virus.
During education Qs prior to this debate I believe the minister said we currently have just over 9,000 positive cases among about two million current students. (edit/ that might have been new cases over the past week)
Thanks
What about hospitalisations, etc? Did he mention that?
Starmer really is useless isn't he. The goal is completely open, the goalkeeper has been sent off as well as the whole blood defence and he's smashed it over the bar. The lack of talent in both political parties is absolutely shocking.
He needs to take a position now, he should be IMHO, backing a full lockdown.
And lose all remaining support?
It's the right position to take. What position would you like him to take?
Support people to isolate with cash payments and hotel rooms/food/entertainment.
Push for widespread roll out of rapid testing at indoor venues and transit hubs.
Tough restrictions on arriving travellers and forced hotel isolation for 5 days and a negative PCR test.
Allow pubs to reopen to full hours, institute table service and sitting only room with mask wearing while standing for anyone.
Mandatory mask wearing in all indoor places, no exceptions even for health reasons. People who are unable to work due to this are supported with 100% wage subsidies based on their average wage over the 12 months before the virus.
These are all practical policies that will support the economy and people without destroying the social fabric of the nation.
All good stuff and certainly better than what has been proposed so far. I still think it's too late but as an interim measure, better than nothing.
Except for pubs, I would close them entirely.
There's still no logical reasoning behind that, you just seem to have this weird obsession with closing down pubs despite little evidence it will make any difference. We know the major transmission vector is people's front rooms. Closing down pubs sends people into front rooms. So you also have to stop household mixing, but that is notoriously difficult to police and requires an army of citizen snitches which is no way to conduct a free society.
No, the answer is making the community safe by removing people with the virus from the community until they don't have it. Hotel based separation is the answer, it works in the short and medium term until there is a vaccine.
The policies to remove people from the population aren't currently working, or are non-existent.
I think you're right with what you say - I think it's too late to implement it though. This should have been in place from July.
It actually isn't too late, the government could push through the policy tomorrow and start doing it next week with all new positive cases (and families if necessary) in all of the empty hotels across the country and let the councils run the programmes, they'll know local catering companies and delivery mechanisms better than someone in Whitehall.
It's a policy which brings down transmission very fast and has proven to work.
Take a look at China. An outbreak in one area, and they propose to test all 9m people in a week. I acknowledge there's an element of state propaganda in everything that China puts out, but such numbers are not at all unrealistic. Do that in the NE, for example, isolate as you suggest, and R is about 0.1 by the end of the month.
It would not have been impossible to build that capacity over the summer (and still isn't).
Doing so would shortcircuit every inefficiency and problem with track & trace, too.
Leaving up to local councils also means not needing to build an unweildy national system which takes months to prepare and put in place. Local councils could probably get this up and running overnight and the £500 per week cash inducement would be a nothing thing to figure out for the treasury.
I don't understand why no one in the government has got the capability to push this option. Starmer is perfectly placed to push it because he doesn't have to implement it and if the government fuck it up he can just say they did it badly.
You're being quite persuasive on this 'isolate in hotels' thing.
Why do you think it is not being considered?
It's very expensive, probably £6-7bn per week at the moment, maybe even up to £10bn. It also has bad optics because it will be "paid holiday for nothing" headlines in the mail. It would also be tough to get it passed the right wing of the Tory party because it "rewards" irresponsibility. Even so none of those are serious concerns compared to a second national lockdown.
I also think the machinery of the British state is simply incapable of thinking of the most simple solutions to problems. Lockdown is simple, solution to lots of immediate problems even though it stores up significant issues for the future, that's something that can be dealt with later.
The problems we face need lots of small measures, not one big one, even this policy would need to be backed up by loads of other smaller ones.
If it's 100k people in a week - and we get hotel rooms for 100 pound a night, that's 70m quid a week.
Now obviously in week 2 there'd be twice as many people, so 140m. Then if you pay people 500 quid a week on top, that's another 50m.
Boris the idiot arguing against the non-existent "let it rip" group. No one is saying we should do that. C***.
It is a total straw man, the only people arguing this are the likes of Piers Corbyn, who claim it is all a hoax.
Quite a few of my Facebook friends (genuinely) support Let it Rip.
They often think that the whole thing is a plot to make them get a Bill Gates tracking vaccine injected.
"Stratified risk" or whatever it's called is "let it rip (except among the elderly)".
The line that irritates me is the "why can't we all decide our own risks?"
Sure, fine. People can decide their own risk. But don't they dare decide someone else's risk. If they want to risk being infected, I'm fine with that, and in my opinion, so should everyone else be fine with that. Their body, their choice. But they have no right to risk infecting someone else. None at all.
If anyone can work out a way to thread that particular needle, they're brighter than everyone else in the world, and they have the solution to all infectious outbreaks.
If we do go with that approach, I reckon we should add a proviso: If someone has chosen not to follow the precautions we outline, and they end up infecting others, than every case "downstream" from them is a criminal charge.
- For every case where someone gets ill: one charge of Actual Bodily Harm (because they caused these people to be harmed thanks to their own deliberate carelessness) - For every case where someone downstream gets hospitalised: one charge of GBH - For every case where someone downstream dies: charge them with culpable homicide.
That's surely fair enough? People should be willing to bear the consequences of their own actions and decisions, and when they end up causing hurt or death, they should face the consequences of that - like drunk drivers are supposed to do.
Comments
And that's just me, after watching it.
On the other hand, it's perfectly possible that Trump wins Florida but loses the Presidency.
That Starmer didn't call the investigation a nonsense was sadly predictable. Crime in London must be really low at the moment.
Short, simple, blunt. Gets over the idea perfectly with no room for nuance or complexity.
He's lumped in with Nottinghamshire when he's miles away from Nottingham, but people who are closer to Nottingham in Derby have no restrictions.
Or does everything run off internet time servers, which can be easily changed.
The takeaway is that the government thought twice about taking on Burnham and the whole of the North.
The prime minister begins his statement to MPs by explaining why he won't be announcing a second national lockdown for the UK.
"I do not believe that would be the right course," he says, citing damage to the economy and to children who would miss out on school.
He says there are others who disagree with measures entirely and would like to see them lifted.
But if we were to follow that course, "and let the virus rip", then the "bleak mathematics dictate that we would suffer not only an intolerable death toll" but would also put "huge strain" on the NHS and doctors and nurses would be unable to treat patients for cancer, heart disease and other conditions, he says.
The PM says further restrictions will help to save lives and protect the NHS while keeping children in school and protecting livelihoods.
--
I believe this will come to be a grave mistake but fair play for setting out his view.
They often think that the whole thing is a plot to make them get a Bill Gates tracking vaccine injected.
Johnson: WEIRFD:LNMK:DSNFK:LNH Equivocation
I fucking hate our PM.
Just as we have people arguing for complete national lockdown.
To what point?
When will he declare Mission Accomplished and we begin to try to live with it?
Why do you think it is not being considered?
Of course, Keir didn't lay out his plan. Why not?
That is not the kind of PM we need right now.
His ratings are starting to slide, he must not let this "Captain Hindsight" stuff be realised
In a two way match up
Biden 53
Trump 42
With third party candidates .
Biden 52
Trump 43
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1315664955555934217
Trump 52
Biden 46
Trump won that in 2016 by just over 20 points !
The recall vote has the sample with an 18 point lead for Trump in 2016 so that’s not bad and close to the actual vote .
I also think the machinery of the British state is simply incapable of thinking of the most simple solutions to problems. Lockdown is simple, solution to lots of immediate problems even though it stores up significant issues for the future, that's something that can be dealt with later.
The problems we face need lots of small measures, not one big one, even this policy would need to be backed up by loads of other smaller ones.
That even you're coming to realise Keir is an empty suit really shows something.
https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1315670498647343104
"It is the districts of Halton, Sefton, Knowsley, St Helens and Wirral.
So basically just City centre Liverpool."
I support Labour and I support Keir. But he needs to set out a plan.
Would really appreciate a reply.
My friend is a redundancy consultation. Now, in her case, getting the redundancy wouldn't be too bad – she has been at her employer for 20 years and in any case the company pays more than the statutory. She also has three months' notice –– so her potential payoff is substantial.
Now, she has spotted an internal job advertised which is outside her own department and not in the jobs pool for the redundancy consultation. She fancies applying for it.
Her question is, will the actual act of her applying compromise her ability to walk away if she isn't offered any of the original pooled jobs? I.e. would the employer be able to force her to take the job she applied for whether she decided she wanted to or not?
Thanks for any advice.
What about hospitalisations, etc? Did he mention that?
Now obviously in week 2 there'd be twice as many people, so 140m.
Then if you pay people 500 quid a week on top, that's another 50m.
How are you getting to 10bn or is that a typo?
Edited for poor maths.
🤦🏻♂️
Sure, fine. People can decide their own risk. But don't they dare decide someone else's risk.
If they want to risk being infected, I'm fine with that, and in my opinion, so should everyone else be fine with that. Their body, their choice.
But they have no right to risk infecting someone else. None at all.
If anyone can work out a way to thread that particular needle, they're brighter than everyone else in the world, and they have the solution to all infectious outbreaks.
If we do go with that approach, I reckon we should add a proviso: If someone has chosen not to follow the precautions we outline, and they end up infecting others, than every case "downstream" from them is a criminal charge.
- For every case where someone gets ill: one charge of Actual Bodily Harm (because they caused these people to be harmed thanks to their own deliberate carelessness)
- For every case where someone downstream gets hospitalised: one charge of GBH
- For every case where someone downstream dies: charge them with culpable homicide.
That's surely fair enough? People should be willing to bear the consequences of their own actions and decisions, and when they end up causing hurt or death, they should face the consequences of that - like drunk drivers are supposed to do.