And so we get a step closer to actually making the choice we have always faced.
We either go back to our lives and accept what for the vast majority is a pretty low extra risk, or we will get a pretty comprehensive financial and social oblivion.
There's no way an economy that's already 10% smaller than it was and massively more indebted can support any further measures (or even these measures). Even as things stand we're going to be 15% smaller at the end of the year than in February as the double dip recession bites.
The cleverer countries will work this out and get on with living. There rest face plunging confidence, investor flights, rampant inflation, debt defaults and currency crises.
OK then. Which clever country do you foresee going down the path of "just getting on with it"? The obvious example of a clever country would be Germany; last time I looked, they were doing a decent job of restraining the virus at levels that were tragic for individuals but low enough to be regrettable but tolerable for society.
Which democracy, outside a dystopian novel, is going to dispassionately sit back, whilst about 1 % of its population dies and their hospital system collapses?
The Tories are destroying the lives of young people once again. Rather than giving the elderly yet another guaranteed pension rise, why not spend it on the young instead.
Says the guy who wants perma uber lockdown. 🙄
Not permanent, why the need to put words in my mouth?
So how long would you want it and what threshold would you use to bring it back?
I think if we got back to where we were in July, that would be sufficient, if we then implemented proper restrictions and so on when we came out. Of course underlined with full Government support.
The Tories are destroying the lives of young people once again. Rather than giving the elderly yet another guaranteed pension rise, why not spend it on the young instead.
Says the guy who wants perma uber lockdown. 🙄
Not permanent, why the need to put words in my mouth?
How would you feel if someone, for whatever reason, suggested stopping your heartbeat, at the same time guaranteeing they would start it again very shortly afterwards...??
The Tories are destroying the lives of young people once again. Rather than giving the elderly yet another guaranteed pension rise, why not spend it on the young instead.
Says the guy who wants perma uber lockdown. 🙄
Not permanent, why the need to put words in my mouth?
How would you feel if someone, for whatever reason, suggested stopping your heartbeat, at the same time guaranteeing they would start it again very shortly afterwards...??
The first lockdown worked. That's the truth of the matter, it's the only thing that has.
Once again the state has proved it doesn't have any creative thinking, just more of the same that didn't work.
Are we expecting much by way of effort to enforce, except in the most egregious breaches? It is dressed up as law but is effectively guidance.
Then why bother having it? It's like the fines for breaching quarantine, they exist only in theory so no one bothers with them. Even self isolation is in that boat.
There will be some compliance with new restrictions so potential infection will be reduced.
But the people most likely to comply with new restrictions are probably the people least likely to become infected.
I've always said that each country and each demographic has its restrictions tolerance and own cost/benefit decision.
With 90% of infected students asymptomatic there's no hope of anything but minor restrictions of the young.
Agree. Plus unemployment figures out today show that the brunt of the economic effect is being felt by young people. So their "sacrifice" is doubly difficult to enforce/comply with given their usually asymptomatic condition.
"Usually asymptomatic condition."
Really?
Hopefully not relying on the "of all people tested, 86% were not symptomatic at the moment of testing" statistic, because following up demonstrates that four in five of those went on to develop symptoms and were therefore pre-symptomatic rather than asymptomatic.
But I'm not aware of any figures, studies, or evidence that "young people" (however defined. Under 18? 18-24? 18-30?) are usually asymptomatic, although the Allison Pearsons of the world spout their opinions as facts that they are.
If you are not aware of any figures, studies, or evidence then we are both arguing without foundation.
My anecdotal evidence is that without exception everyone I know with children at university (and including my nieces and nephews) either has it or is living with someone with it. In that extremely limited data group, no one has reported anyone actually being ill. Just that they have tested positive.
We'll have to wait for those studies. Oh and there are the death rates, but I appreciate not dying from it and being asymptomatic are not the same thing.
Excellent picture from your microlight yesterday btw.
Thanks If you're not careful, you'll end up encouraging me to post more photos, like the one of Cheddar Gorge under an ominous sky I got earlier on that flight... (Don't worry, I'm resisting the urge for now)
On the asymptomatic levels - I've had a look at some of the literature (eg this one, which is a meta-analysis, so drawing upon all published research to that point). It indicates that younger people are more likely to be asymptomatic, but that still remains a minority. So I found indications against the contention rather than in favour.
About one in three under-19s remain asymptomatic, or with symptoms so mild they don't really notice them. This would compare to an average of 15-20% amongst the entire population who remain asymptomatic throughout and there's also evidence that it, like all of the effects, are worse for the elderly than the young. So if the youngest (0-18) are about 33% asymptomatic and the oldest (80+) are something like 5% asymptomatic, the line would fit a 15-20% average across all).
I know of quite a few in their early and mid-twenties who were hit by the virus and they were usually hit quite hard, but that's pure anecdote as well.
Younger people also tend to have milder symptoms and less likelihood of hospitalisation and far less likelihood of death, but with enough of them getting it, we'll see plenty of symptoms and hospitalisations at least.
Put it this way - my second child just started university this month and I'm very much against the idea of her contracting this thing. The odds may be even more in her favour than for me if she gets it, but they're even better if she doesn't (like the odds of a parachute failing are very low, but you still carry a reserve if you go skydiving)
And so we get a step closer to actually making the choice we have always faced.
We either go back to our lives and accept what for the vast majority is a pretty low extra risk, or we will get a pretty comprehensive financial and social oblivion.
There's no way an economy that's already 10% smaller than it was and massively more indebted can support any further measures (or even these measures). Even as things stand we're going to be 15% smaller at the end of the year than in February as the double dip recession bites.
The cleverer countries will work this out and get on with living. There rest face plunging confidence, investor flights, rampant inflation, debt defaults and currency crises.
OK then. Which clever country do you foresee going down the path of "just getting on with it"? The obvious example of a clever country would be Germany; last time I looked, they were doing a decent job of restraining the virus at levels that were tragic for individuals but low enough to be regrettable but tolerable for society.
Which democracy, outside a dystopian novel, is going to dispassionately sit back, whilst about 1 % of its population dies and their hospital system collapses?
I was going to suggest USA until you used the words clever and democracy.
Mr. B2, it's interesting to consider if it's a lack of intelligence, a lack of courage, or both. I'd suggest both. The PM is scared of not being liked and, for all his dipping into Latin, is not intellectually confident enough to stand up for what he believes to be the right course of action.
Inaction and vacillation are also choices, and when that lurches into decisions without consultation or forewarning it's easy to see why people are aggravated by that.
It is an unfortunate coincidence that at the time of the first pandemic in a century we're governed by a cretin.
Good Morning everyone.
Very good post, Mr D. I don't think Johnson's a cretin, though. I think he's narcissistic; really, really wants to be 'loved', and makes decisions on that basis. He also comes across as extremely selfish.
I think Mr D has nailed it myself. Johnson is always given the benefit of the doubt on his intelligence because he has a degree in Classics from Oxford, which as most people don't, makes him sound very clever . The reality is that he is just about of an age where it was still possible to get into Oxbridge if you went to the right school and had the right connections, plus the potential pool of candidates and therefore competition for Classics is very small. Once there it would be a question of doing just about enough work to get through. I wouldn't go as far as to suggest it was a "Porterhouse Blue" degree, but much of the evidence since his entry into political life suggest he is not the brightest graduate of his college!
Ahh... Porterhouse Blue! Is Tom Sharpe still permitted in these politically correct days? I wonder what BLM would make of his South African books - Riotous Assembly and Indecent Exposure?
I loved his books but you are right, he would fall foul of BLM...
On topic, Nigel is right. Classics is seen as a very easy way in to Oxbridge as is doing multi-courses (e.g. History and Portuguese). When I was applying for Oxford in the 1980s,. I was advised to do Classics as it had a 85% acceptance rate then (and as I did Ancient Greek, I was assured I would get in) rather than History, which I wanted to do but only had a 30% chance.
And so we get a step closer to actually making the choice we have always faced.
We either go back to our lives and accept what for the vast majority is a pretty low extra risk, or we will get a pretty comprehensive financial and social oblivion.
There's no way an economy that's already 10% smaller than it was and massively more indebted can support any further measures (or even these measures). Even as things stand we're going to be 15% smaller at the end of the year than in February as the double dip recession bites.
The cleverer countries will work this out and get on with living. There rest face plunging confidence, investor flights, rampant inflation, debt defaults and currency crises.
OK then. Which clever country do you foresee going down the path of "just getting on with it"? The obvious example of a clever country would be Germany; last time I looked, they were doing a decent job of restraining the virus at levels that were tragic for individuals but low enough to be regrettable but tolerable for society.
Which democracy, outside a dystopian novel, is going to dispassionately sit back, whilst about 1 % of its population dies and their hospital system collapses?
The dystopian novel is the evidence free fear the lockdowners have created in your mind.
The Tories are destroying the lives of young people once again. Rather than giving the elderly yet another guaranteed pension rise, why not spend it on the young instead.
Don't you want everyone locked in their houses, including the young - rather than letting them out to work and play?
With Government support.
So you think that not allowing the kids to socialise, study and work is 'destroying their lives', but that this can be completely solved by locking them up at home and giving them money?
I suspect the most important development yesterday was the publication of the SAGE minutes from September 20. SAGE confirms the view that test, trace and isolate is simply not working, and can only be seen as a major failure by government. It was noted by somebody on here, but I don't think enough attention has been paid to it. This is what the minutes said:
An effective test, trace and isolate (TTI) system is important to reduce the incidence of infections in the community. Estimates of the effectiveness of this system on R are difficult to ascertain. The relatively low levels of engagement with the system (comparing ONS incidence estimates with NHS Test and Trace numbers) coupled with testing delays and likely poor rates of adherence with self-isolation suggests that this system is having a marginal impact on transmission at the moment. Unless the system grows at the same rate as the epidemic, and support is given to people to enable them to adhere to self-isolation, it is likely that the impact of Test, Trace and Isolate will further decline in the future.
That is incredibly gloomy. Poor rates of adherence with self-isolation? Testing delays? Low levels of engagement? Further decline in the future?
It strikes me that this is, as some have been saying, the most significant weakness in delivery of government policy, and should be a priority immediately. And by the way, this is what boring old Starmer has been droning on about for weeks....
There is absolutely no chance of getting the virus under control unless test, trace and isolate are much more effective than currently.
This is the key thing and yet it feels like public consciousness has not quite registered it (yet?).
The poor rates of adherence with self-isolation thing should be fixable IMO with the right messaging and social pressure.
We need Boris to do a speech saying "the heroes of WWII took to the skies in the Battle of Britain, now fellow countrymen, you must take to your sofa in the clash of corona."
And just send those people money to stay home or (even better) put them up in a hotel away from family. Give them a medal or something. Make them feel good for isolating.
Once again the state has proved it doesn't have any creative thinking, just more of the same that didn't work.
I think the Daily Star's (!) headline: "Back to Square One" will hit home for many.
Not to say that the rest of Europe isn't in a similar position.
It isn’t though. Italy and Germany are notably - so far - doing OK.
They are for probably different reasons. Italy of course has had its moments. Many other countries are not ok and most are applying very similar measures with similar degrees of success.
Turn the radio on for Today. Within two minutes I am shouting at it. Didn't catch the name but some science advisor seemed to saying unless we have a full national lockdown the virus will double and then double again and then double again ad infinitum until we do lockdown.
Sage recommended a 2 to 3 circuit breaker in September but to close down the whole economy is irresponsible, especially as large parts do not have the levels of infection as the metro areas
Andy Burnham saying he thinks we should have a circuit breaker thereby wanting to close down the whole economy rather than address why his area is in the situation it is. Also as in the previous lockdown who is to guarantee a circuit break will last for 3 weeks and how we would ever get out of it
I believe the present 3 tiers is the best way forward and the rules are more easily understood
In the end there are those who want complete lockdown and others who want the exact opposite, while there are many who just want the government to fail because they are implementing Brexit
I do not envy any leader at present and in all this furore it needs to be noted that a lot of tier 3 requirements were implemented in Scotland by Nicola Sturgeon three weeks ago, and today we have Drakeford threatening to close the Welsh border, yes he really is
Name one person who wants the government to fail because they implemented brexit, what utter tosh.
There are many who have never accepted brexit and never will
Only a fool would want to die of Covid to prove Brexit was a bad idea.
In the realm of issues Brexit is a molehill, Covid is a mountain. Only in a worm's-eye view are they comparable.
So why is BigG. linking criticism of Johnson's Covid performance to Brexit? The two notions aren't remotely inclusive.
BigG can speak for himself, but I suppose he has noticed the overlap between commentators critical of both.
Yeah, because the likes of Sir Graham Brady, Steve Baker, Nigel Farage, Toby Young, Fraser Nelson, and Alison Pearson are such arch Remainers.
Polarization works both ways.
Indeed, but it points out you and BigG were talking nonsense.
Perhaps you could explain where anything I have said this morning is nonsense?
I don't have the time to do that, I already have one full time job.
Then maybe spend less time with personal insults and try setting a better example.
Scott, do you really think that is funny? Or even sane?
We see the same hysterical nonsense about Brexit every day. It's boring. It has fed into the perception of the government generally, on both sides actually. Those opposed to Brexit cannot conceive of the government doing anything right so attack everything they do without any attempt to engage in the complexities. Those who favour Brexit, being very well aware of these trends, cut the government more slack than it deserves. It's unhealthy.
It really is time we moved on. Geoff's description of Brexit being a molehill is overstating it. And we are currently somewhere deep in the Andies.
I thought it was quite funny. Brexit *is* a shitshow. There’s nothing hysterical about pointing it out.
What, an IT department being a set of ballerinas? I mean, really?
You've never encountered a primadonna in an IT department?
I have very rarely encountered anyone with any physical grace, that's for sure.
And so we get a step closer to actually making the choice we have always faced.
We either go back to our lives and accept what for the vast majority is a pretty low extra risk, or we will get a pretty comprehensive financial and social oblivion.
There's no way an economy that's already 10% smaller than it was and massively more indebted can support any further measures (or even these measures). Even as things stand we're going to be 15% smaller at the end of the year than in February as the double dip recession bites.
The cleverer countries will work this out and get on with living. There rest face plunging confidence, investor flights, rampant inflation, debt defaults and currency crises.
OK then. Which clever country do you foresee going down the path of "just getting on with it"? The obvious example of a clever country would be Germany; last time I looked, they were doing a decent job of restraining the virus at levels that were tragic for individuals but low enough to be regrettable but tolerable for society.
Which democracy, outside a dystopian novel, is going to dispassionately sit back, whilst about 1 % of its population dies and their hospital system collapses?
Exactly. What does "just get on with it" look like? There are two key questions to answer: - How long? (do you have to put up with it until herd immunity comes - if it ever comes and stays) - How many? (hospitalisations and deaths are acceptable)
Once again the state has proved it doesn't have any creative thinking, just more of the same that didn't work.
Are we expecting much by way of effort to enforce, except in the most egregious breaches? It is dressed up as law but is effectively guidance.
Then why bother having it? It's like the fines for breaching quarantine, they exist only in theory so no one bothers with them. Even self isolation is in that boat.
There will be some compliance with new restrictions so potential infection will be reduced.
But the people most likely to comply with new restrictions are probably the people least likely to become infected.
I've always said that each country and each demographic has its restrictions tolerance and own cost/benefit decision.
With 90% of infected students asymptomatic there's no hope of anything but minor restrictions of the young.
Agree. Plus unemployment figures out today show that the brunt of the economic effect is being felt by young people. So their "sacrifice" is doubly difficult to enforce/comply with given their usually asymptomatic condition.
"Usually asymptomatic condition."
Really?
Hopefully not relying on the "of all people tested, 86% were not symptomatic at the moment of testing" statistic, because following up demonstrates that four in five of those went on to develop symptoms and were therefore pre-symptomatic rather than asymptomatic.
But I'm not aware of any figures, studies, or evidence that "young people" (however defined. Under 18? 18-24? 18-30?) are usually asymptomatic, although the Allison Pearsons of the world spout their opinions as facts that they are.
If you are not aware of any figures, studies, or evidence then we are both arguing without foundation.
My anecdotal evidence is that without exception everyone I know with children at university (and including my nieces and nephews) either has it or is living with someone with it. In that extremely limited data group, no one has reported anyone actually being ill. Just that they have tested positive.
We'll have to wait for those studies. Oh and there are the death rates, but I appreciate not dying from it and being asymptomatic are not the same thing.
Excellent picture from your microlight yesterday btw.
Thanks
On the asymptomatic levels - I've had a look at some of the literature (eg this one, which is a meta-analysis, so drawing upon all published research to that point). It indicates that younger people are more likely to be asymptomatic, but that still remains a minority. So I found indications against the contention rather than in favour.
About one in three under-19s remain asymptomatic, or with symptoms so mild they don't really notice them. This would compare to an average of 15-20% amongst the entire population who remain asymptomatic throughout and there's also evidence that it, like all of the effects, are worse for the elderly than the young. So if the youngest (0-18) are about 33% asymptomatic and the oldest (80+) are something like 5% asymptomatic, the line would fit a 15-20% average across all).
I know of quite a few in their early and mid-twenties who were hit by the virus and they were usually hit quite hard, but that's pure anecdote as well.
Younger people also tend to have milder symptoms and less likelihood of hospitalisation and far less likelihood of death, but with enough of them getting it, we'll see plenty of symptoms and hospitalisations at least.
Put it this way - my second child just started university this month and I'm very much against the idea of her contracting this thing. The odds may be even more in her favour than for me if she gets it, but they're even better if she doesn't (like the odds of a parachute failing are very low, but you still carry a reserve if you go skydiving)
Yes of course - and I understand that. My nieces are self-isolating in their own rooms in (different) shared houses and I can't remember if that's because they have tested positive and everyone else hasn't or everyone else has tested positive and they haven't.
Literally every other friend of mine with children at uni has a similar experience.
And none of them mention actually being ill. And hence I asked yesterday about student-level hospitalisations (we know about the deaths). Because as you say, they should be ticking up.
Someone yesterday also posted that there were 9,000 positives out of 2m students. Again anecdotally, that seems low.
Which democracy, outside a dystopian novel, is going to dispassionately sit back, whilst about 1 % of its population dies and their hospital system collapses?
That sounds like Mugabae's Zimbabwe, although it stretches the meaning of "Democracy"
What about the GOP in the US? They may care about the hospital system, but they do not seem to give a toss about the 30% of Americans who, prior to ObamaCare, had no health insurance.
The Tories are destroying the lives of young people once again. Rather than giving the elderly yet another guaranteed pension rise, why not spend it on the young instead.
Says the guy who wants perma uber lockdown. 🙄
Not permanent, why the need to put words in my mouth?
How would you feel if someone, for whatever reason, suggested stopping your heartbeat, at the same time guaranteeing they would start it again very shortly afterwards...??
Back when I was a student a couple of decades ago, ten grand was the going rate for that procedure at the medical research centre.
No, I didn't sign up despite my poverty, and no friends did either. They always got a couple of volunteers though.
I suspect the most important development yesterday was the publication of the SAGE minutes from September 20. SAGE confirms the view that test, trace and isolate is simply not working, and can only be seen as a major failure by government. It was noted by somebody on here, but I don't think enough attention has been paid to it. This is what the minutes said:
An effective test, trace and isolate (TTI) system is important to reduce the incidence of infections in the community. Estimates of the effectiveness of this system on R are difficult to ascertain. The relatively low levels of engagement with the system (comparing ONS incidence estimates with NHS Test and Trace numbers) coupled with testing delays and likely poor rates of adherence with self-isolation suggests that this system is having a marginal impact on transmission at the moment. Unless the system grows at the same rate as the epidemic, and support is given to people to enable them to adhere to self-isolation, it is likely that the impact of Test, Trace and Isolate will further decline in the future.
That is incredibly gloomy. Poor rates of adherence with self-isolation? Testing delays? Low levels of engagement? Further decline in the future?
It strikes me that this is, as some have been saying, the most significant weakness in delivery of government policy, and should be a priority immediately. And by the way, this is what boring old Starmer has been droning on about for weeks....
There is absolutely no chance of getting the virus under control unless test, trace and isolate are much more effective than currently.
Are we allowed to mention those responsible for these failures: Serco and Dido Harding?
I'm not sure you can pin the blame of low self isolation adherence to PHE or Harding, as easy as that would be. The answer lies with the poor information campaign and lack of incentive, it's also the British mentality of "I feel fine" and just keep on keeping on even after a positive test. Not sure how you can land that at the feet of Harding.
The testing and tracing system - testing delays - is absolutely the responsibility of Serco and Harding. If it is failing why shouldn’t they be held responsible?
Poor incentives to self-isolate are down to the government: again they should be held responsible.
As is the current cat’s cradle of restrictions which seem to me to be the result of not wanting to compensate fully those businesses and employees affected by necessary restrictions. Such cheese-paring will likely result in both not controlling the virus and driving many firms into bankruptcy.
The Tories are destroying the lives of young people once again. Rather than giving the elderly yet another guaranteed pension rise, why not spend it on the young instead.
Says the guy who wants perma uber lockdown. 🙄
Not permanent, why the need to put words in my mouth?
How would you feel if someone, for whatever reason, suggested stopping your heartbeat, at the same time guaranteeing they would start it again very shortly afterwards...??
The first lockdown worked. That's the truth of the matter, it's the only thing that has.
Define 'worked?'
The evidence is it stopped a lot of young people, especially in the North, who were never in danger anyway from getting a disease that, in the vast majority of cases, never even gave them any symptoms.
The collateral damage? Millions of missed cancer screenings for a start.
Preventing the overwhelming the NHS? in some respects the NHS already acts as if it were overwhelmed. People can;t see GPs or get routine operations no matter how full or empty the hospitals are. What's the difference?
The Tories are destroying the lives of young people once again. Rather than giving the elderly yet another guaranteed pension rise, why not spend it on the young instead.
Says the guy who wants perma uber lockdown. 🙄
Not permanent, why the need to put words in my mouth?
So how long would you want it and what threshold would you use to bring it back?
I think if we got back to where we were in July, that would be sufficient, if we then implemented proper restrictions and so on when we came out. Of course underlined with full Government support.
Government support for what? It's not just money that's they issue. Young people are being prevented from forming human relationships during a key time for them. I made loads of friends for life during the early years of my career working late together, going to the pub and then late night bar in Soho on a Tuesday evening and then straight to the office afterwards.
It's not just money, I think you need to understand that. Social bonds and mental health are just as or more important for young people and lockdown is completely destructive.
Scott, do you really think that is funny? Or even sane?
We see the same hysterical nonsense about Brexit every day. It's boring. It has fed into the perception of the government generally, on both sides actually. Those opposed to Brexit cannot conceive of the government doing anything right so attack everything they do without any attempt to engage in the complexities. Those who favour Brexit, being very well aware of these trends, cut the government more slack than it deserves. It's unhealthy.
It really is time we moved on. Geoff's description of Brexit being a molehill is overstating it. And we are currently somewhere deep in the Andies.
I thought it was quite funny. Brexit *is* a shitshow. There’s nothing hysterical about pointing it out.
What, an IT department being a set of ballerinas? I mean, really?
You've never encountered a primadonna in an IT department?
I have very rarely encountered anyone with any physical grace, that's for sure.
And so we get a step closer to actually making the choice we have always faced.
We either go back to our lives and accept what for the vast majority is a pretty low extra risk, or we will get a pretty comprehensive financial and social oblivion.
There's no way an economy that's already 10% smaller than it was and massively more indebted can support any further measures (or even these measures). Even as things stand we're going to be 15% smaller at the end of the year than in February as the double dip recession bites.
The cleverer countries will work this out and get on with living. There rest face plunging confidence, investor flights, rampant inflation, debt defaults and currency crises.
OK then. Which clever country do you foresee going down the path of "just getting on with it"? The obvious example of a clever country would be Germany; last time I looked, they were doing a decent job of restraining the virus at levels that were tragic for individuals but low enough to be regrettable but tolerable for society.
Which democracy, outside a dystopian novel, is going to dispassionately sit back, whilst about 1 % of its population dies and their hospital system collapses?
The dystopian novel is the evidence free fear the lockdowners have created in your mind.
In what way? We've got enough data to know that about 1% of the people who get this virus die. Less if the treatment is good, more if it isn't. That's not evidence-free fear, is it? And plenty of dystopian fiction has explored that sort of possibility, because it's an interesting idea to explore in fiction.
Anyway, that's secondary. Which clever country do you foresee going down the path of "just getting on with it"? Because I can't think of any- certainly no democracies.
I suspect the most important development yesterday was the publication of the SAGE minutes from September 20. SAGE confirms the view that test, trace and isolate is simply not working, and can only be seen as a major failure by government. It was noted by somebody on here, but I don't think enough attention has been paid to it. This is what the minutes said:
An effective test, trace and isolate (TTI) system is important to reduce the incidence of infections in the community. Estimates of the effectiveness of this system on R are difficult to ascertain. The relatively low levels of engagement with the system (comparing ONS incidence estimates with NHS Test and Trace numbers) coupled with testing delays and likely poor rates of adherence with self-isolation suggests that this system is having a marginal impact on transmission at the moment. Unless the system grows at the same rate as the epidemic, and support is given to people to enable them to adhere to self-isolation, it is likely that the impact of Test, Trace and Isolate will further decline in the future.
That is incredibly gloomy. Poor rates of adherence with self-isolation? Testing delays? Low levels of engagement? Further decline in the future?
It strikes me that this is, as some have been saying, the most significant weakness in delivery of government policy, and should be a priority immediately. And by the way, this is what boring old Starmer has been droning on about for weeks....
There is absolutely no chance of getting the virus under control unless test, trace and isolate are much more effective than currently.
This is the key thing and yet it feels like public consciousness has not quite registered it (yet?).
The poor rates of adherence with self-isolation thing should be fixable IMO with the right messaging and social pressure.
We need Boris to do a speech saying "the heroes of WWII took to the skies in the Battle of Britain, now fellow countrymen, you must take to your sofa in the clash of corona."
And just send those people money to stay home or (even better) put them up in a hotel away from family. Give them a medal or something. Make them feel good for isolating.
I really, really don't want to be seen as an Eeyore, but if you look at the stats for longevity in the cohort of children born in the mid 1920's the 'brightest and best' seem to have about the worst figures. Mainly because they took to the skies in WWII. Have a look at the Lothian Birth Cohort studies.
The Tories are destroying the lives of young people once again. Rather than giving the elderly yet another guaranteed pension rise, why not spend it on the young instead.
Says the guy who wants perma uber lockdown. 🙄
Not permanent, why the need to put words in my mouth?
So how long would you want it and what threshold would you use to bring it back?
I think if we got back to where we were in July, that would be sufficient, if we then implemented proper restrictions and so on when we came out. Of course underlined with full Government support.
Government support for what? It's not just money that's they issue. Young people are being prevented from forming human relationships during a key time for them. I made loads of friends for life during the early years of my career working late together, going to the pub and then late night bar in Soho on a Tuesday evening and then straight to the office afterwards.
It's not just money, I think you need to understand that. Social bonds and mental health are just as or more important for young people and lockdown is completely destructive.
I do understand that, I am a youngish person, I know the impact of the lockdown. But there simply is no other option at this stage. If we do nothing, in the long run these issues will get worse not better. We need to hit this on the head now, IMHO.
The Government needs to extend the furlough scheme during a proper lockdown and then as we come out, provide sector by sector support where it is needed. That was actually a Labour proposal.
I suspect the most important development yesterday was the publication of the SAGE minutes from September 20. SAGE confirms the view that test, trace and isolate is simply not working, and can only be seen as a major failure by government. It was noted by somebody on here, but I don't think enough attention has been paid to it. This is what the minutes said:
An effective test, trace and isolate (TTI) system is important to reduce the incidence of infections in the community. Estimates of the effectiveness of this system on R are difficult to ascertain. The relatively low levels of engagement with the system (comparing ONS incidence estimates with NHS Test and Trace numbers) coupled with testing delays and likely poor rates of adherence with self-isolation suggests that this system is having a marginal impact on transmission at the moment. Unless the system grows at the same rate as the epidemic, and support is given to people to enable them to adhere to self-isolation, it is likely that the impact of Test, Trace and Isolate will further decline in the future.
That is incredibly gloomy. Poor rates of adherence with self-isolation? Testing delays? Low levels of engagement? Further decline in the future?
It strikes me that this is, as some have been saying, the most significant weakness in delivery of government policy, and should be a priority immediately. And by the way, this is what boring old Starmer has been droning on about for weeks....
There is absolutely no chance of getting the virus under control unless test, trace and isolate are much more effective than currently.
Are we allowed to mention those responsible for these failures: Serco and Dido Harding?
I'm not sure you can pin the blame of low self isolation adherence to PHE or Harding, as easy as that would be. The answer lies with the poor information campaign and lack of incentive, it's also the British mentality of "I feel fine" and just keep on keeping on even after a positive test. Not sure how you can land that at the feet of Harding.
The testing and tracing system - testing delays - is absolutely the responsibility of Serco and Harding. If it is failing why shouldn’t they be held responsible?
Poor incentives to self-isolate are down to the government: again they should be held responsible.
As is the current cat’s cradle of restrictions which seem to me to be the result of not wanting to compensate fully those businesses and employees affected by necessary restrictions. Such cheese-paring will likely result in both not controlling the virus and driving many firms into bankruptcy.
Id blame whoever appointed her, Johnson, Cummings and Hancock. She has not underperformed realistic expectations based on her track record.
I suspect the most important development yesterday was the publication of the SAGE minutes from September 20. SAGE confirms the view that test, trace and isolate is simply not working, and can only be seen as a major failure by government. It was noted by somebody on here, but I don't think enough attention has been paid to it. This is what the minutes said:
An effective test, trace and isolate (TTI) system is important to reduce the incidence of infections in the community. Estimates of the effectiveness of this system on R are difficult to ascertain. The relatively low levels of engagement with the system (comparing ONS incidence estimates with NHS Test and Trace numbers) coupled with testing delays and likely poor rates of adherence with self-isolation suggests that this system is having a marginal impact on transmission at the moment. Unless the system grows at the same rate as the epidemic, and support is given to people to enable them to adhere to self-isolation, it is likely that the impact of Test, Trace and Isolate will further decline in the future.
That is incredibly gloomy. Poor rates of adherence with self-isolation? Testing delays? Low levels of engagement? Further decline in the future?
It strikes me that this is, as some have been saying, the most significant weakness in delivery of government policy, and should be a priority immediately. And by the way, this is what boring old Starmer has been droning on about for weeks....
There is absolutely no chance of getting the virus under control unless test, trace and isolate are much more effective than currently.
Are we allowed to mention those responsible for these failures: Serco and Dido Harding?
I'm not sure you can pin the blame of low self isolation adherence to PHE or Harding, as easy as that would be. The answer lies with the poor information campaign and lack of incentive, it's also the British mentality of "I feel fine" and just keep on keeping on even after a positive test. Not sure how you can land that at the feet of Harding.
The testing and tracing system - testing delays - is absolutely the responsibility of Serco and Harding. If it is failing why shouldn’t they be held responsible?
Poor incentives to self-isolate are down to the government: again they should be held responsible.
As is the current cat’s cradle of restrictions which seem to me to be the result of not wanting to compensate fully those businesses and employees affected by necessary restrictions. Such cheese-paring will likely result in both not controlling the virus and driving many firms into bankruptcy.
Again, no doubt that the government is at fault for a lot and the measures are as you say. The tier 2 restrictions seem particularly egregious for business to operate under for hospitality.
My original point is that I'm not sure we can easily just blame Harding for all of this, some of it yes, especially the testing crunch we experienced last month and the poor contact rate for the national call centre. Poor self isolation rates are definitely a fault or national government though.
The Tories are destroying the lives of young people once again. Rather than giving the elderly yet another guaranteed pension rise, why not spend it on the young instead.
Says the guy who wants perma uber lockdown. 🙄
Not permanent, why the need to put words in my mouth?
So how long would you want it and what threshold would you use to bring it back?
I think if we got back to where we were in July, that would be sufficient, if we then implemented proper restrictions and so on when we came out. Of course underlined with full Government support.
Government support for what? It's not just money that's they issue. Young people are being prevented from forming human relationships during a key time for them. I made loads of friends for life during the early years of my career working late together, going to the pub and then late night bar in Soho on a Tuesday evening and then straight to the office afterwards.
It's not just money, I think you need to understand that. Social bonds and mental health are just as or more important for young people and lockdown is completely destructive.
I do understand that, I am a youngish person, I know the impact of the lockdown. But there simply is no other option at this stage. If we do nothing, in the long run these issues will get worse not better. We need to hit this on the head now, IMHO.
The Government needs to extend the furlough scheme during a proper lockdown and then as we come out, provide sector by sector support where it is needed. That was actually a Labour proposal.
There are plenty of other options, lockdown is a sledgehammer which will destroy whatever is left of the economy. Government support, as you keep putting it, papers over the cracks, nothing else.
I suspect the most important development yesterday was the publication of the SAGE minutes from September 20. SAGE confirms the view that test, trace and isolate is simply not working, and can only be seen as a major failure by government. It was noted by somebody on here, but I don't think enough attention has been paid to it. This is what the minutes said:
An effective test, trace and isolate (TTI) system is important to reduce the incidence of infections in the community. Estimates of the effectiveness of this system on R are difficult to ascertain. The relatively low levels of engagement with the system (comparing ONS incidence estimates with NHS Test and Trace numbers) coupled with testing delays and likely poor rates of adherence with self-isolation suggests that this system is having a marginal impact on transmission at the moment. Unless the system grows at the same rate as the epidemic, and support is given to people to enable them to adhere to self-isolation, it is likely that the impact of Test, Trace and Isolate will further decline in the future.
That is incredibly gloomy. Poor rates of adherence with self-isolation? Testing delays? Low levels of engagement? Further decline in the future?
It strikes me that this is, as some have been saying, the most significant weakness in delivery of government policy, and should be a priority immediately. And by the way, this is what boring old Starmer has been droning on about for weeks....
There is absolutely no chance of getting the virus under control unless test, trace and isolate are much more effective than currently.
Are we allowed to mention those responsible for these failures: Serco and Dido Harding?
I'm not sure you can pin the blame of low self isolation adherence to PHE or Harding, as easy as that would be. The answer lies with the poor information campaign and lack of incentive, it's also the British mentality of "I feel fine" and just keep on keeping on even after a positive test. Not sure how you can land that at the feet of Harding.
The testing and tracing system - testing delays - is absolutely the responsibility of Serco and Harding. If it is failing why shouldn’t they be held responsible?
Poor incentives to self-isolate are down to the government: again they should be held responsible.
As is the current cat’s cradle of restrictions which seem to me to be the result of not wanting to compensate fully those businesses and employees affected by necessary restrictions. Such cheese-paring will likely result in both not controlling the virus and driving many firms into bankruptcy.
Id blame whoever appointed her, Johnson, Cummings and Hancock. She has not underperformed realistic expectations based on her track record.
She is known as an incompetent joke in the IT and telecom sector according to someone I know in that sector. Classic case of Johnson cronyism.
I haven't been a fan of the idea of Metro mayors as I am concerned about the power being concentrated in a single individual, however I have been impressed with a number of them during the Covid issues, in particular Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle. They have all come over very well in interviews. Seem to know their facts, fighting their corner and not being overtly political, but trying to make the right decisions and compromises for their areas. Quite refreshing.
Scott, do you really think that is funny? Or even sane?
We see the same hysterical nonsense about Brexit every day. It's boring. It has fed into the perception of the government generally, on both sides actually. Those opposed to Brexit cannot conceive of the government doing anything right so attack everything they do without any attempt to engage in the complexities. Those who favour Brexit, being very well aware of these trends, cut the government more slack than it deserves. It's unhealthy.
It really is time we moved on. Geoff's description of Brexit being a molehill is overstating it. And we are currently somewhere deep in the Andies.
I thought it was quite funny. Brexit *is* a shitshow. There’s nothing hysterical about pointing it out.
What, an IT department being a set of ballerinas? I mean, really?
I think maybe you aren’t aware of the origin of the joke. Which is The Govt’s advert yesterday suggesting ballerinas could retrain as “cyber” professionals.
Oh no! I now have the mental image of some of my IT department in tutus!
I suspect the most important development yesterday was the publication of the SAGE minutes from September 20. SAGE confirms the view that test, trace and isolate is simply not working, and can only be seen as a major failure by government. It was noted by somebody on here, but I don't think enough attention has been paid to it. This is what the minutes said:
An effective test, trace and isolate (TTI) system is important to reduce the incidence of infections in the community. Estimates of the effectiveness of this system on R are difficult to ascertain. The relatively low levels of engagement with the system (comparing ONS incidence estimates with NHS Test and Trace numbers) coupled with testing delays and likely poor rates of adherence with self-isolation suggests that this system is having a marginal impact on transmission at the moment. Unless the system grows at the same rate as the epidemic, and support is given to people to enable them to adhere to self-isolation, it is likely that the impact of Test, Trace and Isolate will further decline in the future.
That is incredibly gloomy. Poor rates of adherence with self-isolation? Testing delays? Low levels of engagement? Further decline in the future?
It strikes me that this is, as some have been saying, the most significant weakness in delivery of government policy, and should be a priority immediately. And by the way, this is what boring old Starmer has been droning on about for weeks....
There is absolutely no chance of getting the virus under control unless test, trace and isolate are much more effective than currently.
Are we allowed to mention those responsible for these failures: Serco and Dido Harding?
I'm not sure you can pin the blame of low self isolation adherence to PHE or Harding, as easy as that would be. The answer lies with the poor information campaign and lack of incentive, it's also the British mentality of "I feel fine" and just keep on keeping on even after a positive test. Not sure how you can land that at the feet of Harding.
The testing and tracing system - testing delays - is absolutely the responsibility of Serco and Harding. If it is failing why shouldn’t they be held responsible?
Poor incentives to self-isolate are down to the government: again they should be held responsible.
As is the current cat’s cradle of restrictions which seem to me to be the result of not wanting to compensate fully those businesses and employees affected by necessary restrictions. Such cheese-paring will likely result in both not controlling the virus and driving many firms into bankruptcy.
Again, no doubt that the government is at fault for a lot and the measures are as you say. The tier 2 restrictions seem particularly egregious for business to operate under for hospitality.
My original point is that I'm not sure we can easily just blame Harding for all of this, some of it yes, especially the testing crunch we experienced last month and the poor contact rate for the national call centre. Poor self isolation rates are definitely a fault or national government though.
Poor wording on my part then. Some - yes: the testing and tracing. A pretty key part, especially given the sums involved.
And so we get a step closer to actually making the choice we have always faced.
We either go back to our lives and accept what for the vast majority is a pretty low extra risk, or we will get a pretty comprehensive financial and social oblivion.
There's no way an economy that's already 10% smaller than it was and massively more indebted can support any further measures (or even these measures). Even as things stand we're going to be 15% smaller at the end of the year than in February as the double dip recession bites.
The cleverer countries will work this out and get on with living. There rest face plunging confidence, investor flights, rampant inflation, debt defaults and currency crises.
OK then. Which clever country do you foresee going down the path of "just getting on with it"? The obvious example of a clever country would be Germany; last time I looked, they were doing a decent job of restraining the virus at levels that were tragic for individuals but low enough to be regrettable but tolerable for society.
Which democracy, outside a dystopian novel, is going to dispassionately sit back, whilst about 1 % of its population dies and their hospital system collapses?
The dystopian novel is the evidence free fear the lockdowners have created in your mind.
In what way? We've got enough data to know that about 1% of the people who get this virus die. Less if the treatment is good, more if it isn't. That's not evidence-free fear, is it? And plenty of dystopian fiction has explored that sort of possibility, because it's an interesting idea to explore in fiction.
Anyway, that's secondary. Which clever country do you foresee going down the path of "just getting on with it"? Because I can't think of any- certainly no democracies.
There are examples of democracies that have succeeded in controlling the virus without perma-lockdown - New Zealand, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan - and we can see what is happening in countries that do not control the virus - US, Brazil, Mexico - and yet somehow controlling the virus is the impossible option and not controlling the virus is the pragmatic choice, with little downside.
How stupid do people making that argument think we are?
I suspect the most important development yesterday was the publication of the SAGE minutes from September 20. SAGE confirms the view that test, trace and isolate is simply not working, and can only be seen as a major failure by government. It was noted by somebody on here, but I don't think enough attention has been paid to it. This is what the minutes said:
An effective test, trace and isolate (TTI) system is important to reduce the incidence of infections in the community. Estimates of the effectiveness of this system on R are difficult to ascertain. The relatively low levels of engagement with the system (comparing ONS incidence estimates with NHS Test and Trace numbers) coupled with testing delays and likely poor rates of adherence with self-isolation suggests that this system is having a marginal impact on transmission at the moment. Unless the system grows at the same rate as the epidemic, and support is given to people to enable them to adhere to self-isolation, it is likely that the impact of Test, Trace and Isolate will further decline in the future.
That is incredibly gloomy. Poor rates of adherence with self-isolation? Testing delays? Low levels of engagement? Further decline in the future?
It strikes me that this is, as some have been saying, the most significant weakness in delivery of government policy, and should be a priority immediately. And by the way, this is what boring old Starmer has been droning on about for weeks....
There is absolutely no chance of getting the virus under control unless test, trace and isolate are much more effective than currently.
Are we allowed to mention those responsible for these failures: Serco and Dido Harding?
I'm not sure you can pin the blame of low self isolation adherence to PHE or Harding, as easy as that would be. The answer lies with the poor information campaign and lack of incentive, it's also the British mentality of "I feel fine" and just keep on keeping on even after a positive test. Not sure how you can land that at the feet of Harding.
The testing and tracing system - testing delays - is absolutely the responsibility of Serco and Harding. If it is failing why shouldn’t they be held responsible?
Poor incentives to self-isolate are down to the government: again they should be held responsible.
As is the current cat’s cradle of restrictions which seem to me to be the result of not wanting to compensate fully those businesses and employees affected by necessary restrictions. Such cheese-paring will likely result in both not controlling the virus and driving many firms into bankruptcy.
Again, no doubt that the government is at fault for a lot and the measures are as you say. The tier 2 restrictions seem particularly egregious for business to operate under for hospitality.
My original point is that I'm not sure we can easily just blame Harding for all of this, some of it yes, especially the testing crunch we experienced last month and the poor contact rate for the national call centre. Poor self isolation rates are definitely a fault or national government though.
Poor wording on my part then. Some - yes: the testing and tracing. A pretty key part, especially given the sums involved.
I actually think that self isolation adherence is much more important than the track and trace part of it. Getting people who have tested positive to stay home and not spread the the virus is basically the foundation of any system and the government and the public have failed to do this.
Once again the state has proved it doesn't have any creative thinking, just more of the same that didn't work.
Are we expecting much by way of effort to enforce, except in the most egregious breaches? It is dressed up as law but is effectively guidance.
Then why bother having it? It's like the fines for breaching quarantine, they exist only in theory so no one bothers with them. Even self isolation is in that boat.
There will be some compliance with new restrictions so potential infection will be reduced.
But the people most likely to comply with new restrictions are probably the people least likely to become infected.
I've always said that each country and each demographic has its restrictions tolerance and own cost/benefit decision.
With 90% of infected students asymptomatic there's no hope of anything but minor restrictions of the young.
Agree. Plus unemployment figures out today show that the brunt of the economic effect is being felt by young people. So their "sacrifice" is doubly difficult to enforce/comply with given their usually asymptomatic condition.
"Usually asymptomatic condition."
Really?
Hopefully not relying on the "of all people tested, 86% were not symptomatic at the moment of testing" statistic, because following up demonstrates that four in five of those went on to develop symptoms and were therefore pre-symptomatic rather than asymptomatic.
But I'm not aware of any figures, studies, or evidence that "young people" (however defined. Under 18? 18-24? 18-30?) are usually asymptomatic, although the Allison Pearsons of the world spout their opinions as facts that they are.
If you are not aware of any figures, studies, or evidence then we are both arguing without foundation.
My anecdotal evidence is that without exception everyone I know with children at university (and including my nieces and nephews) either has it or is living with someone with it. In that extremely limited data group, no one has reported anyone actually being ill. Just that they have tested positive.
We'll have to wait for those studies. Oh and there are the death rates, but I appreciate not dying from it and being asymptomatic are not the same thing.
Excellent picture from your microlight yesterday btw.
Thanks
On the asymptomatic levels - I've had a look at some of the literature (eg this one, which is a meta-analysis, so drawing upon all published research to that point). It indicates that younger people are more likely to be asymptomatic, but that still remains a minority. So I found indications against the contention rather than in favour.
About one in three under-19s remain asymptomatic, or with symptoms so mild they don't really notice them. This would compare to an average of 15-20% amongst the entire population who remain asymptomatic throughout and there's also evidence that it, like all of the effects, are worse for the elderly than the young. So if the youngest (0-18) are about 33% asymptomatic and the oldest (80+) are something like 5% asymptomatic, the line would fit a 15-20% average across all).
I know of quite a few in their early and mid-twenties who were hit by the virus and they were usually hit quite hard, but that's pure anecdote as well.
Younger people also tend to have milder symptoms and less likelihood of hospitalisation and far less likelihood of death, but with enough of them getting it, we'll see plenty of symptoms and hospitalisations at least.
Put it this way - my second child just started university this month and I'm very much against the idea of her contracting this thing. The odds may be even more in her favour than for me if she gets it, but they're even better if she doesn't (like the odds of a parachute failing are very low, but you still carry a reserve if you go skydiving)
Yes of course - and I understand that. My nieces are self-isolating in their own rooms in (different) shared houses and I can't remember if that's because they have tested positive and everyone else hasn't or everyone else has tested positive and they haven't.
Literally every other friend of mine with children at uni has a similar experience.
And none of them mention actually being ill. And hence I asked yesterday about student-level hospitalisations (we know about the deaths). Because as you say, they should be ticking up.
Someone yesterday also posted that there were 9,000 positives out of 2m students. Again anecdotally, that seems low.
What were we talking about again?
I came in following the lines that "90% of young people are asymptomatic" which was followed by "usually asymptomatic" and I wanted to dent any tendency to assume that the young are all-but-immune.
Partly because of people like Pearson actively encouraging infection amongst the young and partly because there will inevitably be a reaction if and when significant numbers of students end up suffering.
I suspect the most important development yesterday was the publication of the SAGE minutes from September 20. SAGE confirms the view that test, trace and isolate is simply not working, and can only be seen as a major failure by government. It was noted by somebody on here, but I don't think enough attention has been paid to it. This is what the minutes said:
An effective test, trace and isolate (TTI) system is important to reduce the incidence of infections in the community. Estimates of the effectiveness of this system on R are difficult to ascertain. The relatively low levels of engagement with the system (comparing ONS incidence estimates with NHS Test and Trace numbers) coupled with testing delays and likely poor rates of adherence with self-isolation suggests that this system is having a marginal impact on transmission at the moment. Unless the system grows at the same rate as the epidemic, and support is given to people to enable them to adhere to self-isolation, it is likely that the impact of Test, Trace and Isolate will further decline in the future.
That is incredibly gloomy. Poor rates of adherence with self-isolation? Testing delays? Low levels of engagement? Further decline in the future?
It strikes me that this is, as some have been saying, the most significant weakness in delivery of government policy, and should be a priority immediately. And by the way, this is what boring old Starmer has been droning on about for weeks....
There is absolutely no chance of getting the virus under control unless test, trace and isolate are much more effective than currently.
Are we allowed to mention those responsible for these failures: Serco and Dido Harding?
I'm not sure you can pin the blame of low self isolation adherence to PHE or Harding, as easy as that would be. The answer lies with the poor information campaign and lack of incentive, it's also the British mentality of "I feel fine" and just keep on keeping on even after a positive test. Not sure how you can land that at the feet of Harding.
The testing and tracing system - testing delays - is absolutely the responsibility of Serco and Harding. If it is failing why shouldn’t they be held responsible?
Poor incentives to self-isolate are down to the government: again they should be held responsible.
As is the current cat’s cradle of restrictions which seem to me to be the result of not wanting to compensate fully those businesses and employees affected by necessary restrictions. Such cheese-paring will likely result in both not controlling the virus and driving many firms into bankruptcy.
Again, no doubt that the government is at fault for a lot and the measures are as you say. The tier 2 restrictions seem particularly egregious for business to operate under for hospitality.
My original point is that I'm not sure we can easily just blame Harding for all of this, some of it yes, especially the testing crunch we experienced last month and the poor contact rate for the national call centre. Poor self isolation rates are definitely a fault or national government though.
The tier 2 measures are simply a way of making businesses unviable and bankrupt without the government supporting them. They are wrong and need to go.
There are only 3 options in terms of support:-
1. Let businesses operate normally - with sensible hygiene measures. 2. Impose more serious restrictions and provide partial support. 3. Close businesses and provide full support.
The government does not want to do this hence the complicated and unviable and unhelpful packages in place and the “throwing under a bus” dishonesty of Tier 2 restrictions.
Andy Street, the Conservative mayor for the West Midlands, reacted with fury to blanket tier 2 restrictions in his region – banning households from mixing indoors but subjecting outdoor meetings to the rule of six – and suggested he was blindsided by the decision.
“This is not something regional leaders supported, nor what I believed would be happening following extensive conversations over recent days. The region was united, cross-party, in supporting the existing restrictions,” he said. “This is something the latest local epidemiology does not support, and I am disappointed that the government is pressing ahead with this despite the united view of local leaders.”
What does he expect? A say? He needs to speak to HYUFD to be put back in his place.
It’s that Bozo simply can’t do the politics. He leaves everyone thinking that he has agreed with them, then when he acts it isn’t what anyone was expecting.
It must really hurt that someone who 'can't do politics' won the biggest majority since Blair. I'm not pretending remotely he is the ideals l
Andy Street, the Conservative mayor for the West Midlands, reacted with fury to blanket tier 2 restrictions in his region – banning households from mixing indoors but subjecting outdoor meetings to the rule of six – and suggested he was blindsided by the decision.
“This is not something regional leaders supported, nor what I believed would be happening following extensive conversations over recent days. The region was united, cross-party, in supporting the existing restrictions,” he said. “This is something the latest local epidemiology does not support, and I am disappointed that the government is pressing ahead with this despite the united view of local leaders.”
What does he expect? A say? He needs to speak to HYUFD to be put back in his place.
It’s that Bozo simply can’t do the politics. He leaves everyone thinking that he has agreed with them, then when he acts it isn’t what anyone was expecting.
It must really hurt that someone who 'can't do politics' won the biggest majority since Blair. I'm not pretending remotely he is the ideal leader for now but the level of criticism from the 'chatterers' is a contant source of amusement.
Johnson is a first class campaigner. So from that point of view he is very good at this element of politics.
Johnson is poor at making consistent political decisions, therefore he not very good at this element of politics.
I suspect therefore, it all hinges on one's definition of politics. If campaigning is one's priority you are right, Johnson is a political master.
I don't disagree with that. I do think though that judgement of Johnson is distorted by a level of sour grapes which ignores the extraordinarily difficult circumstances of this crisis. He is far from perfect but I am unconvinced that any other PM right now would be being lauded on all sides either.
I have an innate dislike of Johnson so I am not impartial. However, I am trying to be just that. There is no point me suggesting Blair would have handled othe pandemic better as I clearly have a dog in that race.
I didn't like Mrs May either, but I can't help feeling that she would have followed the science, and communicated the message better. She would have been more determined and forthright with what she believed to be right. She may well make the wrong decision but she wouldn't have been too scared to try.
Oh but that is not what I said - "I am unconvinced any other PM would be being lauded..". I made no comment about his actions - more about the response of the press and others. I can also, as it happens, recall some of the criticisms of May when she was PM.
Regarding specific actions taken he has made errors of course. However, the broad range of actions taken in the UK are remarkably similar to much of the rest of Europe and indeed the UK, with pretty much the same rates of success. Just one example is the 'rule of 6' which has appeared here in Spain a couple of weeks after the UK. There are many others. He is the leader so gets the bulk of the criticism. However, a large part of that criticism has its source in those who wish harm on the government for ideological reasons. Most of the ' he should have done this commentary' is either wrong or hindisght.
Because the virus is hitting the entire world regardless of the nature of governance within each jurisdiction.
The ability of any leader to steer beyond the storm is more limited than we would wish.
None of which changes the fact that most times our own leader touches the tiller we end up closer to the rocks. And our boat is taking on more water than almost any.
Simply not true.
I would say unarguable. Stay in to stay slim.... Go out to help out...stay at home....stay alert...go to work....
It's bewildering nonsense. I'm all for a well honed strapline but government by slogan is just cheap and when the catchiness of the line determines the message then it becomes a case for ridicule.
I hate to say it but I was absolutely right when I said the only option left is a national lockdown.
We completely squandered the time we had bought in July with Johnson messing around telling us all to get back to the pub and work.
I know the PB Tory way is to shift the blame and say it's just the same everywhere but the reality is we had this under control and we once again did nothing to keep it that way.
How about wait a couple of weeks from the latest changes to our way of life before claiming you are correct? Have you observed the situation in Spain? Second wave looks to be coming under control, without a national lockdown. We seem to be following a similar track, some weeks behind.
Once again the state has proved it doesn't have any creative thinking, just more of the same that didn't work.
Are we expecting much by way of effort to enforce, except in the most egregious breaches? It is dressed up as law but is effectively guidance.
Then why bother having it? It's like the fines for breaching quarantine, they exist only in theory so no one bothers with them. Even self isolation is in that boat.
There will be some compliance with new restrictions so potential infection will be reduced.
But the people most likely to comply with new restrictions are probably the people least likely to become infected.
I've always said that each country and each demographic has its restrictions tolerance and own cost/benefit decision.
With 90% of infected students asymptomatic there's no hope of anything but minor restrictions of the young.
Agree. Plus unemployment figures out today show that the brunt of the economic effect is being felt by young people. So their "sacrifice" is doubly difficult to enforce/comply with given their usually asymptomatic condition.
"Usually asymptomatic condition."
Really?
Hopefully not relying on the "of all people tested, 86% were not symptomatic at the moment of testing" statistic, because following up demonstrates that four in five of those went on to develop symptoms and were therefore pre-symptomatic rather than asymptomatic.
But I'm not aware of any figures, studies, or evidence that "young people" (however defined. Under 18? 18-24? 18-30?) are usually asymptomatic, although the Allison Pearsons of the world spout their opinions as facts that they are.
If you are not aware of any figures, studies, or evidence then we are both arguing without foundation.
My anecdotal evidence is that without exception everyone I know with children at university (and including my nieces and nephews) either has it or is living with someone with it. In that extremely limited data group, no one has reported anyone actually being ill. Just that they have tested positive.
We'll have to wait for those studies. Oh and there are the death rates, but I appreciate not dying from it and being asymptomatic are not the same thing.
Excellent picture from your microlight yesterday btw.
Thanks
On the asymptomatic levels - I've had a look at some of the literature (eg this one, which is a meta-analysis, so drawing upon all published research to that point). It indicates that younger people are more likely to be asymptomatic, but that still remains a minority. So I found indications against the contention rather than in favour.
About one in three under-19s remain asymptomatic, or with symptoms so mild they don't really notice them. This would compare to an average of 15-20% amongst the entire population who remain asymptomatic throughout and there's also evidence that it, like all of the effects, are worse for the elderly than the young. So if the youngest (0-18) are about 33% asymptomatic and the oldest (80+) are something like 5% asymptomatic, the line would fit a 15-20% average across all).
I know of quite a few in their early and mid-twenties who were hit by the virus and they were usually hit quite hard, but that's pure anecdote as well.
Younger people also tend to have milder symptoms and less likelihood of hospitalisation and far less likelihood of death, but with enough of them getting it, we'll see plenty of symptoms and hospitalisations at least.
Put it this way - my second child just started university this month and I'm very much against the idea of her contracting this thing. The odds may be even more in her favour than for me if she gets it, but they're even better if she doesn't (like the odds of a parachute failing are very low, but you still carry a reserve if you go skydiving)
Yes of course - and I understand that. My nieces are self-isolating in their own rooms in (different) shared houses and I can't remember if that's because they have tested positive and everyone else hasn't or everyone else has tested positive and they haven't.
Literally every other friend of mine with children at uni has a similar experience.
And none of them mention actually being ill. And hence I asked yesterday about student-level hospitalisations (we know about the deaths). Because as you say, they should be ticking up.
Someone yesterday also posted that there were 9,000 positives out of 2m students. Again anecdotally, that seems low.
What were we talking about again?
I came in following the lines that "90% of young people are asymptomatic" which was followed by "usually asymptomatic" and I wanted to dent any tendency to assume that the young are all-but-immune.
Partly because of people like Pearson actively encouraging infection amongst the young and partly because there will inevitably be a reaction if and when significant numbers of students end up suffering.
Define "immune" as "non-life threatening" and we can say pretty much that young people are immune.
Will they get a nasty cough or other nasty symptoms? Of course they might. But think about what we are putting them and the country through to avoid that.
The Tories are destroying the lives of young people once again. Rather than giving the elderly yet another guaranteed pension rise, why not spend it on the young instead.
Says the guy who wants perma uber lockdown. 🙄
Not permanent, why the need to put words in my mouth?
So how long would you want it and what threshold would you use to bring it back?
I think if we got back to where we were in July, that would be sufficient, if we then implemented proper restrictions and so on when we came out. Of course underlined with full Government support.
Government support for what? It's not just money that's they issue. Young people are being prevented from forming human relationships during a key time for them. I made loads of friends for life during the early years of my career working late together, going to the pub and then late night bar in Soho on a Tuesday evening and then straight to the office afterwards.
It's not just money, I think you need to understand that. Social bonds and mental health are just as or more important for young people and lockdown is completely destructive.
I do understand that, I am a youngish person, I know the impact of the lockdown. But there simply is no other option at this stage. If we do nothing, in the long run these issues will get worse not better. We need to hit this on the head now, IMHO.
The Government needs to extend the furlough scheme during a proper lockdown and then as we come out, provide sector by sector support where it is needed. That was actually a Labour proposal.
There are plenty of other options, lockdown is a sledgehammer which will destroy whatever is left of the economy. Government support, as you keep putting it, papers over the cracks, nothing else.
The options we've tried aren't working though. And the longer we wait, the longer the lockdown needs to be.
We need to reduce cases to the point that TTI can control the disease. What that number is I'm not sure - but it should be possible to calculate the capacity of the current TTI system.
I suspect a 2 week circuit breaker lockdown is the best option now.
If we wait a month - then we may be back where we were in March. (looking at ventilation progression - looks like 30 days or so until we reach previous peak).
Has anyone commented on Rishi’s bizarre use of the term “PM” to refer directly to Johnson last night?
“Thank-you, PM”.
Felt like some kind of cutesy affectation of Rishi’s, or even an attempt to belittle the Prime Minister.
I'm happy to comment. It was ghastly.
Formal is fine. "Thank you, Prime Minister." And so is informal. "Thanks, Boris."
But "thanks, PM." - WTF was that?
Yes it made me cringe. Rishi Sunak is clearly not as crap as his boss (not a high bar), or indeed as many of the other members of the current front bench but he is still very much a lightweight. Saj may have looked a little like Dr Evil, but at least he had some gravitas and the self respect to tell Bozo and Dom the Super-SPAD to fuck off.
I suspect the most important development yesterday was the publication of the SAGE minutes from September 20. SAGE confirms the view that test, trace and isolate is simply not working, and can only be seen as a major failure by government. It was noted by somebody on here, but I don't think enough attention has been paid to it. This is what the minutes said:
An effective test, trace and isolate (TTI) system is important to reduce the incidence of infections in the community. Estimates of the effectiveness of this system on R are difficult to ascertain. The relatively low levels of engagement with the system (comparing ONS incidence estimates with NHS Test and Trace numbers) coupled with testing delays and likely poor rates of adherence with self-isolation suggests that this system is having a marginal impact on transmission at the moment. Unless the system grows at the same rate as the epidemic, and support is given to people to enable them to adhere to self-isolation, it is likely that the impact of Test, Trace and Isolate will further decline in the future.
That is incredibly gloomy. Poor rates of adherence with self-isolation? Testing delays? Low levels of engagement? Further decline in the future?
It strikes me that this is, as some have been saying, the most significant weakness in delivery of government policy, and should be a priority immediately. And by the way, this is what boring old Starmer has been droning on about for weeks....
There is absolutely no chance of getting the virus under control unless test, trace and isolate are much more effective than currently.
Are we allowed to mention those responsible for these failures: Serco and Dido Harding?
I'm not sure you can pin the blame of low self isolation adherence to PHE or Harding, as easy as that would be. The answer lies with the poor information campaign and lack of incentive, it's also the British mentality of "I feel fine" and just keep on keeping on even after a positive test. Not sure how you can land that at the feet of Harding.
The testing and tracing system - testing delays - is absolutely the responsibility of Serco and Harding. If it is failing why shouldn’t they be held responsible?
Poor incentives to self-isolate are down to the government: again they should be held responsible.
As is the current cat’s cradle of restrictions which seem to me to be the result of not wanting to compensate fully those businesses and employees affected by necessary restrictions. Such cheese-paring will likely result in both not controlling the virus and driving many firms into bankruptcy.
Again, no doubt that the government is at fault for a lot and the measures are as you say. The tier 2 restrictions seem particularly egregious for business to operate under for hospitality.
My original point is that I'm not sure we can easily just blame Harding for all of this, some of it yes, especially the testing crunch we experienced last month and the poor contact rate for the national call centre. Poor self isolation rates are definitely a fault or national government though.
Poor wording on my part then. Some - yes: the testing and tracing. A pretty key part, especially given the sums involved.
I actually think that self isolation adherence is much more important than the track and trace part of it. Getting people who have tested positive to stay home and not spread the the virus is basically the foundation of any system and the government and the public have failed to do this.
MPs like Ferrier do not help in this regard.
Also if people stay home and lose earnings then it is easy to see how self-isolation can fail.
The Tories are destroying the lives of young people once again. Rather than giving the elderly yet another guaranteed pension rise, why not spend it on the young instead.
Says the guy who wants perma uber lockdown. 🙄
Not permanent, why the need to put words in my mouth?
So how long would you want it and what threshold would you use to bring it back?
I think if we got back to where we were in July, that would be sufficient, if we then implemented proper restrictions and so on when we came out. Of course underlined with full Government support.
Government support for what? It's not just money that's they issue. Young people are being prevented from forming human relationships during a key time for them. I made loads of friends for life during the early years of my career working late together, going to the pub and then late night bar in Soho on a Tuesday evening and then straight to the office afterwards.
It's not just money, I think you need to understand that. Social bonds and mental health are just as or more important for young people and lockdown is completely destructive.
I do understand that, I am a youngish person, I know the impact of the lockdown. But there simply is no other option at this stage. If we do nothing, in the long run these issues will get worse not better. We need to hit this on the head now, IMHO.
The Government needs to extend the furlough scheme during a proper lockdown and then as we come out, provide sector by sector support where it is needed. That was actually a Labour proposal.
There are plenty of other options, lockdown is a sledgehammer which will destroy whatever is left of the economy. Government support, as you keep putting it, papers over the cracks, nothing else.
Of course there's another option. Sweden and Japan had no assault on liberty. Everything in Tokyo it seems stayed open. It was up to you whether you went out or not. Sweden's deaths are mainly in care homes and among dark-skinned immigrants who get no vitamin D from Swedish 'sunshine' ... two disasters they probably won't repeat.
Last time I read any figure, COVID was about the 20th main source of death in the UK. Some senior doctors realise that overall we are killing people by this vast misallocation of resources. Presumably at age 70 this MD from Ireland has a secure pension and feels able to speak out
Has anyone commented on Rishi’s bizarre use of the term “PM” to refer directly to Johnson last night?
“Thank-you, PM”.
Felt like some kind of cutesy affectation of Rishi’s, or even an attempt to belittle the Prime Minister.
I'm happy to comment. It was ghastly.
Formal is fine. "Thank you, Prime Minister." And so is informal. "Thanks, Boris."
But "thanks, PM." - WTF was that?
Its thanking the PM.
What's wrong with that? That's his title.
Of all the things to marvel about, that seems up there with counting how many cracks are on a pavement.
Indeed. The very minor solecism of adapting the conventional 3rd-person reference to 'the PM' to the second person is clearly the most important news of the day...
I suspect the most important development yesterday was the publication of the SAGE minutes from September 20. SAGE confirms the view that test, trace and isolate is simply not working, and can only be seen as a major failure by government. It was noted by somebody on here, but I don't think enough attention has been paid to it. This is what the minutes said:
An effective test, trace and isolate (TTI) system is important to reduce the incidence of infections in the community. Estimates of the effectiveness of this system on R are difficult to ascertain. The relatively low levels of engagement with the system (comparing ONS incidence estimates with NHS Test and Trace numbers) coupled with testing delays and likely poor rates of adherence with self-isolation suggests that this system is having a marginal impact on transmission at the moment. Unless the system grows at the same rate as the epidemic, and support is given to people to enable them to adhere to self-isolation, it is likely that the impact of Test, Trace and Isolate will further decline in the future.
That is incredibly gloomy. Poor rates of adherence with self-isolation? Testing delays? Low levels of engagement? Further decline in the future?
It strikes me that this is, as some have been saying, the most significant weakness in delivery of government policy, and should be a priority immediately. And by the way, this is what boring old Starmer has been droning on about for weeks....
There is absolutely no chance of getting the virus under control unless test, trace and isolate are much more effective than currently.
This is the key thing and yet it feels like public consciousness has not quite registered it (yet?).
The poor rates of adherence with self-isolation thing should be fixable IMO with the right messaging and social pressure.
We need Boris to do a speech saying "the heroes of WWII took to the skies in the Battle of Britain, now fellow countrymen, you must take to your sofa in the clash of corona."
And just send those people money to stay home or (even better) put them up in a hotel away from family. Give them a medal or something. Make them feel good for isolating.
I really, really don't want to be seen as an Eeyore, but if you look at the stats for longevity in the cohort of children born in the mid 1920's the 'brightest and best' seem to have about the worst figures. Mainly because they took to the skies in WWII. Have a look at the Lothian Birth Cohort studies.
Fascinating longitudinal studies - "the only attempts to date of any country to measure the intelligence of a complete year-of-birth in its population." (Wikipedia) - and which just avoided disappearing into the dustbin of history and needed to be rediscovered enabling follow-ups. Good thing the original records weren't anonymized. No GDPR in those less enlightened times.
I suspect the most important development yesterday was the publication of the SAGE minutes from September 20. SAGE confirms the view that test, trace and isolate is simply not working, and can only be seen as a major failure by government. It was noted by somebody on here, but I don't think enough attention has been paid to it. This is what the minutes said:
An effective test, trace and isolate (TTI) system is important to reduce the incidence of infections in the community. Estimates of the effectiveness of this system on R are difficult to ascertain. The relatively low levels of engagement with the system (comparing ONS incidence estimates with NHS Test and Trace numbers) coupled with testing delays and likely poor rates of adherence with self-isolation suggests that this system is having a marginal impact on transmission at the moment. Unless the system grows at the same rate as the epidemic, and support is given to people to enable them to adhere to self-isolation, it is likely that the impact of Test, Trace and Isolate will further decline in the future.
That is incredibly gloomy. Poor rates of adherence with self-isolation? Testing delays? Low levels of engagement? Further decline in the future?
It strikes me that this is, as some have been saying, the most significant weakness in delivery of government policy, and should be a priority immediately. And by the way, this is what boring old Starmer has been droning on about for weeks....
There is absolutely no chance of getting the virus under control unless test, trace and isolate are much more effective than currently.
Are we allowed to mention those responsible for these failures: Serco and Dido Harding?
I'm not sure you can pin the blame of low self isolation adherence to PHE or Harding, as easy as that would be. The answer lies with the poor information campaign and lack of incentive, it's also the British mentality of "I feel fine" and just keep on keeping on even after a positive test. Not sure how you can land that at the feet of Harding.
The testing and tracing system - testing delays - is absolutely the responsibility of Serco and Harding. If it is failing why shouldn’t they be held responsible?
Poor incentives to self-isolate are down to the government: again they should be held responsible.
As is the current cat’s cradle of restrictions which seem to me to be the result of not wanting to compensate fully those businesses and employees affected by necessary restrictions. Such cheese-paring will likely result in both not controlling the virus and driving many firms into bankruptcy.
Again, no doubt that the government is at fault for a lot and the measures are as you say. The tier 2 restrictions seem particularly egregious for business to operate under for hospitality.
My original point is that I'm not sure we can easily just blame Harding for all of this, some of it yes, especially the testing crunch we experienced last month and the poor contact rate for the national call centre. Poor self isolation rates are definitely a fault or national government though.
Poor wording on my part then. Some - yes: the testing and tracing. A pretty key part, especially given the sums involved.
I actually think that self isolation adherence is much more important than the track and trace part of it. Getting people who have tested positive to stay home and not spread the the virus is basically the foundation of any system and the government and the public have failed to do this.
MPs like Ferrier do not help in this regard.
Also if people stay home and lose earnings then it is easy to see how self-isolation can fail.
Yes, that's why I think we need to move to a £500 per week payment for people in isolation and give them hotel accommodation to isolate in (with family rooms/facilities available for single parents or family isolation).
The other way is a £1000 per week payment for home based isolation but it comes with a non-removable wrist band for tracking purposes. People should be offered one or the other, whatever we're doing now isn't working.
Once again the state has proved it doesn't have any creative thinking, just more of the same that didn't work.
Are we expecting much by way of effort to enforce, except in the most egregious breaches? It is dressed up as law but is effectively guidance.
Then why bother having it? It's like the fines for breaching quarantine, they exist only in theory so no one bothers with them. Even self isolation is in that boat.
There will be some compliance with new restrictions so potential infection will be reduced.
But the people most likely to comply with new restrictions are probably the people least likely to become infected.
I've always said that each country and each demographic has its restrictions tolerance and own cost/benefit decision.
With 90% of infected students asymptomatic there's no hope of anything but minor restrictions of the young.
Agree. Plus unemployment figures out today show that the brunt of the economic effect is being felt by young people. So their "sacrifice" is doubly difficult to enforce/comply with given their usually asymptomatic condition.
"Usually asymptomatic condition."
Really?
Hopefully not relying on the "of all people tested, 86% were not symptomatic at the moment of testing" statistic, because following up demonstrates that four in five of those went on to develop symptoms and were therefore pre-symptomatic rather than asymptomatic.
But I'm not aware of any figures, studies, or evidence that "young people" (however defined. Under 18? 18-24? 18-30?) are usually asymptomatic, although the Allison Pearsons of the world spout their opinions as facts that they are.
If you are not aware of any figures, studies, or evidence then we are both arguing without foundation.
My anecdotal evidence is that without exception everyone I know with children at university (and including my nieces and nephews) either has it or is living with someone with it. In that extremely limited data group, no one has reported anyone actually being ill. Just that they have tested positive.
We'll have to wait for those studies. Oh and there are the death rates, but I appreciate not dying from it and being asymptomatic are not the same thing.
Excellent picture from your microlight yesterday btw.
Thanks
On the asymptomatic levels - I've had a look at some of the literature (eg this one, which is a meta-analysis, so drawing upon all published research to that point). It indicates that younger people are more likely to be asymptomatic, but that still remains a minority. So I found indications against the contention rather than in favour.
About one in three under-19s remain asymptomatic, or with symptoms so mild they don't really notice them. This would compare to an average of 15-20% amongst the entire population who remain asymptomatic throughout and there's also evidence that it, like all of the effects, are worse for the elderly than the young. So if the youngest (0-18) are about 33% asymptomatic and the oldest (80+) are something like 5% asymptomatic, the line would fit a 15-20% average across all).
I know of quite a few in their early and mid-twenties who were hit by the virus and they were usually hit quite hard, but that's pure anecdote as well.
Younger people also tend to have milder symptoms and less likelihood of hospitalisation and far less likelihood of death, but with enough of them getting it, we'll see plenty of symptoms and hospitalisations at least.
Put it this way - my second child just started university this month and I'm very much against the idea of her contracting this thing. The odds may be even more in her favour than for me if she gets it, but they're even better if she doesn't (like the odds of a parachute failing are very low, but you still carry a reserve if you go skydiving)
Yes of course - and I understand that. My nieces are self-isolating in their own rooms in (different) shared houses and I can't remember if that's because they have tested positive and everyone else hasn't or everyone else has tested positive and they haven't.
Literally every other friend of mine with children at uni has a similar experience.
And none of them mention actually being ill. And hence I asked yesterday about student-level hospitalisations (we know about the deaths). Because as you say, they should be ticking up.
Someone yesterday also posted that there were 9,000 positives out of 2m students. Again anecdotally, that seems low.
What were we talking about again?
I came in following the lines that "90% of young people are asymptomatic" which was followed by "usually asymptomatic" and I wanted to dent any tendency to assume that the young are all-but-immune.
Partly because of people like Pearson actively encouraging infection amongst the young and partly because there will inevitably be a reaction if and when significant numbers of students end up suffering.
Define "immune" as "non-life threatening" and we can say pretty much that young people are immune.
Will they get a nasty cough or other nasty symptoms? Of course they might. But think about what we are putting them and the country through to avoid that.
Under that definition, they're all "immune" to syphilis, chlamydia, gonorrhea, and herpes, as well. Especially on a 28-days-after-infection number and with treatment available.
And part of their "non-life-threatening" categorisation is that they respond best to treatment and/or ventilation if necessary. Overload the hospitals and "very low risk of death" changes noticeably for the worse.
Haha, quelle surprise Daily Express readers support Trump! So, a bunch of right wing reactionary zealots overwhelmingly support him! Maybe the only Express reader that says he doesn't is @Philip_Thompson and we don't believe him anyway 🤣 !
And of course the corollary of this is that the longer you wait to take preventative action, the longer the preventative action takes.
It is clear that the infection rate in the UK is now well beyond what can be tackled with test and trace, and so a proper lockdown is needed in order to bring it back down to manageable levels. The longer we wait to do this, the longer the lockdown will need to be. If the suggestions of those advocating against lockdown are followed then, paradoxically, we will end up needing a longer lockdown!
Back to levels last seen in 2017? And lower than any time from the 1970s to 2017?
Its likely to get much, much worse than this but if it doesn't then 4.5% is far from the end of the world. Typically 5% or below has been considered 'full employment' and until recently had not been achieved in decades.
Haha, quelle surprise Daily Express readers support Trump! So, a bunch of right wing reactionary zealots overwhelmingly support him! Maybe the only Express reader that says he doesn't is @Philip_Thompson and we don't believe him anyway 🤣 !
You are a really obsessive stalker. It is creepy.
I'm not reactionary, I'm not an Express reader and never have been and I don't support Trump. So 0/3.
Has anyone commented on Rishi’s bizarre use of the term “PM” to refer directly to Johnson last night?
“Thank-you, PM”.
Felt like some kind of cutesy affectation of Rishi’s, or even an attempt to belittle the Prime Minister.
I'm happy to comment. It was ghastly.
Formal is fine. "Thank you, Prime Minister." And so is informal. "Thanks, Boris."
But "thanks, PM." - WTF was that?
Its thanking the PM.
What's wrong with that? That's his title.
Of all the things to marvel about, that seems up there with counting how many cracks are on a pavement.
Indeed. The very minor solecism of adapting the conventional 3rd-person reference to 'the PM' to the second person is clearly the most important news of the day...
It's not conventional in that kind of setting. Have you ever heard a newsreader say 'the PM'?
And of course the corollary of this is that the longer you wait to take preventative action, the longer the preventative action takes.
It is clear that the infection rate in the UK is now well beyond what can be tackled with test and trace, and so a proper lockdown is needed in order to bring it back down to manageable levels. The longer we wait to do this, the longer the lockdown will need to be. If the suggestions of those advocating against lockdown are followed then, paradoxically, we will end up needing a longer lockdown!
Only if we were seeking zero-COVID.
All we need to do is learn to live with this with R below 1, as it was for months after lockdown was lifted.
Has anyone commented on Rishi’s bizarre use of the term “PM” to refer directly to Johnson last night?
“Thank-you, PM”.
Felt like some kind of cutesy affectation of Rishi’s, or even an attempt to belittle the Prime Minister.
I'm happy to comment. It was ghastly.
Formal is fine. "Thank you, Prime Minister." And so is informal. "Thanks, Boris."
But "thanks, PM." - WTF was that?
Its thanking the PM.
What's wrong with that? That's his title.
Of all the things to marvel about, that seems up there with counting how many cracks are on a pavement.
Well @Gardenwalker asked me to comment so I did. It's not anything to get too exercised about but it was ultra naff to anybody with a decent operational naff radar such as me.
And of course the corollary of this is that the longer you wait to take preventative action, the longer the preventative action takes.
It is clear that the infection rate in the UK is now well beyond what can be tackled with test and trace, and so a proper lockdown is needed in order to bring it back down to manageable levels. The longer we wait to do this, the longer the lockdown will need to be. If the suggestions of those advocating against lockdown are followed then, paradoxically, we will end up needing a longer lockdown!
Only if we were seeking zero-COVID.
All we need to do is learn to live with this with R below 1, as it was for months after lockdown was lifted.
No, we need to not only get R below 1 but also reduce the number of cases to a level that is manageable with test and trace. Once we have done that, then lockdown can be lifted and we can live our lives pretty much as normal. (This does, of course, presuppose the existence of a proper test and trace system!)
I haven't been a fan of the idea of Metro mayors as I am concerned about the power being concentrated in a single individual, however I have been impressed with a number of them during the Covid issues, in particular Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle. They have all come over very well in interviews. Seem to know their facts, fighting their corner and not being overtly political, but trying to make the right decisions and compromises for their areas. Quite refreshing.
Was it actually said yesterday that local leaders could add their own measures to tier 3 lockdowns? It seems like a very cack handed way of giving local control if so:
Does the base government aid package even kick in for businesses closed by locally taken measures? Or will each local leader will have to beg for more for each step taken?
Having just simplified to a 3 tier system, you immediately throw it away for a plethora of varying local measures.
Metro mayors represent a small portion of the country, indeed, only some of the metro areas. Local councils will fragment things further and will simply not be able to shout up about local concerns as metro mayors can. Through the mechanisms they do have, I think they are going to have to try and act as consortia and put forward strong spokespeople - if escalation comes to West Yorkshire, I simply do not know who will be shouting for us.
...and subsequent polls suggest they would change their mind if offered to do so. Herein lies the intellectual absurdity of using referenda in countries (such as the UK) that don't routinely use them. It is like having a GE and then saying you then have to live with the consequence of that choice for life. A few percent majority is imposed on the very large section of the population who said no, or perhaps weren't informed enough to use their vote, with no opportunity to roadtest the outcome. Personally I am happy to "respect" said outcome (perhaps live with would be more accurate). It will not stop me ridiculing those who believed the lies they were told, or wanting to hold to account those, such as Johnson, who used those lies to advance their station at the expense of others.
Haha, quelle surprise Daily Express readers support Trump! So, a bunch of right wing reactionary zealots overwhelmingly support him! Maybe the only Express reader that says he doesn't is @Philip_Thompson and we don't believe him anyway 🤣 !
To be fair it's a voodoo poll so may not even reflect Express readers. It was an Express voodoo poll on "Should gypsies be given priority over local residents for healthcare?" which prompted PBers to organise a hilarious automated response which produced a 96% "Yes" result. I suspect there may be the odd Trump fan who noticed the survey and decided to do something similar.
Has anyone commented on Rishi’s bizarre use of the term “PM” to refer directly to Johnson last night?
“Thank-you, PM”.
Felt like some kind of cutesy affectation of Rishi’s, or even an attempt to belittle the Prime Minister.
I'm happy to comment. It was ghastly.
Formal is fine. "Thank you, Prime Minister." And so is informal. "Thanks, Boris."
But "thanks, PM." - WTF was that?
Its thanking the PM.
What's wrong with that? That's his title.
Of all the things to marvel about, that seems up there with counting how many cracks are on a pavement.
Indeed. The very minor solecism of adapting the conventional 3rd-person reference to 'the PM' to the second person is clearly the most important news of the day...
It's not conventional in that kind of setting. Have you ever heard a newsreader say 'the PM'?
Hence the 'minor solecism' bit of my post. 'The PM' is how the Prime Minister is typically referred to in Whitehall in his absence, and Rishi just (unconventionally) happened to use the same abbreviation in the vocative to address him while present. It's not ideal, but nor is it any more than a lapsus linguae.
Haha, quelle surprise Daily Express readers support Trump! So, a bunch of right wing reactionary zealots overwhelmingly support him! Maybe the only Express reader that says he doesn't is @Philip_Thompson and we don't believe him anyway 🤣 !
To be fair it's a voodoo poll so may not even reflect Express readers. It was an Express voodoo poll on "Should gypsies be given priority over local residents for healthcare?" which prompted PBers to organise a hilarious automated response which produced a 96% "Yes" result. I suspect there may be the odd Trump fan who noticed the survey and decided to do something similar.
Haha, I was obviously having some time away when that happened!
I hate to say it but I was absolutely right when I said the only option left is a national lockdown.
We completely squandered the time we had bought in July with Johnson messing around telling us all to get back to the pub and work.
I know the PB Tory way is to shift the blame and say it's just the same everywhere but the reality is we had this under control and we once again did nothing to keep it that way.
How about wait a couple of weeks from the latest changes to our way of life before claiming you are correct? Have you observed the situation in Spain? Second wave looks to be coming under control, without a national lockdown. We seem to be following a similar track, some weeks behind.
It's as if saying you are absolutely right makes you absolutely right.
And of course the corollary of this is that the longer you wait to take preventative action, the longer the preventative action takes.
It is clear that the infection rate in the UK is now well beyond what can be tackled with test and trace, and so a proper lockdown is needed in order to bring it back down to manageable levels. The longer we wait to do this, the longer the lockdown will need to be. If the suggestions of those advocating against lockdown are followed then, paradoxically, we will end up needing a longer lockdown!
Only if we were seeking zero-COVID.
All we need to do is learn to live with this with R below 1, as it was for months after lockdown was lifted.
I seem to remember several people on here insisting a few months ago that we did have a zero-COVID policy.
And of course the corollary of this is that the longer you wait to take preventative action, the longer the preventative action takes.
It is clear that the infection rate in the UK is now well beyond what can be tackled with test and trace, and so a proper lockdown is needed in order to bring it back down to manageable levels. The longer we wait to do this, the longer the lockdown will need to be. If the suggestions of those advocating against lockdown are followed then, paradoxically, we will end up needing a longer lockdown!
Only if we were seeking zero-COVID.
All we need to do is learn to live with this with R below 1, as it was for months after lockdown was lifted.
No, we need to not only get R below 1 but also reduce the number of cases to a level that is manageable with test and trace. Once we have done that, then lockdown can be lifted and we can live our lives pretty much as normal. (This does, of course, presuppose the existence of a proper test and trace system!)
We only need to do that if we are seeking to eliminate the virus with zero covid.
If R goes below 1 then exponential growth stops and reverses and we go back into declining number of cases. Hospitals don't get overwhelmed and we can move on.
Has anyone commented on Rishi’s bizarre use of the term “PM” to refer directly to Johnson last night?
“Thank-you, PM”.
Felt like some kind of cutesy affectation of Rishi’s, or even an attempt to belittle the Prime Minister.
I'm happy to comment. It was ghastly.
Formal is fine. "Thank you, Prime Minister." And so is informal. "Thanks, Boris."
But "thanks, PM." - WTF was that?
Superficial public loyalty and privately thinking how the f*** did this numpty get ahead of me?
Yes, it rather skillfully made that impression. He was taking the piss. It was also clear to me that Whitty and Sunak had been sniggering together behind Johnson's back in the minutes leading up to the presser. The PM is fast losing respect and authority.
And of course the corollary of this is that the longer you wait to take preventative action, the longer the preventative action takes.
It is clear that the infection rate in the UK is now well beyond what can be tackled with test and trace, and so a proper lockdown is needed in order to bring it back down to manageable levels. The longer we wait to do this, the longer the lockdown will need to be. If the suggestions of those advocating against lockdown are followed then, paradoxically, we will end up needing a longer lockdown!
Only if we were seeking zero-COVID.
All we need to do is learn to live with this with R below 1, as it was for months after lockdown was lifted.
I seem to remember several people on here insisting a few months ago that we did have a zero-COVID policy.
Haha, quelle surprise Daily Express readers support Trump! So, a bunch of right wing reactionary zealots overwhelmingly support him! Maybe the only Express reader that says he doesn't is @Philip_Thompson and we don't believe him anyway 🤣 !
You are a really obsessive stalker. It is creepy.
I'm not reactionary, I'm not an Express reader and never have been and I don't support Trump. So 0/3.
I find do you curiously hilarious, and I don't need to stalk you (what a horrible thought) because you are on here all the time in all your Trumpian absurdity, so when I occasionally log on you are here - which really is creepy. Do you seriously not have anything else to do man? Besides, your ill informed far right wing comments could be taken straight off the pages of the Daily Express. I don't believe you don't support Trump because your stated beliefs all pretty much perfectly align with his type of supporter. In fact, I think you are not Boris Johnson, or even one of his acolytes; you are Donald Trump and I claim my £5 !
The Tories are destroying the lives of young people once again. Rather than giving the elderly yet another guaranteed pension rise, why not spend it on the young instead.
Says the guy who wants perma uber lockdown. 🙄
Not permanent, why the need to put words in my mouth?
How would you feel if someone, for whatever reason, suggested stopping your heartbeat, at the same time guaranteeing they would start it again very shortly afterwards...??
I'd ask for full details - the reasons, the risks, etc. Possibly I'd agree, if treated as an intelligent adult and it would genuinely benefit society with very low risk for me - the same sort of calculation that people make when they join the Fire Service or other risky occupations.
And of course the corollary of this is that the longer you wait to take preventative action, the longer the preventative action takes.
It is clear that the infection rate in the UK is now well beyond what can be tackled with test and trace, and so a proper lockdown is needed in order to bring it back down to manageable levels. The longer we wait to do this, the longer the lockdown will need to be. If the suggestions of those advocating against lockdown are followed then, paradoxically, we will end up needing a longer lockdown!
Only if we were seeking zero-COVID.
All we need to do is learn to live with this with R below 1, as it was for months after lockdown was lifted.
I seem to remember several people on here insisting a few months ago that we did have a zero-COVID policy.
And of course the corollary of this is that the longer you wait to take preventative action, the longer the preventative action takes.
It is clear that the infection rate in the UK is now well beyond what can be tackled with test and trace, and so a proper lockdown is needed in order to bring it back down to manageable levels. The longer we wait to do this, the longer the lockdown will need to be. If the suggestions of those advocating against lockdown are followed then, paradoxically, we will end up needing a longer lockdown!
Only if we were seeking zero-COVID.
All we need to do is learn to live with this with R below 1, as it was for months after lockdown was lifted.
I seem to remember several people on here insisting a few months ago that we did have a zero-COVID policy.
The policy, as stated in the government plan for after lockdown, was to ease restrictions only so much that R remained below 1. If R had been held under 1, then the number of cases would have continued to decline until the incidence of the virus reached zero.
Obviously, the government failed in its stated intention to keep R below 1. For much of the summer R was close to 1 and the incidence of the virus was relatively stable, or it had gone above 1, but the incidence was low enough that the growth from a low base was not obvious.
The government has since decided that the policy is to die from Covid sufficiently slowly that most of us will be saved by a vaccine, though we might not want to be saved by that point, so discouraged by an endless dance through various shades of purgatory will we have become.
Nationalism is a nasty creed that always ends badly. Just give it time and it will happen. Sturgeon is without doubt a better leader than Johnson. Oh, hang on....not a high bar!
I don't see the unemployment stats as a complete disaster, however we need to see how it develops under the new tiered lockdown system.
They are not statistics @MaxPB. They are people without jobs wondering how to pay bills and how to find another job at a time of great uncertainty. Many of them will not have much by way of savings and will be worried.
Ministers and others talking about unviable jobs and unemployment rates would do well to remember what all these statistics actually mean. One of those unemployed is my son, currently applying for jobs left right and centre since his previous one finished last month. Another is my brother, also doing the same, since he lost his. And on top of those are the disguised unemployed - people like me and other freelancers whose work has dried up.
Has anyone commented on Rishi’s bizarre use of the term “PM” to refer directly to Johnson last night?
“Thank-you, PM”.
Felt like some kind of cutesy affectation of Rishi’s, or even an attempt to belittle the Prime Minister.
I'm happy to comment. It was ghastly.
Formal is fine. "Thank you, Prime Minister." And so is informal. "Thanks, Boris."
But "thanks, PM." - WTF was that?
Yes it made me cringe. Rishi Sunak is clearly not as crap as his boss (not a high bar), or indeed as many of the other members of the current front bench but he is still very much a lightweight. Saj may have looked a little like Dr Evil, but at least he had some gravitas and the self respect to tell Bozo and Dom the Super-SPAD to fuck off.
I had for a long time considered Javid a lightweight but he rose in my estimation when he did that. And he's stayed there too. I happen to think we're stuck with Johnson for years but if I'm wrong and he does go early for some reason I would consider supporting Javid for replacement Con leader and PM. "Support" as in write posts on here opining him to be the best of a mediocre bunch.
And of course the corollary of this is that the longer you wait to take preventative action, the longer the preventative action takes.
It is clear that the infection rate in the UK is now well beyond what can be tackled with test and trace, and so a proper lockdown is needed in order to bring it back down to manageable levels. The longer we wait to do this, the longer the lockdown will need to be. If the suggestions of those advocating against lockdown are followed then, paradoxically, we will end up needing a longer lockdown!
Only if we were seeking zero-COVID.
All we need to do is learn to live with this with R below 1, as it was for months after lockdown was lifted.
No, we need to not only get R below 1 but also reduce the number of cases to a level that is manageable with test and trace. Once we have done that, then lockdown can be lifted and we can live our lives pretty much as normal. (This does, of course, presuppose the existence of a proper test and trace system!)
We only need to do that if we are seeking to eliminate the virus with zero covid.
If R goes below 1 then exponential growth stops and reverses and we go back into declining number of cases. Hospitals don't get overwhelmed and we can move on.
No, you don't seem to be getting my point.
If we follow a semi-lockdown strategy of maintaining R at around 1, then the number of cases will remain constant and the measures will have to be maintained indefinitely, with all the economic and health costs that that implies.
If, on the other hand, we lockdown hard enough to bring R well below 1 (as in March), then the number of cases should fall fairly rapidly until we reach a level at which further cases can be managed with test and trace and lockdown can be lifted completely. This is not a zero-covid strategy; it is a manageable-covid strategy. It means greater pain for the economy for a few weeks, but with the prospect of normalisation afterwards.
It's basically a choice between prolonged economic pain and a short shock followed by normalisation.
Comments
Which democracy, outside a dystopian novel, is going to dispassionately sit back, whilst about 1 % of its population dies and their hospital system collapses?
(Don't worry, I'm resisting the urge for now)
On the asymptomatic levels - I've had a look at some of the literature (eg this one, which is a meta-analysis, so drawing upon all published research to that point). It indicates that younger people are more likely to be asymptomatic, but that still remains a minority. So I found indications against the contention rather than in favour.
About one in three under-19s remain asymptomatic, or with symptoms so mild they don't really notice them. This would compare to an average of 15-20% amongst the entire population who remain asymptomatic throughout and there's also evidence that it, like all of the effects, are worse for the elderly than the young. So if the youngest (0-18) are about 33% asymptomatic and the oldest (80+) are something like 5% asymptomatic, the line would fit a 15-20% average across all).
I know of quite a few in their early and mid-twenties who were hit by the virus and they were usually hit quite hard, but that's pure anecdote as well.
Younger people also tend to have milder symptoms and less likelihood of hospitalisation and far less likelihood of death, but with enough of them getting it, we'll see plenty of symptoms and hospitalisations at least.
Put it this way - my second child just started university this month and I'm very much against the idea of her contracting this thing. The odds may be even more in her favour than for me if she gets it, but they're even better if she doesn't (like the odds of a parachute failing are very low, but you still carry a reserve if you go skydiving)
The poor rates of adherence with self-isolation thing should be fixable IMO with the right messaging and social pressure.
We need Boris to do a speech saying "the heroes of WWII took to the skies in the Battle of Britain, now fellow countrymen, you must take to your sofa in the clash of corona."
And just send those people money to stay home or (even better) put them up in a hotel away from family. Give them a medal or something. Make them feel good for isolating.
What does "just get on with it" look like?
There are two key questions to answer:
- How long? (do you have to put up with it until herd immunity comes - if it ever comes and stays)
- How many? (hospitalisations and deaths are acceptable)
Literally every other friend of mine with children at uni has a similar experience.
And none of them mention actually being ill. And hence I asked yesterday about student-level hospitalisations (we know about the deaths). Because as you say, they should be ticking up.
Someone yesterday also posted that there were 9,000 positives out of 2m students. Again anecdotally, that seems low.
What were we talking about again?
What about the GOP in the US? They may care about the hospital system, but they do not seem to give a toss about the 30% of Americans who, prior to ObamaCare, had no health insurance.
No, I didn't sign up despite my poverty, and no friends did either. They always got a couple of volunteers though.
Poor incentives to self-isolate are down to the government: again they should be held responsible.
As is the current cat’s cradle of restrictions which seem to me to be the result of not wanting to compensate fully those businesses and employees affected by necessary restrictions. Such cheese-paring will likely result in both not controlling the virus and driving many firms into bankruptcy.
The evidence is it stopped a lot of young people, especially in the North, who were never in danger anyway from getting a disease that, in the vast majority of cases, never even gave them any symptoms.
The collateral damage? Millions of missed cancer screenings for a start.
Preventing the overwhelming the NHS? in some respects the NHS already acts as if it were overwhelmed. People can;t see GPs or get routine operations no matter how full or empty the hospitals are. What's the difference?
It's not just money, I think you need to understand that. Social bonds and mental health are just as or more important for young people and lockdown is completely destructive.
Anyway, that's secondary. Which clever country do you foresee going down the path of "just getting on with it"? Because I can't think of any- certainly no democracies.
Mainly because they took to the skies in WWII.
Have a look at the Lothian Birth Cohort studies.
The Government needs to extend the furlough scheme during a proper lockdown and then as we come out, provide sector by sector support where it is needed. That was actually a Labour proposal.
https://twitter.com/seanjonesqc/status/1315945239601983488
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/12/health/johnson-coronavirus-vaccine-pause-bn/index.html
No, it's Swanley, not Swan Lake!
My original point is that I'm not sure we can easily just blame Harding for all of this, some of it yes, especially the testing crunch we experienced last month and the poor contact rate for the national call centre. Poor self isolation rates are definitely a fault or national government though.
The majority isn't fictional, it was indicated by the vote.
https://twitter.com/angie_rasmussen/status/1315810234703646720
How stupid do people making that argument think we are?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54520521
Partly because of people like Pearson actively encouraging infection amongst the young and partly because there will inevitably be a reaction if and when significant numbers of students end up suffering.
There are only 3 options in terms of support:-
1. Let businesses operate normally - with sensible hygiene measures.
2. Impose more serious restrictions and provide partial support.
3. Close businesses and provide full support.
The government does not want to do this hence the complicated and unviable and unhelpful packages in place and the “throwing under a bus” dishonesty of Tier 2 restrictions.
It's bewildering nonsense. I'm all for a well honed strapline but government by slogan is just cheap and when the catchiness of the line determines the message then it becomes a case for ridicule.
What's wrong with that? That's his title.
Of all the things to marvel about, that seems up there with counting how many cracks are on a pavement.
It's hardly the Great Depression. Not even close to the early 80s even.
Will they get a nasty cough or other nasty symptoms? Of course they might. But think about what we are putting them and the country through to avoid that.
And the longer we wait, the longer the lockdown needs to be.
We need to reduce cases to the point that TTI can control the disease.
What that number is I'm not sure - but it should be possible to calculate the capacity of the current TTI system.
I suspect a 2 week circuit breaker lockdown is the best option now.
If we wait a month - then we may be back where we were in March.
(looking at ventilation progression - looks like 30 days or so until we reach previous peak).
Also if people stay home and lose earnings then it is easy to see how self-isolation can fail.
Last time I read any figure, COVID was about the 20th main source of death in the UK. Some senior doctors realise that overall we are killing people by this vast misallocation of resources. Presumably at age 70 this MD from Ireland has a secure pension and feels able to speak out
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/draconian-restrictions-around-covid-19-condemned-by-hse-doctor-1.4352701
Good thing the original records weren't anonymized. No GDPR in those less enlightened times.
The other way is a £1000 per week payment for home based isolation but it comes with a non-removable wrist band for tracking purposes. People should be offered one or the other, whatever we're doing now isn't working.
And part of their "non-life-threatening" categorisation is that they respond best to treatment and/or ventilation if necessary. Overload the hospitals and "very low risk of death" changes noticeably for the worse.
A majority of those who voted did so for Leave.
It is clear that the infection rate in the UK is now well beyond what can be tackled with test and trace, and so a proper lockdown is needed in order to bring it back down to manageable levels. The longer we wait to do this, the longer the lockdown will need to be. If the suggestions of those advocating against lockdown are followed then, paradoxically, we will end up needing a longer lockdown!
Its likely to get much, much worse than this but if it doesn't then 4.5% is far from the end of the world. Typically 5% or below has been considered 'full employment' and until recently had not been achieved in decades.
I'm not reactionary, I'm not an Express reader and never have been and I don't support Trump. So 0/3.
All we need to do is learn to live with this with R below 1, as it was for months after lockdown was lifted.
Does the base government aid package even kick in for businesses closed by locally taken measures? Or will each local leader will have to beg for more for each step taken?
Having just simplified to a 3 tier system, you immediately throw it away for a plethora of varying local measures.
Metro mayors represent a small portion of the country, indeed, only some of the metro areas. Local councils will fragment things further and will simply not be able to shout up about local concerns as metro mayors can. Through the mechanisms they do have, I think they are going to have to try and act as consortia and put forward strong spokespeople - if escalation comes to West Yorkshire, I simply do not know who will be shouting for us.
If R goes below 1 then exponential growth stops and reverses and we go back into declining number of cases. Hospitals don't get overwhelmed and we can move on.
We never did.
https://twitter.com/jillongovt/status/1315954307448156160?s=20
https://twitter.com/TheScotsman/status/1315952948342599680?s=20
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/2856578/#Comment_2856578
Obviously, the government failed in its stated intention to keep R below 1. For much of the summer R was close to 1 and the incidence of the virus was relatively stable, or it had gone above 1, but the incidence was low enough that the growth from a low base was not obvious.
The government has since decided that the policy is to die from Covid sufficiently slowly that most of us will be saved by a vaccine, though we might not want to be saved by that point, so discouraged by an endless dance through various shades of purgatory will we have become.
Ministers and others talking about unviable jobs and unemployment rates would do well to remember what all these statistics actually mean. One of those unemployed is my son, currently applying for jobs left right and centre since his previous one finished last month. Another is my brother, also doing the same, since he lost his. And on top of those are the disguised unemployed - people like me and other freelancers whose work has dried up.
If we follow a semi-lockdown strategy of maintaining R at around 1, then the number of cases will remain constant and the measures will have to be maintained indefinitely, with all the economic and health costs that that implies.
If, on the other hand, we lockdown hard enough to bring R well below 1 (as in March), then the number of cases should fall fairly rapidly until we reach a level at which further cases can be managed with test and trace and lockdown can be lifted completely. This is not a zero-covid strategy; it is a manageable-covid strategy. It means greater pain for the economy for a few weeks, but with the prospect of normalisation afterwards.
It's basically a choice between prolonged economic pain and a short shock followed by normalisation.
Thousands upon thousands