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.
No. Re-read what I said. I said we were trying to keep R below 1 which meant that the rates would logarithmically fall towards zero, not that they would be zero or we were trying to get them to zero.
That remained true until R went above 1 - and now we're trying to get it back down again. If we get it back down to below 1 then numbers will start logarithmically falling towards zero again.
There is a major difference between a zero-covid strategy which tries to stomp out all transmission and have zero (which is NZ's strategy) and an R below 1 strategy that ensures numbers remain within control reducing to zero.
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.
Presumably the local variation is to allow authorities to target specific areas of interest within their area.
Liverpool, for example have decided locally to close bookmakers' shops. It may be in other areas there is more of an issue with gyms, or indoor shopping centres. Businesses ordered closed will apply to the Treasury, who will re-activate the previous schemes for businesses ordered closed earlier in the year.
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 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.
Presumably the local variation is to allow authorities to target specific areas of interest within their area.
Liverpool, for example have decided locally to close bookmakers' shops. It may be in other areas there is more of an issue with gyms, or indoor shopping centres. Businesses ordered closed will apply to the Treasury, who will re-activate the previous schemes for businesses ordered closed earlier in the year.
Tier 1 and Tier 2 seem to be fixed - Tier 3 has the potential to have further restrictions if needed. I am happier with this system, as things had become very complex over the previous months.
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.
Agreed. Without isolation, the rest is pointless. And if track & trace takes too long, it's also pointless.
Exactly. Lockdown is (or should be) a temporary measure to quickly bring the rate of infection down to a level at which it can be managed by a proper test and trace system. Instead, we seem to be going for a permanent state of economy and health destroying semi-lockdown!
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.
Presumably the local variation is to allow authorities to target specific areas of interest within their area.
Liverpool, for example have decided locally to close bookmakers' shops. It may be in other areas there is more of an issue with gyms, or indoor shopping centres. Businesses ordered closed will apply to the Treasury, who will re-activate the previous schemes for businesses ordered closed earlier in the year.
Tier 1 and Tier 2 seem to be fixed - Tier 3 has the potential to have further restrictions if needed. I am happier with this system, as things had become very complex over the previous months.
Yes, there was probably a need for simplification and this looks like a good compromise. Especially so, given the media proclivity to criticise rather than explain these things.
I would have gone with red, amber and green lights, but I can understand why they didn't want to use green.
What always strikes me is the contempt Trump has for his "base". He's dripping with it. He knows they're dumb, he knows he can con them, it's become effortless, and he revels in this. He's laughing at these folk. He's laughing at them whilst at the same time pissing all over them from a great height. I think this is a common trait in populist leaders. They hold their simple-minded followers - the "exploitables" - in utter contempt. Like cult leaders view the believers. Like big time drug dealers view the addicts.
I think you'll find that good polls, or even election wins, are easily dismissed by downplaying the the relative opposition - Boris only became Mayor of London and PM because he was up against the previous Mayor/Red Ken and Labour's most successful vote getter since Blair/Toxic Jezza, for instance.
So any SNP success has to be weighed up alongside the fact they only look good against the most successful Tory PM since Thatcher/Crappy old Boris
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.
Let's be honest, the "Newcastle" metro mayor is a waste of space. He's done the square root of nothing since being elected.
The leader of Newcastle City Council, Nick Forbes, is much more visible and outspoken.
Fun fact, he was originally the presumptive Labour nominee for the North of Tyne mayor job, but got pipped by a bunch of Corbynistas.
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.
There's two separate things here- what the infection rate currently is, and how fast it's going up or down.
As long as the controls are such that R is less than 1, the infection rate will keep falling until it hits negligible. That was the Swedish idea in the Spring; it's better to have softer controls that can carry on for years, even if the initial decline means more people die in the first wave. It's a view.
Given that in mid March, the UK was running at somewhere north of 100k infections a day feeding into about 1000 deaths a day, we probably needed the hammer of an initial lockdown to get the numbers down to something less unmanageable.
So by mid July, the daily case count was about 500-600. That's when it bottomed out, implying that pubs open / schools mostly closed was roughly the tipping point from R just below 1 to R just over 1. And since then, we've added some other elements of social mixing, with full reopening of schools, universities and the grotty autumnal weather.
The measures taken in late September don't seem to be enough to drag R back down below 1, and looking at the SAGE minutes released last night, I don't think the boffins are surprised. Furthermore, having a permanently high plateau of 20k infections a day probably isn't optimal- it's only 3 doublings from where we were in March. R = 0.99 when you start with say 5k infections a day is one thing, starting from 20k infections a day, you probably need a more drastic initial jolt. If nothing else, the fewer cases, the easier it is to contact-trace.
Conclusion- at some point in July/August/September, the UK dropped the ball. Whatever harmful things happen next are the price the UK has to pay for that ball-dropping.
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.
Presumably the local variation is to allow authorities to target specific areas of interest within their area.
Liverpool, for example have decided locally to close bookmakers' shops. It may be in other areas there is more of an issue with gyms, or indoor shopping centres. Businesses ordered closed will apply to the Treasury, who will re-activate the previous schemes for businesses ordered closed earlier in the year.
Thanks. Closures of businesses that then qualify for support and presumably associated furlough for people sounds OK, since it's not something the public will have to remember, they'll just find the relevant doors shut. The levels of support will remain a bone of contention, but it sounds like this won't fundamentally change that argument.
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!
What is the philosophical difference between your nationalism and Nicola Sturgeon's?
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.
There's two separate things here- what the infection rate currently is, and how fast it's going up or down.
As long as the controls are such that R is less than 1, the infection rate will keep falling until it hits negligible. That was the Swedish idea in the Spring; it's better to have softer controls that can carry on for years, even if the initial decline means more people die in the first wave. It's a view.
Given that in mid March, the UK was running at somewhere north of 100k infections a day feeding into about 1000 deaths a day, we probably needed the hammer of an initial lockdown to get the numbers down to something less unmanageable.
So by mid July, the daily case count was about 500-600. That's when it bottomed out, implying that pubs open / schools mostly closed was roughly the tipping point from R just below 1 to R just over 1. And since then, we've added some other elements of social mixing, with full reopening of schools, universities and the grotty autumnal weather.
The measures taken in late September don't seem to be enough to drag R back down below 1, and looking at the SAGE minutes released last night, I don't think the boffins are surprised. Furthermore, having a permanently high plateau of 20k infections a day probably isn't optimal- it's only 3 doublings from where we were in March. R = 0.99 when you start with say 5k infections a day is one thing, starting from 20k infections a day, you probably need a more drastic initial jolt. If nothing else, the fewer cases, the easier it is to contact-trace.
Conclusion- at some point in July/August/September, the UK dropped the ball. Whatever harmful things happen next are the price the UK has to pay for that ball-dropping.
What`s changed from the initial lockdown is the recognition that it is a categorical imperative that schools and universities remain open. I agree with this. The number of infections was bound to rise as a result.
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!
What is the philosophical difference between your nationalism and Nicola Sturgeon's?
He doesn't recognise his Euronationalism as nationalism.
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 !
Abstention is fine and appropriate here. There is no opportunity to bring amendments. The message is that the measures are utterly inadequate while being still being financially unfair to businesses and their staff which are left unable to trade viably but not forced to close. A vote against would though signal that the measures are worse than useless, which I think very few would be prepared to accept.
And whatever Starmer does represents only a token signal when the government has a majority of 80.
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.
There's two separate things here- what the infection rate currently is, and how fast it's going up or down.
As long as the controls are such that R is less than 1, the infection rate will keep falling until it hits negligible. That was the Swedish idea in the Spring; it's better to have softer controls that can carry on for years, even if the initial decline means more people die in the first wave. It's a view.
Given that in mid March, the UK was running at somewhere north of 100k infections a day feeding into about 1000 deaths a day, we probably needed the hammer of an initial lockdown to get the numbers down to something less unmanageable.
So by mid July, the daily case count was about 500-600. That's when it bottomed out, implying that pubs open / schools mostly closed was roughly the tipping point from R just below 1 to R just over 1. And since then, we've added some other elements of social mixing, with full reopening of schools, universities and the grotty autumnal weather.
The measures taken in late September don't seem to be enough to drag R back down below 1, and looking at the SAGE minutes released last night, I don't think the boffins are surprised. Furthermore, having a permanently high plateau of 20k infections a day probably isn't optimal- it's only 3 doublings from where we were in March. R = 0.99 when you start with say 5k infections a day is one thing, starting from 20k infections a day, you probably need a more drastic initial jolt. If nothing else, the fewer cases, the easier it is to contact-trace.
Conclusion- at some point in July/August/September, the UK dropped the ball. Whatever harmful things happen next are the price the UK has to pay for that ball-dropping.
What`s changed from the initial lockdown is the recognition that it is a categorical imperative that schools and universities remain open. I agree with this. The number of infections was bound to rise as a result.
Schools, yes. Universities less so. If the summer had been used to set up a proper testing and tracing system, and we'd waited until we were sure that it was working effectively before reopening the universities, then we'd probably be in a much better position today.
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 !
If you's actually read any of Philip's posts, you'd realise he's been strongly and consistently against Trump. The absurdity is every bit as much yours.
Businesses in the North are expendible. But will Sunak still be able to hold the line against financial support for businesses unable to trade in "High Risk" areas if their scope is extended to London?
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.
There's two separate things here- what the infection rate currently is, and how fast it's going up or down.
As long as the controls are such that R is less than 1, the infection rate will keep falling until it hits negligible. That was the Swedish idea in the Spring; it's better to have softer controls that can carry on for years, even if the initial decline means more people die in the first wave. It's a view.
Given that in mid March, the UK was running at somewhere north of 100k infections a day feeding into about 1000 deaths a day, we probably needed the hammer of an initial lockdown to get the numbers down to something less unmanageable.
So by mid July, the daily case count was about 500-600. That's when it bottomed out, implying that pubs open / schools mostly closed was roughly the tipping point from R just below 1 to R just over 1. And since then, we've added some other elements of social mixing, with full reopening of schools, universities and the grotty autumnal weather.
The measures taken in late September don't seem to be enough to drag R back down below 1, and looking at the SAGE minutes released last night, I don't think the boffins are surprised. Furthermore, having a permanently high plateau of 20k infections a day probably isn't optimal- it's only 3 doublings from where we were in March. R = 0.99 when you start with say 5k infections a day is one thing, starting from 20k infections a day, you probably need a more drastic initial jolt. If nothing else, the fewer cases, the easier it is to contact-trace.
Conclusion- at some point in July/August/September, the UK dropped the ball. Whatever harmful things happen next are the price the UK has to pay for that ball-dropping.
What`s changed from the initial lockdown is the recognition that it is a categorical imperative that schools and universities remain open. I agree with this. The number of infections was bound to rise as a result.
Putting schools at the back of the queue for closing is one thing. But if you're going to do that, it looks like something else has to close instead (the pubs or schools debate that was happening in August). Because opening up bits of society doesn't increase the rate of infection, it increases the rate of growth- which can become a disaster no matter how low the starting point. And it looks like the UK was right on the tipping point with pubs open / schools closed / nice Summer weather.
What you can't do is have your cake (open schools) and eat it (open pubs). No matter how dearly the Prime Minister cherishes that maxim.
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 !
If you's actually read any of Philip's posts, you'd realise he's been strongly and consistently against Trump. The absurdity is every bit as much yours.
Agreed except that it's all his, not just as much his.
Businesses in the North are expendible. But will Sunak still be able to hold the line against financial support for businesses unable to trade in "High Risk" areas if their scope is extended to London?
It's interesting how the conversation has turned to "how can businesses survive in Tier 2, nevermind Tier 3", despite the fact the North East has been in Tier 2 for almost a month.
What always strikes me is the contempt Trump has for his "base". He's dripping with it. He knows they're dumb, he knows he can con them, it's become effortless, and he revels in this. He's laughing at these folk. He's laughing at them whilst at the same time pissing all over them from a great height. I think this is a common trait in populist leaders. They hold their simple-minded followers - the "exploitables" - in utter contempt. Like cult leaders view the believers. Like big time drug dealers view the addicts.
and he also said that voters do not deserve to know whether the Supreme Court will be packed on his watch
Sounds like VAT fraud and tax avoidance via fraud rather than money laundering per se ?
Leicester textile firms 'involved in money laundering' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54509461 ...When Mr Nagra received an order from Select Fashion he would, unknown to them, arrange for the garments to be made cheaply by a so-called "cut, make and trim" (CMT) supplier. He would pay in cash, and the transaction was hidden from his company's official accounts and records. Recent news investigations have revealed how CMT workers in some factories are paid below the minimum wage for this type of work. In the meantime, Mr Nagra would pretend the garments were being made by another company. He would place a fake order for the same goods with that company, which appeared to be a garment factory, but in reality was usually just a shell company. The company would then provide an invoice at an inflated price, far higher than that really paid to the genuine CMT supplier who was making the clothes. Crucially, the fake invoice included a 20% VAT charge on top. Mr Nagra would pay the inflated amount into the shell company's bank account. Almost immediately, the money would then be withdrawn from the bank account in cash and returned to Mr Nagra, apart from - typically - half the VAT, which would go to pay off accomplices. What happens to the cash after that is untraceable. Mr Nagra would be left with a VAT receipt that looked above board for the tax authorities. The shell supplier company would often fold after a short time with its VAT liabilities unpaid. The judge in the civil case concluded Mr Nagra had operated a "fraudulent scheme to launder cash for his own benefit" over a "prolonged period" and "very substantial amounts" of money were involved. When confronted by the BBC, Mr Nagra denied involvement in fraud. Select Fashion did not respond to the BBC's requests for comment, although there is no suggestion they were aware of the fraud within their supply chain....
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.
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.
Let's be honest, the "Newcastle" metro mayor is a waste of space. He's done the square root of nothing since being elected.
The leader of Newcastle City Council, Nick Forbes, is much more visible and outspoken.
Fun fact, he was originally the presumptive Labour nominee for the North of Tyne mayor job, but got pipped by a bunch of Corbynistas.
You have the advantage over me Gallowgate as I have no local knowledge of Newcastle whatsoever and to be honest I don't know who was being interviewed other than a reference to Newcastle (I thought) as I wouldn't recognize the mayor by name or face. What I do know is whoever it was came over as very knowledgeable, with good ideas and analysis of what was going on locally and responded well to questions.
I thought the person was identified as being 'Independent' and on looking up both the people you name neither ring a bell and are both Labour. The guy had a close cropped white beard ( a goaty) I think. Hopeless on observation as well - sorry.
What's the betting that the utterly loony idea of a UK-only chemicals registration scheme never actually happens? It seems there is time for a future vaguely sane government to kick into the long grass, or even better just abandon it altogether:
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 !
£5??
$5 surely .....
Since the Mirror group bought the Express, the stories have slightly calmed down I think. Long may it continue!
On the usefulness of the much-trumpeted PCR tests, a (retired) doctor writes ...
Businesses in the North are expendible. But will Sunak still be able to hold the line against financial support for businesses unable to trade in "High Risk" areas if their scope is extended to London?
It's interesting how the conversation has turned to "how can businesses survive in Tier 2, nevermind Tier 3", despite the fact the North East has been in Tier 2 for almost a month.
The West Midlands has also been in a different version of Tier 2 for almost a month. The difference for us is that from tomorrow people can't any longer mix indoors in hospitality venues, because the restrictions have been standardised across the country. That's the difference between viable and unviable hospitality venues. I don't necessarily oppose the change, what I oppose is the hanging out to dry of affected Tier 2 businesses without compensation.
OK, I understand that the North East has had those restrictions already. But it also had the furlough scheme and I think that until Sunak's announcement on Friday there was a reasonable expectation that the scheme was going to be extended beyond October for hospitality businesses. It hasn't been.
Exactly. Lockdown is (or should be) a temporary measure to quickly bring the rate of infection down to a level at which it can be managed by a proper test and trace system. Instead, we seem to be going for a permanent state of economy and health destroying semi-lockdown!
Completely what I think.
People here are suggesting I support a permanent lockdown!
Sounds like VAT fraud and tax avoidance via fraud rather than money laundering per se ?
Leicester textile firms 'involved in money laundering' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54509461 ...When Mr Nagra received an order from Select Fashion he would, unknown to them, arrange for the garments to be made cheaply by a so-called "cut, make and trim" (CMT) supplier. He would pay in cash, and the transaction was hidden from his company's official accounts and records. Recent news investigations have revealed how CMT workers in some factories are paid below the minimum wage for this type of work. In the meantime, Mr Nagra would pretend the garments were being made by another company. He would place a fake order for the same goods with that company, which appeared to be a garment factory, but in reality was usually just a shell company. The company would then provide an invoice at an inflated price, far higher than that really paid to the genuine CMT supplier who was making the clothes. Crucially, the fake invoice included a 20% VAT charge on top. Mr Nagra would pay the inflated amount into the shell company's bank account. Almost immediately, the money would then be withdrawn from the bank account in cash and returned to Mr Nagra, apart from - typically - half the VAT, which would go to pay off accomplices. What happens to the cash after that is untraceable. Mr Nagra would be left with a VAT receipt that looked above board for the tax authorities. The shell supplier company would often fold after a short time with its VAT liabilities unpaid. The judge in the civil case concluded Mr Nagra had operated a "fraudulent scheme to launder cash for his own benefit" over a "prolonged period" and "very substantial amounts" of money were involved. When confronted by the BBC, Mr Nagra denied involvement in fraud. Select Fashion did not respond to the BBC's requests for comment, although there is no suggestion they were aware of the fraud within their supply chain....
That's a variation on the VAT "Carousel Fraud" from a few years ago. Wouldn't want to be a director of the shell company either.
Wait until the next Scottish unemployment numbers then now the hospitality restrictions are in force in the central belt, clearly Sturgeon is not working
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.
There's two separate things here- what the infection rate currently is, and how fast it's going up or down.
As long as the controls are such that R is less than 1, the infection rate will keep falling until it hits negligible. That was the Swedish idea in the Spring; it's better to have softer controls that can carry on for years, even if the initial decline means more people die in the first wave. It's a view.
Given that in mid March, the UK was running at somewhere north of 100k infections a day feeding into about 1000 deaths a day, we probably needed the hammer of an initial lockdown to get the numbers down to something less unmanageable.
So by mid July, the daily case count was about 500-600. That's when it bottomed out, implying that pubs open / schools mostly closed was roughly the tipping point from R just below 1 to R just over 1. And since then, we've added some other elements of social mixing, with full reopening of schools, universities and the grotty autumnal weather.
The measures taken in late September don't seem to be enough to drag R back down below 1, and looking at the SAGE minutes released last night, I don't think the boffins are surprised. Furthermore, having a permanently high plateau of 20k infections a day probably isn't optimal- it's only 3 doublings from where we were in March. R = 0.99 when you start with say 5k infections a day is one thing, starting from 20k infections a day, you probably need a more drastic initial jolt. If nothing else, the fewer cases, the easier it is to contact-trace.
Conclusion- at some point in July/August/September, the UK dropped the ball. Whatever harmful things happen next are the price the UK has to pay for that ball-dropping.
What`s changed from the initial lockdown is the recognition that it is a categorical imperative that schools and universities remain open. I agree with this. The number of infections was bound to rise as a result.
Schools, yes. Universities less so. If the summer had been used to set up a proper testing and tracing system, and we'd waited until we were sure that it was working effectively before reopening the universities, then we'd probably be in a much better position today.
And many, many Universities are Online only now. We reopened then only to, in effect, shut them again, after having spread the virus. That this was not anticipated, nor seemingly even considered as a possibility by the government is one of the mysteries of the whole episode.
Wait until the next Scottish unemployment numbers then now the hospitality restrictions are in force in the central belt, clearly Sturgeon is not working
Great retort. "We're shit but you're shitter. Nee nar".
Businesses in the North are expendible. But will Sunak still be able to hold the line against financial support for businesses unable to trade in "High Risk" areas if their scope is extended to London?
It's interesting how the conversation has turned to "how can businesses survive in Tier 2, nevermind Tier 3", despite the fact the North East has been in Tier 2 for almost a month.
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.
There's two separate things here- what the infection rate currently is, and how fast it's going up or down.
As long as the controls are such that R is less than 1, the infection rate will keep falling until it hits negligible. That was the Swedish idea in the Spring; it's better to have softer controls that can carry on for years, even if the initial decline means more people die in the first wave. It's a view.
Given that in mid March, the UK was running at somewhere north of 100k infections a day feeding into about 1000 deaths a day, we probably needed the hammer of an initial lockdown to get the numbers down to something less unmanageable.
So by mid July, the daily case count was about 500-600. That's when it bottomed out, implying that pubs open / schools mostly closed was roughly the tipping point from R just below 1 to R just over 1. And since then, we've added some other elements of social mixing, with full reopening of schools, universities and the grotty autumnal weather.
The measures taken in late September don't seem to be enough to drag R back down below 1, and looking at the SAGE minutes released last night, I don't think the boffins are surprised. Furthermore, having a permanently high plateau of 20k infections a day probably isn't optimal- it's only 3 doublings from where we were in March. R = 0.99 when you start with say 5k infections a day is one thing, starting from 20k infections a day, you probably need a more drastic initial jolt. If nothing else, the fewer cases, the easier it is to contact-trace.
Conclusion- at some point in July/August/September, the UK dropped the ball. Whatever harmful things happen next are the price the UK has to pay for that ball-dropping.
What`s changed from the initial lockdown is the recognition that it is a categorical imperative that schools and universities remain open. I agree with this. The number of infections was bound to rise as a result.
Schools, yes.
Universities? Why? What would be the main issue (for the students) of deferring this year's intake, or concentrating on online courses only until available? From the SAGE estimates, opening schools is far less of an issue R-wise than opening universities.
Businesses in the North are expendible. But will Sunak still be able to hold the line against financial support for businesses unable to trade in "High Risk" areas if their scope is extended to London?
It's interesting how the conversation has turned to "how can businesses survive in Tier 2, nevermind Tier 3", despite the fact the North East has been in Tier 2 for almost a month.
And Greater Manchester for twice as long.
I thought the rule of 6 was still valid in Greater Manchester, at least until Wednesday this week?
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.
Let's be honest, the "Newcastle" metro mayor is a waste of space. He's done the square root of nothing since being elected.
The leader of Newcastle City Council, Nick Forbes, is much more visible and outspoken.
Fun fact, he was originally the presumptive Labour nominee for the North of Tyne mayor job, but got pipped by a bunch of Corbynistas.
You have the advantage over me Gallowgate as I have no local knowledge of Newcastle whatsoever and to be honest I don't know who was being interviewed other than a reference to Newcastle (I thought) as I wouldn't recognize the mayor by name or face. What I do know is whoever it was came over as very knowledgeable, with good ideas and analysis of what was going on locally and responded well to questions.
I thought the person was identified as being 'Independent' and on looking up both the people you name neither ring a bell and are both Labour. The guy had a close cropped white beard ( a goaty) I think. Hopeless on observation as well - sorry.
It's Jamie Driscoll. Mayor of North of Tyne (the pre 1974 Northumberland). I don't share the disdain for him.
What's the betting that the utterly loony idea of a UK-only chemicals registration scheme never actually happens? It seems there is time for a future vaguely sane government to kick into the long grass, or even better just abandon it altogether:
A UK-only chemicals registration scheme was actually something specifically mentioned in the Referendum in the Vote Leave materials. Its not an insane scheme it was a deliberate idea all along.
And why not? What's insane about it?
Canada doesn't just leapfrog onto America's scheme, they have their own. Why is it good enough for them but not us?
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.
There's two separate things here- what the infection rate currently is, and how fast it's going up or down.
As long as the controls are such that R is less than 1, the infection rate will keep falling until it hits negligible. That was the Swedish idea in the Spring; it's better to have softer controls that can carry on for years, even if the initial decline means more people die in the first wave. It's a view.
Given that in mid March, the UK was running at somewhere north of 100k infections a day feeding into about 1000 deaths a day, we probably needed the hammer of an initial lockdown to get the numbers down to something less unmanageable.
So by mid July, the daily case count was about 500-600. That's when it bottomed out, implying that pubs open / schools mostly closed was roughly the tipping point from R just below 1 to R just over 1. And since then, we've added some other elements of social mixing, with full reopening of schools, universities and the grotty autumnal weather.
The measures taken in late September don't seem to be enough to drag R back down below 1, and looking at the SAGE minutes released last night, I don't think the boffins are surprised. Furthermore, having a permanently high plateau of 20k infections a day probably isn't optimal- it's only 3 doublings from where we were in March. R = 0.99 when you start with say 5k infections a day is one thing, starting from 20k infections a day, you probably need a more drastic initial jolt. If nothing else, the fewer cases, the easier it is to contact-trace.
Conclusion- at some point in July/August/September, the UK dropped the ball. Whatever harmful things happen next are the price the UK has to pay for that ball-dropping.
That's all persuasive and I agree that we are where we are because the ball was dropped over the summer. However, whatever measures we put in place need to start from a place which increases isolation rates for positive tested people. Everything else is just useless if infectious people aren't staying home or being separated from the wider community. The government needs to get on top of this or we'll just continue this stupid cycle of lockdown, easing, lockdown, easing until there's a vaccine.
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.
There's two separate things here- what the infection rate currently is, and how fast it's going up or down.
As long as the controls are such that R is less than 1, the infection rate will keep falling until it hits negligible. That was the Swedish idea in the Spring; it's better to have softer controls that can carry on for years, even if the initial decline means more people die in the first wave. It's a view.
Given that in mid March, the UK was running at somewhere north of 100k infections a day feeding into about 1000 deaths a day, we probably needed the hammer of an initial lockdown to get the numbers down to something less unmanageable.
So by mid July, the daily case count was about 500-600. That's when it bottomed out, implying that pubs open / schools mostly closed was roughly the tipping point from R just below 1 to R just over 1. And since then, we've added some other elements of social mixing, with full reopening of schools, universities and the grotty autumnal weather.
The measures taken in late September don't seem to be enough to drag R back down below 1, and looking at the SAGE minutes released last night, I don't think the boffins are surprised. Furthermore, having a permanently high plateau of 20k infections a day probably isn't optimal- it's only 3 doublings from where we were in March. R = 0.99 when you start with say 5k infections a day is one thing, starting from 20k infections a day, you probably need a more drastic initial jolt. If nothing else, the fewer cases, the easier it is to contact-trace.
Conclusion- at some point in July/August/September, the UK dropped the ball. Whatever harmful things happen next are the price the UK has to pay for that ball-dropping.
What`s changed from the initial lockdown is the recognition that it is a categorical imperative that schools and universities remain open. I agree with this. The number of infections was bound to rise as a result.
Schools, yes. Universities less so. If the summer had been used to set up a proper testing and tracing system, and we'd waited until we were sure that it was working effectively before reopening the universities, then we'd probably be in a much better position today.
And many, many Universities are Online only now. We reopened then only to, in effect, shut them again, after having spread the virus. That this was not anticipated, nor seemingly even considered as a possibility by the government is one of the mysteries of the whole episode.
University teaching is almost wholly online. Most of the spreading is being done in a residential/social setting.
But, most students don't want to be living in a bedroom in their parent's house. They want to be living in their University town.
In fact, not all students actually have quiet bedrooms at home in which to work, or even get on that well with their parents.
So, I think it was right policy to encourage students to travel to the Universities, and attend lectures online.
(Whether all Universities had done enough thinking about how to supply food to self-isolating students is another matter.)
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.
Let's be honest, the "Newcastle" metro mayor is a waste of space. He's done the square root of nothing since being elected.
The leader of Newcastle City Council, Nick Forbes, is much more visible and outspoken.
Fun fact, he was originally the presumptive Labour nominee for the North of Tyne mayor job, but got pipped by a bunch of Corbynistas.
You have the advantage over me Gallowgate as I have no local knowledge of Newcastle whatsoever and to be honest I don't know who was being interviewed other than a reference to Newcastle (I thought) as I wouldn't recognize the mayor by name or face. What I do know is whoever it was came over as very knowledgeable, with good ideas and analysis of what was going on locally and responded well to questions.
I thought the person was identified as being 'Independent' and on looking up both the people you name neither ring a bell and are both Labour. The guy had a close cropped white beard ( a goaty) I think. Hopeless on observation as well - sorry.
It's Jamie Driscoll. Mayor of North of Tyne (the pre 1974 Northumberland). I don't share the disdain for him.
I'm sure he's a decent enough guy, he just has been pretty much invisible compared to what Andy Street has been doing in Birmingham, Andy Burnham in Manchester, and even Ben Houchen in the Tees Valley.
Probably too busy debating the situation in Venezuela with the other Corbynistas.
What's the betting that the utterly loony idea of a UK-only chemicals registration scheme never actually happens? It seems there is time for a future vaguely sane government to kick into the long grass, or even better just abandon it altogether:
A UK-only chemicals registration scheme was actually something specifically mentioned in the Referendum in the Vote Leave materials. Its not an insane scheme it was a deliberate idea all along.
And why not? What's insane about it?
Canada doesn't just leapfrog onto America's scheme, they have their own. Why is it good enough for them but not us?
What's insane about it is that it heavily disadvantages the UK for no benefit. Just duplication and expense for no purpose, putting up major barriers to innovation and growth of small companies, and forcing businesses to move to the EU - all for absolutely nothing in terms of benefits. Pretty much the definition of an insane policy.
He has some very good points. Can't resist going partisan and sticking the boot in to the "anti lockdown agitators", despite that position being the natural conclusion to his argument. I always thought Owen is a clever guy, blinded by his extreme leftist worldview.
Businesses in the North are expendible. But will Sunak still be able to hold the line against financial support for businesses unable to trade in "High Risk" areas if their scope is extended to London?
It's interesting how the conversation has turned to "how can businesses survive in Tier 2, nevermind Tier 3", despite the fact the North East has been in Tier 2 for almost a month.
And Greater Manchester for twice as long.
I thought the rule of 6 was still valid in Greater Manchester, at least until Wednesday this week?
Not entirely sure. They've been under some restrictions which resemble Tier 2 (though marginally less onerous than ours) for longer. One of the issues is different boroughs have had different measures. Something we noted, and thankfully avoided up here.
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.
There's two separate things here- what the infection rate currently is, and how fast it's going up or down.
As long as the controls are such that R is less than 1, the infection rate will keep falling until it hits negligible. That was the Swedish idea in the Spring; it's better to have softer controls that can carry on for years, even if the initial decline means more people die in the first wave. It's a view.
Given that in mid March, the UK was running at somewhere north of 100k infections a day feeding into about 1000 deaths a day, we probably needed the hammer of an initial lockdown to get the numbers down to something less unmanageable.
So by mid July, the daily case count was about 500-600. That's when it bottomed out, implying that pubs open / schools mostly closed was roughly the tipping point from R just below 1 to R just over 1. And since then, we've added some other elements of social mixing, with full reopening of schools, universities and the grotty autumnal weather.
The measures taken in late September don't seem to be enough to drag R back down below 1, and looking at the SAGE minutes released last night, I don't think the boffins are surprised. Furthermore, having a permanently high plateau of 20k infections a day probably isn't optimal- it's only 3 doublings from where we were in March. R = 0.99 when you start with say 5k infections a day is one thing, starting from 20k infections a day, you probably need a more drastic initial jolt. If nothing else, the fewer cases, the easier it is to contact-trace.
Conclusion- at some point in July/August/September, the UK dropped the ball. Whatever harmful things happen next are the price the UK has to pay for that ball-dropping.
That's all persuasive and I agree that we are where we are because the ball was dropped over the summer. However, whatever measures we put in place need to start from a place which increases isolation rates for positive tested people. Everything else is just useless if infectious people aren't staying home or being separated from the wider community. The government needs to get on top of this or we'll just continue this stupid cycle of lockdown, easing, lockdown, easing until there's a vaccine.
Yes, proper enforcement of isolation is as important as proper testing and tracing.
Biden has surrounded himself with quite an excellent campaign team. They're getting very good at this sort of thing. I hope that continues when he's in office.
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.
Sure, and my point was that it could be a lot, lot worse. More people could be in the situation that your son and brother find themselves in. I have a lot of time and sympathy for people in their situation and I hope that they are able to find something soon. I've only said it about a million times that government support isn't a substitute for a job or running a business.
I've written to the three MPs that I know from my days as a member asking all the same questions I pose on here to no avail. I've been pushing our industry body to get much more involved with assisting the government with better predictive modelling and analytics but we've been rejected at every turn. Ultimately I actually find the whole situation extremely depressing and I'm not sure that thinking about individuals in this situation is going to help my own state of mind. I'm doing what I can, but in reality I'm not in a position to change anything and the government has completely isolated itself from scrutiny and even industry help.
Businesses in the North are expendible. But will Sunak still be able to hold the line against financial support for businesses unable to trade in "High Risk" areas if their scope is extended to London?
It's interesting how the conversation has turned to "how can businesses survive in Tier 2, nevermind Tier 3", despite the fact the North East has been in Tier 2 for almost a month.
And Greater Manchester for twice as long.
I thought the rule of 6 was still valid in Greater Manchester, at least until Wednesday this week?
Not entirely sure. They've been under some restrictions which resemble Tier 2 (though marginally less onerous than ours) for longer. One of the issues is different boroughs have had different measures. Something we noted, and thankfully avoided up here.
I think GM as a whole are the same set of regs as here in Kirklees: no household mixing in house, garden or indoor public spaces, rule of 6 outside, and national business restrictions. And some additional business regs for Oldham and Bolton. I could, very, very easily be wrong though.
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.
There's two separate things here- what the infection rate currently is, and how fast it's going up or down.
As long as the controls are such that R is less than 1, the infection rate will keep falling until it hits negligible. That was the Swedish idea in the Spring; it's better to have softer controls that can carry on for years, even if the initial decline means more people die in the first wave. It's a view.
Given that in mid March, the UK was running at somewhere north of 100k infections a day feeding into about 1000 deaths a day, we probably needed the hammer of an initial lockdown to get the numbers down to something less unmanageable.
So by mid July, the daily case count was about 500-600. That's when it bottomed out, implying that pubs open / schools mostly closed was roughly the tipping point from R just below 1 to R just over 1. And since then, we've added some other elements of social mixing, with full reopening of schools, universities and the grotty autumnal weather.
The measures taken in late September don't seem to be enough to drag R back down below 1, and looking at the SAGE minutes released last night, I don't think the boffins are surprised. Furthermore, having a permanently high plateau of 20k infections a day probably isn't optimal- it's only 3 doublings from where we were in March. R = 0.99 when you start with say 5k infections a day is one thing, starting from 20k infections a day, you probably need a more drastic initial jolt. If nothing else, the fewer cases, the easier it is to contact-trace.
Conclusion- at some point in July/August/September, the UK dropped the ball. Whatever harmful things happen next are the price the UK has to pay for that ball-dropping.
What`s changed from the initial lockdown is the recognition that it is a categorical imperative that schools and universities remain open. I agree with this. The number of infections was bound to rise as a result.
Schools, yes. Universities less so. If the summer had been used to set up a proper testing and tracing system, and we'd waited until we were sure that it was working effectively before reopening the universities, then we'd probably be in a much better position today.
And many, many Universities are Online only now. We reopened then only to, in effect, shut them again, after having spread the virus. That this was not anticipated, nor seemingly even considered as a possibility by the government is one of the mysteries of the whole episode.
University teaching is almost wholly online. Most of the spreading is being done in a residential/social setting.
But, most students don't want to be living in a bedroom in their parent's house. They want to be living in their University town.
In fact, not all students actually have quiet bedrooms at home in which to work, or even get on that well with their parents.
So, I think it was right policy to encourage students to travel to the Universities, and attend lectures online.
(Whether all Universities had done enough thinking about how to supply food to self-isolating students is another matter.)
Universities definitely dropped the ball in planning, it appeared to be a huge surprise to them that a bunch of infectious people would turn up - despite "freshers' 'flu" being a normal thing every other year.
A cynic would say that they desperately wanted everyone to turn up with their cheque book, to pay the first semester's hall rent and tuition fees.
There's definitely now a market for a lower-priced online university teaching the classroom-based subjects, without all the costs associated with an actual campus.
Sounds like VAT fraud and tax avoidance via fraud rather than money laundering per se ?
Leicester textile firms 'involved in money laundering' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54509461 ...When Mr Nagra received an order from Select Fashion he would, unknown to them, arrange for the garments to be made cheaply by a so-called "cut, make and trim" (CMT) supplier. He would pay in cash, and the transaction was hidden from his company's official accounts and records. Recent news investigations have revealed how CMT workers in some factories are paid below the minimum wage for this type of work. In the meantime, Mr Nagra would pretend the garments were being made by another company. He would place a fake order for the same goods with that company, which appeared to be a garment factory, but in reality was usually just a shell company. The company would then provide an invoice at an inflated price, far higher than that really paid to the genuine CMT supplier who was making the clothes. Crucially, the fake invoice included a 20% VAT charge on top. Mr Nagra would pay the inflated amount into the shell company's bank account. Almost immediately, the money would then be withdrawn from the bank account in cash and returned to Mr Nagra, apart from - typically - half the VAT, which would go to pay off accomplices. What happens to the cash after that is untraceable. Mr Nagra would be left with a VAT receipt that looked above board for the tax authorities. The shell supplier company would often fold after a short time with its VAT liabilities unpaid. The judge in the civil case concluded Mr Nagra had operated a "fraudulent scheme to launder cash for his own benefit" over a "prolonged period" and "very substantial amounts" of money were involved. When confronted by the BBC, Mr Nagra denied involvement in fraud. Select Fashion did not respond to the BBC's requests for comment, although there is no suggestion they were aware of the fraud within their supply chain....
I think more "to be proven". After all, the money he pays could be dirty (I mean, dirtier than just the fraud!) and the money he gets back clean.
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.
There's two separate things here- what the infection rate currently is, and how fast it's going up or down.
As long as the controls are such that R is less than 1, the infection rate will keep falling until it hits negligible. That was the Swedish idea in the Spring; it's better to have softer controls that can carry on for years, even if the initial decline means more people die in the first wave. It's a view.
Given that in mid March, the UK was running at somewhere north of 100k infections a day feeding into about 1000 deaths a day, we probably needed the hammer of an initial lockdown to get the numbers down to something less unmanageable.
So by mid July, the daily case count was about 500-600. That's when it bottomed out, implying that pubs open / schools mostly closed was roughly the tipping point from R just below 1 to R just over 1. And since then, we've added some other elements of social mixing, with full reopening of schools, universities and the grotty autumnal weather.
The measures taken in late September don't seem to be enough to drag R back down below 1, and looking at the SAGE minutes released last night, I don't think the boffins are surprised. Furthermore, having a permanently high plateau of 20k infections a day probably isn't optimal- it's only 3 doublings from where we were in March. R = 0.99 when you start with say 5k infections a day is one thing, starting from 20k infections a day, you probably need a more drastic initial jolt. If nothing else, the fewer cases, the easier it is to contact-trace.
Conclusion- at some point in July/August/September, the UK dropped the ball. Whatever harmful things happen next are the price the UK has to pay for that ball-dropping.
What`s changed from the initial lockdown is the recognition that it is a categorical imperative that schools and universities remain open. I agree with this. The number of infections was bound to rise as a result.
Schools, yes. Universities less so. If the summer had been used to set up a proper testing and tracing system, and we'd waited until we were sure that it was working effectively before reopening the universities, then we'd probably be in a much better position today.
And many, many Universities are Online only now. We reopened then only to, in effect, shut them again, after having spread the virus. That this was not anticipated, nor seemingly even considered as a possibility by the government is one of the mysteries of the whole episode.
University teaching is almost wholly online. Most of the spreading is being done in a residential/social setting.
But, most students don't want to be living in a bedroom in their parent's house. They want to be living in their University town.
In fact, not all students actually have quiet bedrooms at home in which to work, or even get on that well with their parents.
So, I think it was right policy to encourage students to travel to the Universities, and attend lectures online.
(Whether all Universities had done enough thinking about how to supply food to self-isolating students is another matter.)
Universities definitely dropped the ball in planning, it appeared to be a huge surprise to them that a bunch of infectious people would turn up - despite "freshers' 'flu" being a normal thing every other year.
A cynic would say that they desperately wanted everyone to turn up with their cheque book, to pay the first semester's hall rent and tuition fees.
There's definitely now a market for a lower-priced online university teaching the classroom-based subjects, without all the costs associated with an actual campus.
You blame universities, but did they have a choice? If they were going to go bust without government support, which was not forthcoming because they were told it was "safe", what else were they meant to do?
Universities are not really private businesses. Their entire model depends on the state, with the backing of the state.
The separation and quarantine model I've been banging on about for the last few months is based on what they do in Singapore. A country which is also a highly densley populated, global commercial hub and gateway nation to SE Asia, East Asia and Australia/NZ.
The new guidance is just so easy to understand say PB Tories!
Almost infuriating! There has always been special guidance for those that are most vulnerable. Each one got their own letter describing what they should do last time around.
You blame universities, but did they have a choice? If they were going to go bust without government support, which was not forthcoming because they were told it was "safe", what else were they meant to do?
Universities are not really private businesses. Their entire model depends on the state, with the backing of the state.
Gov't should have worked on detailed guidance for that which can be delivered remotely to be delivered remotely over the summer. And for those students not to physically attend the university halls of residence etc (Unless they're for instance chemistry students that need a lab). Some infection will have been through partying, but the shear act of living in halls of residence (Shared kitchens etc) is also a driving vector. Just a complete lack of planning. This is first up the Gov'ts fault.
The London Palladium is easier to understand when you realise it is owned by Conservative Brexit convert and member of the Metropolitan chumocracy Andrew Lloyd Webber. Simples!
Comments
That remained true until R went above 1 - and now we're trying to get it back down again. If we get it back down to below 1 then numbers will start logarithmically falling towards zero again.
There is a major difference between a zero-covid strategy which tries to stomp out all transmission and have zero (which is NZ's strategy) and an R below 1 strategy that ensures numbers remain within control reducing to zero.
Liverpool, for example have decided locally to close bookmakers' shops. It may be in other areas there is more of an issue with gyms, or indoor shopping centres. Businesses ordered closed will apply to the Treasury, who will re-activate the previous schemes for businesses ordered closed earlier in the year.
Exponential growth in Covid is going to translate into exponential growth in unemployment.
Without isolation, the rest is pointless.
And if track & trace takes too long, it's also pointless.
That will be so out of character for Captain Hindsight. 😂
I would have gone with red, amber and green lights, but I can understand why they didn't want to use green.
So any SNP success has to be weighed up alongside the fact they only look good against the most successful Tory PM since Thatcher/Crappy old Boris
The leader of Newcastle City Council, Nick Forbes, is much more visible and outspoken.
Fun fact, he was originally the presumptive Labour nominee for the North of Tyne mayor job, but got pipped by a bunch of Corbynistas.
...sorry"
As long as the controls are such that R is less than 1, the infection rate will keep falling until it hits negligible. That was the Swedish idea in the Spring; it's better to have softer controls that can carry on for years, even if the initial decline means more people die in the first wave. It's a view.
Given that in mid March, the UK was running at somewhere north of 100k infections a day feeding into about 1000 deaths a day, we probably needed the hammer of an initial lockdown to get the numbers down to something less unmanageable.
So by mid July, the daily case count was about 500-600. That's when it bottomed out, implying that pubs open / schools mostly closed was roughly the tipping point from R just below 1 to R just over 1. And since then, we've added some other elements of social mixing, with full reopening of schools, universities and the grotty autumnal weather.
The measures taken in late September don't seem to be enough to drag R back down below 1, and looking at the SAGE minutes released last night, I don't think the boffins are surprised. Furthermore, having a permanently high plateau of 20k infections a day probably isn't optimal- it's only 3 doublings from where we were in March. R = 0.99 when you start with say 5k infections a day is one thing, starting from 20k infections a day, you probably need a more drastic initial jolt. If nothing else, the fewer cases, the easier it is to contact-trace.
Conclusion- at some point in July/August/September, the UK dropped the ball. Whatever harmful things happen next are the price the UK has to pay for that ball-dropping.
$5 surely .....
And whatever Starmer does represents only a token signal when the government has a majority of 80.
The absurdity is every bit as much yours.
What you can't do is have your cake (open schools) and eat it (open pubs). No matter how dearly the Prime Minister cherishes that maxim.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1315967223471566848
Oh wait.....
Leicester textile firms 'involved in money laundering'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54509461
...When Mr Nagra received an order from Select Fashion he would, unknown to them, arrange for the garments to be made cheaply by a so-called "cut, make and trim" (CMT) supplier.
He would pay in cash, and the transaction was hidden from his company's official accounts and records.
Recent news investigations have revealed how CMT workers in some factories are paid below the minimum wage for this type of work.
In the meantime, Mr Nagra would pretend the garments were being made by another company. He would place a fake order for the same goods with that company, which appeared to be a garment factory, but in reality was usually just a shell company.
The company would then provide an invoice at an inflated price, far higher than that really paid to the genuine CMT supplier who was making the clothes. Crucially, the fake invoice included a 20% VAT charge on top.
Mr Nagra would pay the inflated amount into the shell company's bank account. Almost immediately, the money would then be withdrawn from the bank account in cash and returned to Mr Nagra, apart from - typically - half the VAT, which would go to pay off accomplices.
What happens to the cash after that is untraceable.
Mr Nagra would be left with a VAT receipt that looked above board for the tax authorities. The shell supplier company would often fold after a short time with its VAT liabilities unpaid.
The judge in the civil case concluded Mr Nagra had operated a "fraudulent scheme to launder cash for his own benefit" over a "prolonged period" and "very substantial amounts" of money were involved.
When confronted by the BBC, Mr Nagra denied involvement in fraud.
Select Fashion did not respond to the BBC's requests for comment, although there is no suggestion they were aware of the fraud within their supply chain....
(Whatever you do, don't mention Brexit. I did once but I think I got away with it)
I thought the person was identified as being 'Independent' and on looking up both the people you name neither ring a bell and are both Labour. The guy had a close cropped white beard ( a goaty) I think. Hopeless on observation as well - sorry.
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1315967682756390914
On the usefulness of the much-trumpeted PCR tests, a (retired) doctor writes ...
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3379/rr-2
Many medics. are seething at the post-Mar. 2020 bad science. By and large they can only speak out if they have a secure pension or very secure job.
OK, I understand that the North East has had those restrictions already. But it also had the furlough scheme and I think that until Sunak's announcement on Friday there was a reasonable expectation that the scheme was going to be extended beyond October for hospitality businesses. It hasn't been.
People here are suggesting I support a permanent lockdown!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/13/lockdowns-mental-health-sacrifice-pandemic
We reopened then only to, in effect,
shut them again, after having spread the virus. That this was not anticipated, nor seemingly even considered as a possibility by the government is one of the mysteries of the whole episode.
Universities? Why? What would be the main issue (for the students) of deferring this year's intake, or concentrating on online courses only until available?
From the SAGE estimates, opening schools is far less of an issue R-wise than opening universities.
And why not? What's insane about it?
Canada doesn't just leapfrog onto America's scheme, they have their own. Why is it good enough for them but not us?
But, most students don't want to be living in a bedroom in their parent's house. They want to be living in their University town.
In fact, not all students actually have quiet bedrooms at home in which to work, or even get on that well with their parents.
So, I think it was right policy to encourage students to travel to the Universities, and attend lectures online.
(Whether all Universities had done enough thinking about how to supply food to self-isolating students is another matter.)
Probably too busy debating the situation in Venezuela with the other Corbynistas.
https://twitter.com/markccfc70/status/1315555482816385025
How is that allowed before partial reopening of outdoor stadia, whichever side of the lockdown argument you're on ?!?!
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1315856349964759040
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1315768958742491136
One of the issues is different boroughs have had different measures.
Something we noted, and thankfully avoided up here.
Who allowed this to take place
Biden has surrounded himself with quite an excellent campaign team. They're getting very good at this sort of thing. I hope that continues when he's in office.
I've written to the three MPs that I know from my days as a member asking all the same questions I pose on here to no avail. I've been pushing our industry body to get much more involved with assisting the government with better predictive modelling and analytics but we've been rejected at every turn. Ultimately I actually find the whole situation extremely depressing and I'm not sure that thinking about individuals in this situation is going to help my own state of mind. I'm doing what I can, but in reality I'm not in a position to change anything and the government has completely isolated itself from scrutiny and even industry help.
It is a veil of tiers....
Hat. Coat. Exit stage left...
The same sample of voters have it Biden 49-43 Trump, but Harris 47-47 Pence.
Now, that's an interesting difference.
A cynic would say that they desperately wanted everyone to turn up with their cheque book, to pay the first semester's hall rent and tuition fees.
There's definitely now a market for a lower-priced online university teaching the classroom-based subjects, without all the costs associated with an actual campus.
or are they French without tiers?
https://twitter.com/jacobsoboroff/status/1314554527714996231
Universities are not really private businesses. Their entire model depends on the state, with the backing of the state.
Singapore, to me, is the road not taken.
This is first up the Gov'ts fault.
Simples!