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.
Most of our teaching is online, but certainly for 1st yr students, it was felt that some in person teaching was essential, and is being done in large rooms, with small cohorts and lots of mitigation. Not totally happy about my 3 hours on Friday with the covid infested ingrates, and have decided to avoid seeing elderly relatives in the weeks following such sessions, but it is important to stress that even where the whole course is not online, much if it is aleady. Some things just can't be done from your home/room on campus - I include labs, and much of clinical training in this.
Wait until they pull the curtain back to reveal Tiers 5 & 6.
It is a veil of tiers....
Hat. Coat. Exit stage left...
Don't you think it's appropriate those who are clinically vulnerable have additional guidelines and advice?
I think they are making it up as they going along. Anybody with any sense knows to stay out of any location which is enclosed and has a lot of people in. Tiers 5 through 27 will not do anything other than exercise the brains of those who decide which adjectives are sufficiently emotive.
I know people who are clinically vulnerable. They do not need to be told. They are really cautious already.
I didn't notice yesterday that one of the Florida polls was done in parallel with a Harris/Pence poll released a few days before.
The same sample of voters have it Biden 49-43 Trump, but Harris 47-47 Pence.
Now, that's an interesting difference.
Suggests if Biden does win in November and does not run for a second term then Vice President Pence would have a good chance of winning back the White House in 2024 against then Vice President Harris.
On those numbers Biden is polling above a generic Democrat candidate and Trump is polling below a generic Republican candidate (taking Harris as the generic Democrat and Pence as the generic Republican)
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.
Its a weird blend. If government allowed, many unis would hugely increase the fees, because the value of the education (plus reputation) would allow this. To do this, we would be best to go completely private, being able to abolish the fees cap. As it is some course subsidise others as they are cheaper to run.
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.
.... state --> states.
Because education is devolved. And Labour in Wales, the SNP in Scotland and the Tories in England all followed the same policy.
I think students at almost all European universities are back, in fact, though teaching is almost wholly online.
Wait until they pull the curtain back to reveal Tiers 5 & 6.
It is a veil of tiers....
Hat. Coat. Exit stage left...
Don't you think it's appropriate those who are clinically vulnerable have additional guidelines and advice?
I think they are making it up as they going along. Anybody with any sense knows to stay out of any location which is enclosed and has a lot of people in. Tiers 5 through 27 will not do anything other than exercise the brains of those who decide which adjectives are sufficiently emotive.
I know people who are clinically vulnerable. They do not need to be told. They are really cautious already.
This isn't new, they did exactly the same thing during the first lockdown with letters sent to those who needed to shelter in an even more restrictive fashion than the sense of us. How is continuing an existing policy making it up as they go along?
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.
My father didn't. Despite being 79 having heart failure and kidney failure. He failed to be on anyone's list as vulnerable.
Wait until they pull the curtain back to reveal Tiers 5 & 6.
It is a veil of tiers....
Hat. Coat. Exit stage left...
Don't you think it's appropriate those who are clinically vulnerable have additional guidelines and advice?
I think they are making it up as they going along. Anybody with any sense knows to stay out of any location which is enclosed and has a lot of people in. Tiers 5 through 27 will not do anything other than exercise the brains of those who decide which adjectives are sufficiently emotive.
I know people who are clinically vulnerable. They do not need to be told. They are really cautious already.
This isn't new, they did exactly the same thing during the first lockdown with letters sent to those who needed to shelter in an even more restrictive fashion than the sense of us. How is continuing an existing policy making it up as they go along?
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!
To be fair he has put a lot of effort into last night's performance
'Andrew Lloyd Webber, the Palladium’s owner, has fought titanically, in public and Westminster private, to argue a model of Covid-safe theatre. Combining clever selection of repertoire with precautions for performers and audiences (thermometers, spaced seating, masking), Songs for a New World shows that crisis entertainment can be bolder than just solo shows.'
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.
My father didn't. Despite being 79 having heart failure and kidney failure. He failed to be on anyone's list as vulnerable.
Probably the NHS' wonderful IT system at work. It sounds as though he should have, although that's probably little consolation.
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.
My father didn't. Despite being 79 having heart failure and kidney failure. He failed to be on anyone's list as vulnerable.
Lots of over 70s thought for many weeks they were in the shielding group because of the govt communications rather than just taking extra precautions. My parents included. Some probably still do.
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.
Its a weird blend. If government allowed, many unis would hugely increase the fees, because the value of the education (plus reputation) would allow this. To do this, we would be best to go completely private, being able to abolish the fees cap. As it is some course subsidise others as they are cheaper to run.
I'm sure someone here had an anecdote where Oxford and Cambridge wanted to go wholly private and charge fees comparable to Harvard. In response the Government stepped in and basically said they would not allow it under any circumstances.
Wait until they pull the curtain back to reveal Tiers 5 & 6.
It is a veil of tiers....
Hat. Coat. Exit stage left...
Don't you think it's appropriate those who are clinically vulnerable have additional guidelines and advice?
I think they are making it up as they going along. Anybody with any sense knows to stay out of any location which is enclosed and has a lot of people in. Tiers 5 through 27 will not do anything other than exercise the brains of those who decide which adjectives are sufficiently emotive.
I know people who are clinically vulnerable. They do not need to be told. They are really cautious already.
This isn't new, they did exactly the same thing during the first lockdown with letters sent to those who needed to shelter in an even more restrictive fashion than the sense of us. How is continuing an existing policy making it up as they go along?
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!
To be fair he has put a lot of effort into last night's performance
'Andrew Lloyd Webber, the Palladium’s owner, has fought titanically, in public and Westminster private, to argue a model of Covid-safe theatre. Combining clever selection of repertoire with precautions for performers and audiences (thermometers, spaced seating, masking), Songs for a New World shows that crisis entertainment can be bolder than just solo shows.'
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.
I have a sense that the ball was dropped late August. From 1st September several things happened in an escalating manner: 9 million people plus teachers etc all started going to school; millions more ended a formal or informal quiet spell covering July/August and went back to work; the weather got cooler; 2 or 3 million young people started out or went back to college/FE/HE/apprenticeship/employment, often traversing the country to do so.
This could only be sustained by massive lowering of the 'R' risk elsewhere - in fact everywhere else. It wasn't. Possibly it couldn't. Most of us then expected to be about where we now by mid October.
Wait until they pull the curtain back to reveal Tiers 5 & 6.
It is a veil of tiers....
Hat. Coat. Exit stage left...
Don't you think it's appropriate those who are clinically vulnerable have additional guidelines and advice?
I think they are making it up as they going along. Anybody with any sense knows to stay out of any location which is enclosed and has a lot of people in. Tiers 5 through 27 will not do anything other than exercise the brains of those who decide which adjectives are sufficiently emotive.
I know people who are clinically vulnerable. They do not need to be told. They are really cautious already.
This isn't new, they did exactly the same thing during the first lockdown with letters sent to those who needed to shelter in an even more restrictive fashion than the sense of us. How is continuing an existing policy making it up as they go along?
Wait until they pull the curtain back to reveal Tiers 5 & 6.
It is a veil of tiers....
Hat. Coat. Exit stage left...
Don't you think it's appropriate those who are clinically vulnerable have additional guidelines and advice?
I think they are making it up as they going along. Anybody with any sense knows to stay out of any location which is enclosed and has a lot of people in. Tiers 5 through 27 will not do anything other than exercise the brains of those who decide which adjectives are sufficiently emotive.
I know people who are clinically vulnerable. They do not need to be told. They are really cautious already.
This isn't new, they did exactly the same thing during the first lockdown with letters sent to those who needed to shelter in an even more restrictive fashion than the sense of us. How is continuing an existing policy making it up as they go along?
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.
I don't agree.
If a student is told not to physically attend a hall of residence, it assumes that the student has a quiet place to study in a safe environment with a good internet connection.
You simply can't make those assumptions. They will not generally be true.
In fact, there will be many students in small houses, with both parents at home. The parents may not have work, or they may be trying to do their own work online and using the broadband.
I talked to a new grad student yesterday, she was stuck in a small house in Staffordshire with two quarelling parents home all the time since March and she had nowhere quiet to work. She was delighted to be at her University town.
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!
To be fair he has put a lot of effort into last night's performance
'Andrew Lloyd Webber, the Palladium’s owner, has fought titanically, in public and Westminster private, to argue a model of Covid-safe theatre. Combining clever selection of repertoire with precautions for performers and audiences (thermometers, spaced seating, masking), Songs for a New World shows that crisis entertainment can be bolder than just solo shows.'
Isn't going down well with footy fans. Who are outside as well. Apparently they are worried about travel to and from grounds and singing. Presumably this lot teleported and enjoyed an evening of mime?
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.
Singapore, to me, is the road not taken.
Maybe Boris was scared of people calling us "Singapore-on-Thames"!
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!
To be fair he has put a lot of effort into last night's performance
'Andrew Lloyd Webber, the Palladium’s owner, has fought titanically, in public and Westminster private, to argue a model of Covid-safe theatre. Combining clever selection of repertoire with precautions for performers and audiences (thermometers, spaced seating, masking), Songs for a New World shows that crisis entertainment can be bolder than just solo shows.'
Wait until they pull the curtain back to reveal Tiers 5 & 6.
It is a veil of tiers....
Hat. Coat. Exit stage left...
Don't you think it's appropriate those who are clinically vulnerable have additional guidelines and advice?
I think they are making it up as they going along. Anybody with any sense knows to stay out of any location which is enclosed and has a lot of people in. Tiers 5 through 27 will not do anything other than exercise the brains of those who decide which adjectives are sufficiently emotive.
I know people who are clinically vulnerable. They do not need to be told. They are really cautious already.
This isn't new, they did exactly the same thing during the first lockdown with letters sent to those who needed to shelter in an even more restrictive fashion than the sense of us. How is continuing an existing policy making it up as they go along?
Wait until they pull the curtain back to reveal Tiers 5 & 6.
It is a veil of tiers....
Hat. Coat. Exit stage left...
Don't you think it's appropriate those who are clinically vulnerable have additional guidelines and advice?
I think they are making it up as they going along. Anybody with any sense knows to stay out of any location which is enclosed and has a lot of people in. Tiers 5 through 27 will not do anything other than exercise the brains of those who decide which adjectives are sufficiently emotive.
I know people who are clinically vulnerable. They do not need to be told. They are really cautious already.
This isn't new, they did exactly the same thing during the first lockdown with letters sent to those who needed to shelter in an even more restrictive fashion than the sense of us. How is continuing an existing policy making it up as they go along?
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.
I don't agree.
If a student is told not to physically attend a hall of residence, it assumes that the student has a quiet place to study in a safe environment with a good internet connection.
You simply can't make those assumptions. They will not generally be true.
In fact, there will be many students in small houses, with both parents at home. The parents may not have work, or they may be trying to do their own work online and using the broadband.
I talked to a new grad student yesterday, she was stuck in a small house in Staffordshire with two quarelling parents home all the time since March and she had nowhere quiet to work. She was delighted to be at her University town.
However, if students were fully informed about the nature of their course (in good time), they may have been able to secure cheaper accommodation, perhaps further away from their physical universities.
Wait until they pull the curtain back to reveal Tiers 5 & 6.
It is a veil of tiers....
Hat. Coat. Exit stage left...
Don't you think it's appropriate those who are clinically vulnerable have additional guidelines and advice?
I think they are making it up as they going along. Anybody with any sense knows to stay out of any location which is enclosed and has a lot of people in. Tiers 5 through 27 will not do anything other than exercise the brains of those who decide which adjectives are sufficiently emotive.
I know people who are clinically vulnerable. They do not need to be told. They are really cautious already.
This isn't new, they did exactly the same thing during the first lockdown with letters sent to those who needed to shelter in an even more restrictive fashion than the sense of us. How is continuing an existing policy making it up as they go along?
Wait until they pull the curtain back to reveal Tiers 5 & 6.
It is a veil of tiers....
Hat. Coat. Exit stage left...
Don't you think it's appropriate those who are clinically vulnerable have additional guidelines and advice?
I think they are making it up as they going along. Anybody with any sense knows to stay out of any location which is enclosed and has a lot of people in. Tiers 5 through 27 will not do anything other than exercise the brains of those who decide which adjectives are sufficiently emotive.
I know people who are clinically vulnerable. They do not need to be told. They are really cautious already.
This isn't new, they did exactly the same thing during the first lockdown with letters sent to those who needed to shelter in an even more restrictive fashion than the sense of us. How is continuing an existing policy making it up as they go along?
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 can get equivalent teaching free from the likes of edx run by Harvard and MIT - what you dont get are the certificates. If anyone was allowed to take a university test as with A levels, then course fees in most subjects would drop below £1k per year.
Wait until they pull the curtain back to reveal Tiers 5 & 6.
It is a veil of tiers....
Hat. Coat. Exit stage left...
Don't you think it's appropriate those who are clinically vulnerable have additional guidelines and advice?
I think they are making it up as they going along. Anybody with any sense knows to stay out of any location which is enclosed and has a lot of people in. Tiers 5 through 27 will not do anything other than exercise the brains of those who decide which adjectives are sufficiently emotive.
I know people who are clinically vulnerable. They do not need to be told. They are really cautious already.
This isn't new, they did exactly the same thing during the first lockdown with letters sent to those who needed to shelter in an even more restrictive fashion than the sense of us. How is continuing an existing policy making it up as they go along?
Wait until they pull the curtain back to reveal Tiers 5 & 6.
It is a veil of tiers....
Hat. Coat. Exit stage left...
Don't you think it's appropriate those who are clinically vulnerable have additional guidelines and advice?
I think they are making it up as they going along. Anybody with any sense knows to stay out of any location which is enclosed and has a lot of people in. Tiers 5 through 27 will not do anything other than exercise the brains of those who decide which adjectives are sufficiently emotive.
I know people who are clinically vulnerable. They do not need to be told. They are really cautious already.
This isn't new, they did exactly the same thing during the first lockdown with letters sent to those who needed to shelter in an even more restrictive fashion than the sense of us. How is continuing an existing policy making it up as they go along?
I don't see how that is relevant to what we were discussing. Given there aren't six tiers I thought he was just trolling.
Trolling? I was asking a valid question.
What are the six tiers then? On the advice I've read there are only three, medium, high and very high.
...and Whitty has implied within the high risk tiers there are sub tiers based on severity.
Yes, if you are in the highest tier the local health authority can place additional restrictions over and above the baseline set relating to hospitality. If you are in the highest tier, you know that you have to check.
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.
Singapore, to me, is the road not taken.
It would, of course, be a much larger project here. But agreed.
Wait until they pull the curtain back to reveal Tiers 5 & 6.
It is a veil of tiers....
Hat. Coat. Exit stage left...
Don't you think it's appropriate those who are clinically vulnerable have additional guidelines and advice?
I think they are making it up as they going along. Anybody with any sense knows to stay out of any location which is enclosed and has a lot of people in. Tiers 5 through 27 will not do anything other than exercise the brains of those who decide which adjectives are sufficiently emotive.
I know people who are clinically vulnerable. They do not need to be told. They are really cautious already.
This isn't new, they did exactly the same thing during the first lockdown with letters sent to those who needed to shelter in an even more restrictive fashion than the sense of us. How is continuing an existing policy making it up as they go along?
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.
I don't agree.
If a student is told not to physically attend a hall of residence, it assumes that the student has a quiet place to study in a safe environment with a good internet connection.
You simply can't make those assumptions. They will not generally be true.
In fact, there will be many students in small houses, with both parents at home. The parents may not have work, or they may be trying to do their own work online and using the broadband.
I talked to a new grad student yesterday, she was stuck in a small house in Staffordshire with two quarelling parents home all the time since March and she had nowhere quiet to work. She was delighted to be at her University town.
However, if students were fully informed about the nature of their course (in good time), they may have been able to secure cheaper accommodation, perhaps further away from their physical universities.
Well quite, hard cases and bad law springs to mind about @YBarddCwsc example
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.
I have a sense that the ball was dropped late August. From 1st September several things happened in an escalating manner: 9 million people plus teachers etc all started going to school; millions more ended a formal or informal quiet spell covering July/August and went back to work; the weather got cooler; 2 or 3 million young people started out or went back to college/FE/HE/apprenticeship/employment, often traversing the country to do so.
This could only be sustained by massive lowering of the 'R' risk elsewhere - in fact everywhere else. It wasn't. Possibly it couldn't. Most of us then expected to be about where we now by mid October.
As was suggested that maybe pubs might need to close to allow schools to open. No good choices really.
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!
To be fair he has put a lot of effort into last night's performance
'Andrew Lloyd Webber, the Palladium’s owner, has fought titanically, in public and Westminster private, to argue a model of Covid-safe theatre. Combining clever selection of repertoire with precautions for performers and audiences (thermometers, spaced seating, masking), Songs for a New World shows that crisis entertainment can be bolder than just solo shows.'
Isn't going down well with footy fans. Who are outside as well. Apparently they are worried about travel to and from grounds and singing. Presumably this lot teleported and enjoyed an evening of mime?
Non League football is allowed I think, fewer fans, maybe the same amount as a socially distanced Palladium? So the congestion outside isn't really comparable I think
It is the crowd/audience singing that is the prblem, not the performers!
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 can get equivalent teaching free from the likes of edx run by Harvard and MIT - what you dont get are the certificates. If anyone was allowed to take a university test as with A levels, then course fees in most subjects would drop below £1k per year.
The SRA, the Solicitors Regulation Authority, are basically doing this. They are replacing both the GDL (which is the postgraduate law conversion course), and the LPC (which is basically the solicitors entrance exam), with a qualification you can essentially study yourself and enter at your will. The aim is to reduce the cost of entry.
It's controversial for many reasons which I wont go into here, but the stated aim is a good one. I've spent well over £20k already on this pursuit - it's certainly a barrier to entry.
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.
I don't agree.
If a student is told not to physically attend a hall of residence, it assumes that the student has a quiet place to study in a safe environment with a good internet connection.
You simply can't make those assumptions. They will not generally be true.
In fact, there will be many students in small houses, with both parents at home. The parents may not have work, or they may be trying to do their own work online and using the broadband.
I talked to a new grad student yesterday, she was stuck in a small house in Staffordshire with two quarelling parents home all the time since March and she had nowhere quiet to work. She was delighted to be at her University town.
However, if students were fully informed about the nature of their course (in good time), they may have been able to secure cheaper accommodation, perhaps further away from their physical universities.
We have allowed remote learning as an option - a small minority are doing so. There will need to be some activities where they attend campus at some future point to complete the elements that MUST be done in person, but we don't know when that is yet... Maybe in January, between semesters (for the rest of the students)
I didn't notice yesterday that one of the Florida polls was done in parallel with a Harris/Pence poll released a few days before.
The same sample of voters have it Biden 49-43 Trump, but Harris 47-47 Pence.
Now, that's an interesting difference.
Suggests if Biden does win in November and does not run for a second term then Vice President Pence would have a good chance of winning back the White House in 2024 against then Vice President Harris.
On those numbers Biden is polling above a generic Democrat candidate and Trump is polling below a generic Republican candidate (taking Harris as the generic Democrat and Pence as the generic Republican)
As a hypothetical for 2024 I don't think it has any value. So much will happen before then.
I thought it was interesting because, if you wanted to find the maximum number of shy-Trumpers, you would look at the extra 4% for his VP and say, "Aha! There they are!"
So I reckon it's not a bad estimate for a worst-case scenario level of shy-Trumpery. Enough to put Florida into recount territory on the current polling average.
Wait until they pull the curtain back to reveal Tiers 5 & 6.
It is a veil of tiers....
Hat. Coat. Exit stage left...
Don't you think it's appropriate those who are clinically vulnerable have additional guidelines and advice?
I think they are making it up as they going along. Anybody with any sense knows to stay out of any location which is enclosed and has a lot of people in. Tiers 5 through 27 will not do anything other than exercise the brains of those who decide which adjectives are sufficiently emotive.
I know people who are clinically vulnerable. They do not need to be told. They are really cautious already.
This isn't new, they did exactly the same thing during the first lockdown with letters sent to those who needed to shelter in an even more restrictive fashion than the sense of us. How is continuing an existing policy making it up as they go along?
Wait until they pull the curtain back to reveal Tiers 5 & 6.
It is a veil of tiers....
Hat. Coat. Exit stage left...
Don't you think it's appropriate those who are clinically vulnerable have additional guidelines and advice?
I think they are making it up as they going along. Anybody with any sense knows to stay out of any location which is enclosed and has a lot of people in. Tiers 5 through 27 will not do anything other than exercise the brains of those who decide which adjectives are sufficiently emotive.
I know people who are clinically vulnerable. They do not need to be told. They are really cautious already.
This isn't new, they did exactly the same thing during the first lockdown with letters sent to those who needed to shelter in an even more restrictive fashion than the sense of us. How is continuing an existing policy making it up as they go along?
I don't see how that is relevant to what we were discussing. Given there aren't six tiers I thought he was just trolling.
Trolling? I was asking a valid question.
What are the six tiers then? On the advice I've read there are only three, medium, high and very high.
...and Whitty has implied within the high risk tiers there are sub tiers based on severity.
Yes, if you are in the highest tier the local health authority can place additional restrictions over and above the baseline set relating to hospitality. If you are in the highest tier, you know that you have to check.
So it is not a three tier system. It is a three tier plus system. This is not the simple system that was sold to us.
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!
To be fair he has put a lot of effort into last night's performance
'Andrew Lloyd Webber, the Palladium’s owner, has fought titanically, in public and Westminster private, to argue a model of Covid-safe theatre. Combining clever selection of repertoire with precautions for performers and audiences (thermometers, spaced seating, masking), Songs for a New World shows that crisis entertainment can be bolder than just solo shows.'
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.
I don't agree.
If a student is told not to physically attend a hall of residence, it assumes that the student has a quiet place to study in a safe environment with a good internet connection.
You simply can't make those assumptions. They will not generally be true.
In fact, there will be many students in small houses, with both parents at home. The parents may not have work, or they may be trying to do their own work online and using the broadband.
I talked to a new grad student yesterday, she was stuck in a small house in Staffordshire with two quarelling parents home all the time since March and she had nowhere quiet to work. She was delighted to be at her University town.
However, if students were fully informed about the nature of their course (in good time), they may have been able to secure cheaper accommodation, perhaps further away from their physical universities.
And yet those assumptions are being made for sixth formers when colleges are operating 1/3 remote.
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!
To be fair he has put a lot of effort into last night's performance
'Andrew Lloyd Webber, the Palladium’s owner, has fought titanically, in public and Westminster private, to argue a model of Covid-safe theatre. Combining clever selection of repertoire with precautions for performers and audiences (thermometers, spaced seating, masking), Songs for a New World shows that crisis entertainment can be bolder than just solo shows.'
Given that we now know that it spreads as an aerosol not just as droplets there is simply no way that venue is safe. It may meet the current regulations, but safe? No bloody way.
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!
To be fair he has put a lot of effort into last night's performance
'Andrew Lloyd Webber, the Palladium’s owner, has fought titanically, in public and Westminster private, to argue a model of Covid-safe theatre. Combining clever selection of repertoire with precautions for performers and audiences (thermometers, spaced seating, masking), Songs for a New World shows that crisis entertainment can be bolder than just solo shows.'
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.
I have a sense that the ball was dropped late August. From 1st September several things happened in an escalating manner: 9 million people plus teachers etc all started going to school; millions more ended a formal or informal quiet spell covering July/August and went back to work; the weather got cooler; 2 or 3 million young people started out or went back to college/FE/HE/apprenticeship/employment, often traversing the country to do so.
This could only be sustained by massive lowering of the 'R' risk elsewhere - in fact everywhere else. It wasn't. Possibly it couldn't. Most of us then expected to be about where we now by mid October.
With hindsight- or reasonable foresight- the numbers were beginning to drift the wrong way in August. A slow increase from a low base, to be sure, but that was the warning light. Then came the September stuff.
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!
To be fair he has put a lot of effort into last night's performance
'Andrew Lloyd Webber, the Palladium’s owner, has fought titanically, in public and Westminster private, to argue a model of Covid-safe theatre. Combining clever selection of repertoire with precautions for performers and audiences (thermometers, spaced seating, masking), Songs for a New World shows that crisis entertainment can be bolder than just solo shows.'
Flip Johnson and Corbyn and we know what the response would be.
The 'would you defend x if your opponent did it?' Is a pretty good general indicator of reasonableness.
Certainly its one practically all politicians would fail, one of the instances where internet commentators are likely to be more reasonable (not that it need be many, but it least happens)
Wait until they pull the curtain back to reveal Tiers 5 & 6.
It is a veil of tiers....
Hat. Coat. Exit stage left...
Don't you think it's appropriate those who are clinically vulnerable have additional guidelines and advice?
I think they are making it up as they going along. Anybody with any sense knows to stay out of any location which is enclosed and has a lot of people in. Tiers 5 through 27 will not do anything other than exercise the brains of those who decide which adjectives are sufficiently emotive.
I know people who are clinically vulnerable. They do not need to be told. They are really cautious already.
This isn't new, they did exactly the same thing during the first lockdown with letters sent to those who needed to shelter in an even more restrictive fashion than the sense of us. How is continuing an existing policy making it up as they go along?
Wait until they pull the curtain back to reveal Tiers 5 & 6.
It is a veil of tiers....
Hat. Coat. Exit stage left...
Don't you think it's appropriate those who are clinically vulnerable have additional guidelines and advice?
I think they are making it up as they going along. Anybody with any sense knows to stay out of any location which is enclosed and has a lot of people in. Tiers 5 through 27 will not do anything other than exercise the brains of those who decide which adjectives are sufficiently emotive.
I know people who are clinically vulnerable. They do not need to be told. They are really cautious already.
This isn't new, they did exactly the same thing during the first lockdown with letters sent to those who needed to shelter in an even more restrictive fashion than the sense of us. How is continuing an existing policy making it up as they go along?
I don't see how that is relevant to what we were discussing. Given there aren't six tiers I thought he was just trolling.
Trolling? I was asking a valid question.
What are the six tiers then? On the advice I've read there are only three, medium, high and very high.
...and Whitty has implied within the high risk tiers there are sub tiers based on severity.
Yes, if you are in the highest tier the local health authority can place additional restrictions over and above the baseline set relating to hospitality. If you are in the highest tier, you know that you have to check.
So it is not a three tier system. It is a three tier plus system. This is not the simple system that was sold to us.
Yes, it is. Would you rather have a system with many more levels with a myriad of different restrictions, or one where you are told you are in the highest level, so look at the guidance, while the rest of us have to worry about the uniform restrictions in the other two tiers. I maintain that having to read something does not make it complicated.
I didn't notice yesterday that one of the Florida polls was done in parallel with a Harris/Pence poll released a few days before.
The same sample of voters have it Biden 49-43 Trump, but Harris 47-47 Pence.
Now, that's an interesting difference.
Suggests if Biden does win in November and does not run for a second term then Vice President Pence would have a good chance of winning back the White House in 2024 against then Vice President Harris.
On those numbers Biden is polling above a generic Democrat candidate and Trump is polling below a generic Republican candidate (taking Harris as the generic Democrat and Pence as the generic Republican)
As a hypothetical for 2024 I don't think it has any value. So much will happen before then.
I thought it was interesting because, if you wanted to find the maximum number of shy-Trumpers, you would look at the extra 4% for his VP and say, "Aha! There they are!"
So I reckon it's not a bad estimate for a worst-case scenario level of shy-Trumpery. Enough to put Florida into recount territory on the current polling average.
I agree on that, I think Florida and Wisconsin will decide the election and both could go into recount territory
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.
Singapore, to me, is the road not taken.
It would, of course, be a much larger project here. But agreed.
Maybe, I think it would more likely 20-30 similarly sized projects run by local councils. Going down the centralised route has been a disaster from the start. From the lighthouse labs which are difficult to expand in terms of capacity to the stupid call centre which barely gets in touch with anyone.
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!
To be fair he has put a lot of effort into last night's performance
'Andrew Lloyd Webber, the Palladium’s owner, has fought titanically, in public and Westminster private, to argue a model of Covid-safe theatre. Combining clever selection of repertoire with precautions for performers and audiences (thermometers, spaced seating, masking), Songs for a New World shows that crisis entertainment can be bolder than just solo shows.'
I didn't notice yesterday that one of the Florida polls was done in parallel with a Harris/Pence poll released a few days before.
The same sample of voters have it Biden 49-43 Trump, but Harris 47-47 Pence.
Now, that's an interesting difference.
Suggests if Biden does win in November and does not run for a second term then Vice President Pence would have a good chance of winning back the White House in 2024 against then Vice President Harris.
On those numbers Biden is polling above a generic Democrat candidate and Trump is polling below a generic Republican candidate (taking Harris as the generic Democrat and Pence as the generic Republican)
As a hypothetical for 2024 I don't think it has any value. So much will happen before then.
I thought it was interesting because, if you wanted to find the maximum number of shy-Trumpers, you would look at the extra 4% for his VP and say, "Aha! There they are!"
So I reckon it's not a bad estimate for a worst-case scenario level of shy-Trumpery. Enough to put Florida into recount territory on the current polling average.
I agree on that, I think Florida and Wisconsin will decide the election and both could go into recount territory
You're counting on a huge polling error in Wisconsin then.
You can do it, Ireland apparently did, but it is risky politically never mind anything else.
Of course, they get crap for following the science (as per its advisers) too slavishly too, all that stuff about Whittyvabd Vallance running the country a few months back.
I didn't notice yesterday that one of the Florida polls was done in parallel with a Harris/Pence poll released a few days before.
The same sample of voters have it Biden 49-43 Trump, but Harris 47-47 Pence.
Now, that's an interesting difference.
Suggests if Biden does win in November and does not run for a second term then Vice President Pence would have a good chance of winning back the White House in 2024 against then Vice President Harris.
On those numbers Biden is polling above a generic Democrat candidate and Trump is polling below a generic Republican candidate (taking Harris as the generic Democrat and Pence as the generic Republican)
As a hypothetical for 2024 I don't think it has any value. So much will happen before then.
I thought it was interesting because, if you wanted to find the maximum number of shy-Trumpers, you would look at the extra 4% for his VP and say, "Aha! There they are!"
So I reckon it's not a bad estimate for a worst-case scenario level of shy-Trumpery. Enough to put Florida into recount territory on the current polling average.
I agree on that, I think Florida and Wisconsin will decide the election and both could go into recount territory
You're counting on a huge polling error in Wisconsin then.
It happened in 2016, not a single pollster had Trump ahead in Wisconsin the entire campaign but he won the state anyway.
Trafalgar have had 2 polls putting Trump ahead in Wisconsin this campaign, though their latest has Biden narrowly ahead there
Flip Johnson and Corbyn and we know what the response would be.
The 'would you defend x if your opponent did it?' Is a pretty good general indicator of reasonableness.
Certainly its one practically all politicians would fail, one of the instances where internet commentators are likely to be more reasonable (not that it need be many, but it least happens)
You mean that striking the right balance between the number of deaths from a pandemic and the cost to the economy of shutting things down, is way more difficult for those who actually have to make the decisions, rather than us lot making comments online?
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.
I have a sense that the ball was dropped late August. From 1st September several things happened in an escalating manner: 9 million people plus teachers etc all started going to school; millions more ended a formal or informal quiet spell covering July/August and went back to work; the weather got cooler; 2 or 3 million young people started out or went back to college/FE/HE/apprenticeship/employment, often traversing the country to do so.
This could only be sustained by massive lowering of the 'R' risk elsewhere - in fact everywhere else. It wasn't. Possibly it couldn't. Most of us then expected to be about where we now by mid October.
With hindsight- or reasonable foresight- the numbers were beginning to drift the wrong way in August. A slow increase from a low base, to be sure, but that was the warning light. Then came the September stuff.
I think some of us - I am one - will look back on July/August as a brief golden age. It was only weeks ago and it already feels like another epoch.
You can do it, Ireland apparently did, but it is risky politically never mind anything else.
Of course, they get crap for following the science (as per its advisers) too slavishly too, all that stuff about Whittyvabd Vallance running the country a few months back.
I would have thought people far prefer a 2 week strict lockdown to the current situation, I certainly do despite being in tier 1.
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.
I don't agree.
If a student is told not to physically attend a hall of residence, it assumes that the student has a quiet place to study in a safe environment with a good internet connection.
You simply can't make those assumptions. They will not generally be true.
In fact, there will be many students in small houses, with both parents at home. The parents may not have work, or they may be trying to do their own work online and using the broadband.
I talked to a new grad student yesterday, she was stuck in a small house in Staffordshire with two quarelling parents home all the time since March and she had nowhere quiet to work. She was delighted to be at her University town.
However, if students were fully informed about the nature of their course (in good time), they may have been able to secure cheaper accommodation, perhaps further away from their physical universities.
All the Universities I know were clear that most teaching will be online.
Most students actually want to meet other students. They don't want to secure cheaper accommodation many miles away.
However, I am in favour of (i) reimbursing students their rent if they now wish to leave their Halls of Residence and return to their parents' home, (ii) partially reimbursing fees if the tuition is compromised because of the online teaching. I think very few students would wish to leave their Halls of Residence, even with no penalty.
Only on pb.com would someone describe a twenty-year old having difficulties with their parents or living in the parental home as "hard cases make bad law". It is actually extremely common.
And when I was twenty, I had been thrown out of my parent's house.
Flip Johnson and Corbyn and we know what the response would be.
The 'would you defend x if your opponent did it?' Is a pretty good general indicator of reasonableness.
Certainly its one practically all politicians would fail, one of the instances where internet commentators are likely to be more reasonable (not that it need be many, but it least happens)
You mean that striking the right balance between the number of deaths from a pandemic and the cost to the economy of shutting things down, is way more difficult for those who actually have to make those decisions?
Crazy i know. And I recall quite a bit of comment about needing to apply judgement not just accept the judgement of the advisers. Such calls that are made may still be wrong and to be criticised, but the point was well made month ago that there will be judgments made on various options.
Flip Johnson and Corbyn and we know what the response would be.
The 'would you defend x if your opponent did it?' Is a pretty good general indicator of reasonableness.
Certainly its one practically all politicians would fail, one of the instances where internet commentators are likely to be more reasonable (not that it need be many, but it least happens)
I don't often agree with you and I am sure it's the same for you but you're always logical.
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!
To be fair he has put a lot of effort into last night's performance
'Andrew Lloyd Webber, the Palladium’s owner, has fought titanically, in public and Westminster private, to argue a model of Covid-safe theatre. Combining clever selection of repertoire with precautions for performers and audiences (thermometers, spaced seating, masking), Songs for a New World shows that crisis entertainment can be bolder than just solo shows.'
Given that we now know that it spreads as an aerosol not just as droplets there is simply no way that venue is safe. It may meet the current regulations, but safe? No bloody way.
A quick back of the envelope estimate is that there are probably four or five people in that theatre who are infected. 50% of 2300 seats, 1 in 240 people in England currently infected. That's an almost ideal situation for super-spreading.
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.
I don't agree.
If a student is told not to physically attend a hall of residence, it assumes that the student has a quiet place to study in a safe environment with a good internet connection.
You simply can't make those assumptions. They will not generally be true.
In fact, there will be many students in small houses, with both parents at home. The parents may not have work, or they may be trying to do their own work online and using the broadband.
I talked to a new grad student yesterday, she was stuck in a small house in Staffordshire with two quarelling parents home all the time since March and she had nowhere quiet to work. She was delighted to be at her University town.
However, if students were fully informed about the nature of their course (in good time), they may have been able to secure cheaper accommodation, perhaps further away from their physical universities.
All the Universities I know were clear that most teaching will be online.
Most students actually want to meet other students. They don't want to secure cheaper accommodation many miles away.
However, I am in favour of (i) reimbursing students their rent if they now wish to leave their Halls of Residence and return to their parents' home, (ii) partially reimbursing fees if the tuition is compromised because of the online teaching. I think very few students would wish to leave their Halls of Residence, even with no penalty.
Only on pb.com would someone describe a twenty-year old having difficulties with their parents or living in the parental home as "hard cases make bad law". It is actually extremely common.
And when I was twenty, I had been thrown out of my parent's house.
But they're not legally allowed to meet other students, at least in Tier 2 and above areas.
Likewise you're assuming that all 1st year students are in university-owned halls of residence. How can we grant refunds to students in either privately-owned halls of residence or private residential accommodation?
I'm on board with the tuition fee reduction out of blatant self-interest.
Wait until they pull the curtain back to reveal Tiers 5 & 6.
It is a veil of tiers....
Hat. Coat. Exit stage left...
Don't you think it's appropriate those who are clinically vulnerable have additional guidelines and advice?
I think they are making it up as they going along. Anybody with any sense knows to stay out of any location which is enclosed and has a lot of people in. Tiers 5 through 27 will not do anything other than exercise the brains of those who decide which adjectives are sufficiently emotive.
I know people who are clinically vulnerable. They do not need to be told. They are really cautious already.
This isn't new, they did exactly the same thing during the first lockdown with letters sent to those who needed to shelter in an even more restrictive fashion than the sense of us. How is continuing an existing policy making it up as they go along?
Wait until they pull the curtain back to reveal Tiers 5 & 6.
It is a veil of tiers....
Hat. Coat. Exit stage left...
Don't you think it's appropriate those who are clinically vulnerable have additional guidelines and advice?
I think they are making it up as they going along. Anybody with any sense knows to stay out of any location which is enclosed and has a lot of people in. Tiers 5 through 27 will not do anything other than exercise the brains of those who decide which adjectives are sufficiently emotive.
I know people who are clinically vulnerable. They do not need to be told. They are really cautious already.
This isn't new, they did exactly the same thing during the first lockdown with letters sent to those who needed to shelter in an even more restrictive fashion than the sense of us. How is continuing an existing policy making it up as they go along?
I don't see how that is relevant to what we were discussing. Given there aren't six tiers I thought he was just trolling.
Trolling? I was asking a valid question.
What are the six tiers then? On the advice I've read there are only three, medium, high and very high.
...and Whitty has implied within the high risk tiers there are sub tiers based on severity.
Yes, if you are in the highest tier the local health authority can place additional restrictions over and above the baseline set relating to hospitality. If you are in the highest tier, you know that you have to check.
So it is not a three tier system. It is a three tier plus system. This is not the simple system that was sold to us.
The actual legislation is more or less unreadable. I hope it is the nadir of the attempts to legislate for things that can only be governed by common sense and communal agreement to self limit.
An example of folly (Tier 1 - Medium risk): Under the rule of six if Mrs X has a husband and two children, then has a new baby, then grandma round the corner can nip round and help. If she has twins then husband would have to go out to keep the numbers down when grannie nips in to help. Is she (heaven help her) has triplets grandma can't go at all because she would make it 7.
I hope someone who has read this nonsense more deeply can assure me I am wrong.
You can do it, Ireland apparently did, but it is risky politically never mind anything else.
Of course, they get crap for following the science (as per its advisers) too slavishly too, all that stuff about Whittyvabd Vallance running the country a few months back.
I would have thought people far prefer a 2 week strict lockdown to the current situation, I certainly do despite being in tier 1.
Problem is it wouldn't be a two week strict lockdown and then back to normal. At best it would be the two week lockdown and then back to the restrictions we have today, if for no other reason than the lag effect would suggest to the scientifically illiterate that the circuit breaker hadn't worked...
The more blatant than ever before various court and legislature machinations by the GOP to suppress the vote in Dem heavy areas appear to have created the perfect storm for Democrat GOTV efforts.
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.
My father didn't. Despite being 79 having heart failure and kidney failure. He failed to be on anyone's list as vulnerable.
Lots of over 70s thought for many weeks they were in the shielding group because of the govt communications rather than just taking extra precautions. My parents included. Some probably still do.
Yup; I was quite surprised NOT to get one. In March I was an 80+ asthmatic (not severely so, admittedly) who was being monitored for prostate cancer. I'm glad to say the last named has gone now. Started back at the gym a few months ago, but I've paused it now; cases are rising locally and Essex County Council is, according to the BBC, asking to be put into Tier 2.
Comments
I know people who are clinically vulnerable. They do not need to be told. They are really cautious already.
On those numbers Biden is polling above a generic Democrat candidate and Trump is polling below a generic Republican candidate (taking Harris as the generic Democrat and Pence as the generic Republican)
Because education is devolved. And Labour in Wales, the SNP in Scotland and the Tories in England all followed the same policy.
I think students at almost all European universities are back, in fact, though teaching is almost wholly online.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/3060563/#Comment_3060563
'Andrew Lloyd Webber, the Palladium’s owner, has fought titanically, in public and Westminster private, to argue a model of Covid-safe theatre. Combining clever selection of repertoire with precautions for performers and audiences (thermometers, spaced seating, masking), Songs for a New World shows that crisis entertainment can be bolder than just solo shows.'
https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2020/oct/12/songs-for-a-new-world-review-covid-london-palladium
Telegraph.
Well Boris wants to be world king at any rate.
This could only be sustained by massive lowering of the 'R' risk elsewhere - in fact everywhere else. It wasn't. Possibly it couldn't. Most of us then expected to be about where we now by mid October.
If a student is told not to physically attend a hall of residence, it assumes that the student has a quiet place to study in a safe environment with a good internet connection.
You simply can't make those assumptions. They will not generally be true.
In fact, there will be many students in small houses, with both parents at home. The parents may not have work, or they may be trying to do their own work online and using the broadband.
I talked to a new grad student yesterday, she was stuck in a small house in Staffordshire with two quarelling parents home all the time since March and she had nowhere quiet to work. She was delighted to be at her University town.
Apparently they are worried about travel to and from grounds and singing.
Presumably this lot teleported and enjoyed an evening of mime?
But agreed.
It is the crowd/audience singing that is the prblem, not the performers!
It's controversial for many reasons which I wont go into here, but the stated aim is a good one. I've spent well over £20k already on this pursuit - it's certainly a barrier to entry.
I thought it was interesting because, if you wanted to find the maximum number of shy-Trumpers, you would look at the extra 4% for his VP and say, "Aha! There they are!"
So I reckon it's not a bad estimate for a worst-case scenario level of shy-Trumpery. Enough to put Florida into recount territory on the current polling average.
Flip Johnson and Corbyn and we know what the response would be.
Certainly its one practically all politicians would fail, one of the instances where internet commentators are likely to be more reasonable (not that it need be many, but it least happens)
Sorry, no pun.
Or even fund the actors and directors via BBC to make new TV productions - might even get a hit which we can sell on worldwide?
Of course, they get crap for following the science (as per its advisers) too slavishly too, all that stuff about Whittyvabd Vallance running the country a few months back.
Tiers in Heaven
The Tracks of My Tiers
Dancing With Tiers in My Eyes
etc.,etc.
Trafalgar have had 2 polls putting Trump ahead in Wisconsin this campaign, though their latest has Biden narrowly ahead there
Most students actually want to meet other students. They don't want to secure cheaper accommodation many miles away.
However, I am in favour of (i) reimbursing students their rent if they now wish to leave their Halls of Residence and return to their parents' home, (ii) partially reimbursing fees if the tuition is compromised because of the online teaching. I think very few students would wish to leave their Halls of Residence, even with no penalty.
Only on pb.com would someone describe a twenty-year old having difficulties with their parents or living in the parental home as "hard cases make bad law". It is actually extremely common.
And when I was twenty, I had been thrown out of my parent's house.
Not vital, but.
Likewise you're assuming that all 1st year students are in university-owned halls of residence. How can we grant refunds to students in either privately-owned halls of residence or private residential accommodation?
I'm on board with the tuition fee reduction out of blatant self-interest.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-54521907
An example of folly (Tier 1 - Medium risk): Under the rule of six if Mrs X has a husband and two children, then has a new baby, then grandma round the corner can nip round and help. If she has twins then husband would have to go out to keep the numbers down when grannie nips in to help. Is she (heaven help her) has triplets grandma can't go at all because she would make it 7.
I hope someone who has read this nonsense more deeply can assure me I am wrong.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1103/regulation/1/made
Started back at the gym a few months ago, but I've paused it now; cases are rising locally and Essex County Council is, according to the BBC, asking to be put into Tier 2.