Although she probably is a Trumper, the point she's making is that the neighbourhood by-law apparently prevents any signs. She's behaving like a bit of a prick about it, and she might well be wrong about it, but I don't really like the public shaming via a covert video shared on Twitter. It's a neighbour dispute and best not escalated on a global level.
If you go for a circuit breaker you've got to get the psychology right. From locking down in March, it took until mid June before case numbers returned to pre-lockdown levels (albeit with expanded testing).
We are at a lower R rate and testing won't be expanding the detections at the same rate now, but it would still be 4-6 weeks before cases came back down to even their current levels., so a 2 week circuit breaker that is lifted before you even see the results is a leap of faith that even a popular government would have to be on its mettle to carry the public with them.
However we are at a point where we could do a 4-6 week lockdown with a goal and incentive front and centre. Operation Xmas or some such. Not recommending it necessarily, but you could see the psychology of it.
CNN: There was a time when Boris Johnson claimed his government was following the science at every step of its plan for dealing with the coronavirus.
But as the number of confirmed Covid-19 cases in the UK soars once more, and the country braces for a long, miserable winter, the British Prime Minister appears to be at odds with those same advisers he once placed front and center of the pandemic response.
His Chief Medical Officer on Monday night poured a bucket of very cold water over his latest plans to tackle a worrying upturn in the spread of the coronavirus in the UK. And On Tuesday he was facing further criticism after it emerged that his group of top scientific advisers recommended three weeks ago a significantly tougher package of measures than even he now plans.
Johnson, it seems, is trapped by his bitterly divided Conservative Party -- faced down by the hawks, such as his finance minister Rishi Sunak, who want to keep the economy as open as possible and doves, who think tough measures now would be better in the longer run.
All of these arguments between politics and science will -- eventually -- become known to the public when the UK's coronavirus response is scrutinized at the inevitable public inquiry, at some point in the future.
And however much merit protecting the economy might have in the long run, creating a perception that you are ignoring scientific advice could be dangerous, should the virus run riot and the UK's already massive death toll rise still further.
I am not at all sure that there will be a public inquiry. I suspect that this will treated very much like a war, and I do not recall a public inquiry into any such. There were Inquiries into aspects of the Iraq War, admittedly, and a partially at least privater Privy Council one into the events leading up to the Falklands, There certainly wasn't an Inquiry after the Suez Affair.
(snip)....The longer this pandemic goes on, the more and more convinced I am that "successful" management of the outbreak is correlated mostly to national culture, and almost nothing to do with the actual interventions of the respective governments. Those cultures with a combination of strong social commitment and individual discipline, such as the Far East and Nordic Countries, are faring relatively well, those with strong individualism and scepticism of authority (such as the US and UK) are faring relatively less well. The rest, once we get past the incredibly simple oral and hand hygiene and social distancing, is for the birds.
I've thought that from quite early on.
Though I think that you would also have to include systems in place alongside culture (the extreme example of this might be S Korea holding a SARS pandemic exercise a month before the actual outbreak).
In the West, you can't track people in the way they can in South Korea or China (or weld them in their homes), and you can't fine people into adhering to the rules. So you need a culture that is big on adhering to rules without too much questioning e.g. Sweden and Germany.
Instead here we have the media and the public immediately finding edge cases and trying to find loopholes, rather than taking onboard the general message. Any suggestion of use your common sense is met with outrage. Where as listening to Swedish chief egghead that normally seems his general message.
And in the USA it is all comes down to an attitude is what about MY freedom, the state doesn't have a say in that, I refuse to be told what I can and can't do.
Australia to me seems the biggest success case. They traditionally don't have that Swedish culture and unlike New Zealand are a major transportation hub, especially with China.
True. But I do wonder how much better we might have done with a consistent policy and message from early on (masks, for example) ? After all, the degree of compliance for the first lockdown surprised the government and scientists.
Well it comes as no surprise to you that I agree....I have been on the consistent nationwide polices for the long term train for a very long time.
But...in the UK what we have seen is a significant proportion of the population when given an inch take a mile (we do have some of the opposite who still lock themselves away) e.g. the advice not to travel, people in March still went on holidays, and as soon as restrictions relaxed a bit, 10,000s headed for the same spots and we had loads of Vox Pops of people going this is outrageous it is so busy, its spreading COVID, no masks...so why the f##k are you still there, talking to the media, with pint in hand and no mask?
CNN: There was a time when Boris Johnson claimed his government was following the science at every step of its plan for dealing with the coronavirus.
But as the number of confirmed Covid-19 cases in the UK soars once more, and the country braces for a long, miserable winter, the British Prime Minister appears to be at odds with those same advisers he once placed front and center of the pandemic response.
His Chief Medical Officer on Monday night poured a bucket of very cold water over his latest plans to tackle a worrying upturn in the spread of the coronavirus in the UK. And On Tuesday he was facing further criticism after it emerged that his group of top scientific advisers recommended three weeks ago a significantly tougher package of measures than even he now plans.
Johnson, it seems, is trapped by his bitterly divided Conservative Party -- faced down by the hawks, such as his finance minister Rishi Sunak, who want to keep the economy as open as possible and doves, who think tough measures now would be better in the longer run.
All of these arguments between politics and science will -- eventually -- become known to the public when the UK's coronavirus response is scrutinized at the inevitable public inquiry, at some point in the future.
And however much merit protecting the economy might have in the long run, creating a perception that you are ignoring scientific advice could be dangerous, should the virus run riot and the UK's already massive death toll rise still further.
I am not at all sure that there will be a public inquiry. I suspect that this will treated very much like a war, and I do not recall a public inquiry into any such. There were Inquiries into aspects of the Iraq War, admittedly, and a partially at least privater Privy Council one into the events leading up to the Falklands, There certainly wasn't an Inquiry after the Suez Affair.
(snip)....The longer this pandemic goes on, the more and more convinced I am that "successful" management of the outbreak is correlated mostly to national culture, and almost nothing to do with the actual interventions of the respective governments. Those cultures with a combination of strong social commitment and individual discipline, such as the Far East and Nordic Countries, are faring relatively well, those with strong individualism and scepticism of authority (such as the US and UK) are faring relatively less well. The rest, once we get past the incredibly simple oral and hand hygiene and social distancing, is for the birds.
I've thought that from quite early on.
Though I think that you would also have to include systems in place alongside culture (the extreme example of this might be S Korea holding a SARS pandemic exercise a month before the actual outbreak).
In the West, you can't track people in the way they can in South Korea or China (or weld them in their homes), and you can't fine people into adhering to the rules. So you need a culture that is big on adhering to rules without too much questioning e.g. Sweden and Germany.
Instead here we have the media and the public immediately finding edge cases and trying to find loopholes, rather than taking onboard the general message. Any suggestion of use your common sense is met with outrage. Where as listening to Swedish chief egghead that normally seems his general message.
And in the USA it is all comes down to an attitude is what about MY freedom, the state doesn't have a say in that, I refuse to be told what I can and can't do.
Australia to me seems the biggest success case. They traditionally don't have that Swedish culture and unlike New Zealand are a major transportation hub, especially with China.
True. But I do wonder how much better we might have done with a consistent policy and message from early on (masks, for example) ? After all, the degree of compliance for the first lockdown surprised the government and scientists.
Doesn't the compliance kind of reduce the impact masks would have had?
The biggest mistake was not going earlier - I'm still not sure why they waited - the moment people businesses started doing it themselves, the government should have said, "right, let's get on with it."
No - I was just using masks of an example of mixed messaging.
I think Brits are actually pretty compliant if given a clear lead. Once we're given reason to suspect our leaders have no more idea than we do, then that goes out of the window.
But I absolutely agree about making decisions earlier. Proactive beats reactive every time in a pandemic.
This tier system is going to turn into a similar thing to airbridges. Changes every week or two, nobody can really remember, and then the public go mad when little Johnny's birthday has to be cancelled because the tier changed the night before and the parents screaming no fair, the government didn't tell us that COVID was getting bad in our area.
CNN: There was a time when Boris Johnson claimed his government was following the science at every step of its plan for dealing with the coronavirus.
But as the number of confirmed Covid-19 cases in the UK soars once more, and the country braces for a long, miserable winter, the British Prime Minister appears to be at odds with those same advisers he once placed front and center of the pandemic response.
His Chief Medical Officer on Monday night poured a bucket of very cold water over his latest plans to tackle a worrying upturn in the spread of the coronavirus in the UK. And On Tuesday he was facing further criticism after it emerged that his group of top scientific advisers recommended three weeks ago a significantly tougher package of measures than even he now plans.
Johnson, it seems, is trapped by his bitterly divided Conservative Party -- faced down by the hawks, such as his finance minister Rishi Sunak, who want to keep the economy as open as possible and doves, who think tough measures now would be better in the longer run.
All of these arguments between politics and science will -- eventually -- become known to the public when the UK's coronavirus response is scrutinized at the inevitable public inquiry, at some point in the future.
And however much merit protecting the economy might have in the long run, creating a perception that you are ignoring scientific advice could be dangerous, should the virus run riot and the UK's already massive death toll rise still further.
I am not at all sure that there will be a public inquiry. I suspect that this will treated very much like a war, and I do not recall a public inquiry into any such. There were Inquiries into aspects of the Iraq War, admittedly, and a partially at least privater Privy Council one into the events leading up to the Falklands, There certainly wasn't an Inquiry after the Suez Affair.
There is absolutely no god given reason why scientific advise about public health issues arising specifically from one virus should automatically outweigh all other medical, economic, social and value considerations. And it is not the job of the scientists but of the government and parliament to find what balance is most appropriate for our society at this time between all those - and other legitimate - considerations.
Given that there is massive disagreement within society generally - with or without a pandemic - on all those other considerations, it would be gobsmacking if there were not major disagreements with the government's decisions (whoever that government might be, not just Johnson's government) on what that balance should be. And given that there is no one right answer to what that balance should be, most members of society will have a different balance that, based on their individual values for each of those considerations, would be better than the one chosen by the government.
Could the government be doing better? Nearly every voter, including Tories, will find a way to say yes to that question. Does that warrant an Inquiry? Not unless there is suspicion of anything criminal going on - particularly as decision-making seems to be happening in a pretty public (and messy) way. So what would a public inquiry achieve? Nothing more than is in current newspaper headlines - there are a lot of pissed off people.
The longer this pandemic goes on, the more and more convinced I am that "successful" management of the outbreak is correlated mostly to national culture, and almost nothing to do with the actual interventions of the respective governments. Those cultures with a combination of strong social commitment and individual discipline, such as the Far East and Nordic Countries, are faring relatively well, those with strong individualism and scepticism of authority (such as the US and UK) are faring relatively less well. The rest, once we get past the incredibly simple oral and hand hygiene and social distancing, is for the birds.
Very interesting. It's only one country, so I know it's an outlier, but I'm curious about Greece, which is rarely mentioned. I would have thought scepticism of authority would be fairly strong there, although it may have a fairly strong sense of communitarianism. But not as much money as most western European countries.
Anyway, Greece's performance is exceptional: only 456 deaths out of a population of 10-11 million. The equivalent in the UK would be about 3,000 deaths rather than 43,000, We'd be pretty relaxed here if we had data like Greece's. What's their secret?
If you go for a circuit breaker you've got to get the psychology right. From locking down in March, it took until mid June before case numbers returned to pre-lockdown levels (albeit with expanded testing).
We are at a lower R rate and testing won't be expanding the detections at the same rate now, but it would still be 4-6 weeks before cases came back down to even their current levels., so a 2 week circuit breaker that is lifted before you even see the results is a leap of faith that even a popular government would have to be on its mettle to carry the public with them.
However we are at a point where we could do a 4-6 week lockdown with a goal and incentive front and centre. Operation Xmas or some such. Not recommending it necessarily, but you could see the psychology of it.
The problem is we would just lose any gains. We lock down until mid December, then people demand they have Christmas and New Year, they visit all their friends and relatives, have night in the boozer, parties, etc, and it spreads like crazy again.
But still none showing Trump ahead. A quick check of Wiki says only one poll since the start of September has Trump ahead (47-46), in 2016 he had quite a few polls for him in that period I think. Surely the biggest polling disaster in history if Trump wins from here?
Mask/face covering compliance has been top notch from what I've seen in my local area. OK It's not everyone, but it's enough. ~ 90% in shops or so maybe.
But still none showing Trump ahead. A quick check of Wiki says only one poll since the start of September has Trump ahead (47-46), in 2016 he had quite a few polls for him in that period I think. Surely the biggest polling disaster in history if Trump wins from here?
The Zogby poll (above) is
"Zogby Analytics Poll Methodology US Likely Voters 9/25/20 - 9/27/20"
Hmmmm
Morning Consult is
"The latest national results reflect surveys conducted with 16,045 likely voters from October 9-11, 2020. "
But still none showing Trump ahead. A quick check of Wiki says only one poll since the start of September has Trump ahead (47-46), in 2016 he had quite a few polls for him in that period I think. Surely the biggest polling disaster in history if Trump wins from here?
2016 Michigan primary was the biggest miss I've seen in my lifetime I think. Must have been a whole bunch of "yeah yeah I'm voting for Clinton" then not actually doing so...
Mask/face covering compliance has been top notch from what I've seen in my local area. OK It's not everyone, but it's enough. ~ 90% in shops or so maybe.
The problem I repeatedly see is people go right so the rule is mask in a shop....walking down the road, no mask, have a chat with somebody they know, get to the entrance of the shop, pull out mask, do shopping, as soon as they exit, whip mask off, stop and have another chat with somebody else....
Yes outside transmission is much harder, but just wear the mask all the time, regardless of the official rule.
If you go for a circuit breaker you've got to get the psychology right. From locking down in March, it took until mid June before case numbers returned to pre-lockdown levels (albeit with expanded testing).
We are at a lower R rate and testing won't be expanding the detections at the same rate now, but it would still be 4-6 weeks before cases came back down to even their current levels., so a 2 week circuit breaker that is lifted before you even see the results is a leap of faith that even a popular government would have to be on its mettle to carry the public with them.
However we are at a point where we could do a 4-6 week lockdown with a goal and incentive front and centre. Operation Xmas or some such. Not recommending it necessarily, but you could see the psychology of it.
The problem is we would just lose any gains. We lock down until mid December, then people demand they have Christmas and New Year, they visit all their friends and relatives, have night in the boozer, parties, etc, and it spreads like crazy again.
Yes but I fear that will happen anyways. There is a window here to do it at least starting from a low base. Not saying I approve. But it is an option. Otherwise Christmas could be carnage. Literally.
OT the local Sainsbury's has decided it's all over. Or all over the shop. Bread and cakes are back to being unwrapped because there is no risk of stray viruses falling on them, thanks to the new one way system at the store entrance.
How much of a record does Opinium have in US polling?
I only ask because their write-up of that 17% lead says: "This is just short of the lead in the popular vote that Ronal Raegan enjoyed in his second landslide victory", which doesn't inspire confidence!
How much of a record does Opinium have in US polling?
I only ask because their write-up of that 17% lead says: "This is just short of the lead in the popular vote that Ronal Raegan enjoyed in his second landslide victory", which doesn't inspire confidence!
How much of a record does Opinium have in US polling?
I only ask because their write-up of that 17% lead says: "This is just short of the lead in the popular vote that Ronal Raegan enjoyed in his second landslide victory", which doesn't inspire confidence!
Mask/face covering compliance has been top notch from what I've seen in my local area. OK It's not everyone, but it's enough. ~ 90% in shops or so maybe.
The problem I repeatedly see is people go right so the rule is mask in a shop....walking down the road, no mask, have a chat with somebody they know, get to the entrance of the shop, pull out mask, do shopping, as soon as they exit, whip mask off, stop and have another chat with somebody else....
Yes outside transmission is much harder, but just wear the mask all the time, regardless of the official rule.
Wear masks people, whenever you leave your own house. Wash your hands regularly with soap or sanitiser.
Two basic precautions that, if followed, reduce virus spread and might avoid further restrictions.
The longer this pandemic goes on, the more and more convinced I am that "successful" management of the outbreak is correlated mostly to national culture, and almost nothing to do with the actual interventions of the respective governments. Those cultures with a combination of strong social commitment and individual discipline, such as the Far East and Nordic Countries, are faring relatively well, those with strong individualism and scepticism of authority (such as the US and UK) are faring relatively less well. The rest, once we get past the incredibly simple oral and hand hygiene and social distancing, is for the birds.
I agree up to a point. Rather, governments represent national cultures and these tend to follow those national cultures in their approach to Covid. However, governments do I think have choices that make a significant difference to outcomes. The evidence of the USA is instructive, where much of the response happens at State level. Bluntly, Republican states have seen bigger case numbers and deaths than Democrat ones, despite tending to be more rural and therefore less amenable to transmission. It isn't a state culture thing, because the divide still applies to Republican and Democrat administrations in tossup states that could go either way.
If you go for a circuit breaker you've got to get the psychology right. From locking down in March, it took until mid June before case numbers returned to pre-lockdown levels (albeit with expanded testing).
We are at a lower R rate and testing won't be expanding the detections at the same rate now, but it would still be 4-6 weeks before cases came back down to even their current levels., so a 2 week circuit breaker that is lifted before you even see the results is a leap of faith that even a popular government would have to be on its mettle to carry the public with them.
However we are at a point where we could do a 4-6 week lockdown with a goal and incentive front and centre. Operation Xmas or some such. Not recommending it necessarily, but you could see the psychology of it.
The problem is we would just lose any gains. We lock down until mid December, then people demand they have Christmas and New Year, they visit all their friends and relatives, have night in the boozer, parties, etc, and it spreads like crazy again.
Yes but I fear that will happen anyways. There is a window here to do it at least starting from a low base. Not saying I approve. But it is an option. Otherwise Christmas could be carnage. Literally.
Superforecasters are on the case and by next February will tell Boris what he should have done to prevent mingling on Halloween, Guy Fawkes night, Diwali, Christmas and Hogmanay.
Is this the best they can do? Resurrrect a controversy from the summer that did not reverberate with the public and saw a grand total of (checks notes) two statutes being removed, one by a council.
Mask/face covering compliance has been top notch from what I've seen in my local area. OK It's not everyone, but it's enough. ~ 90% in shops or so maybe.
What a waste of plastic ... or cotton. No good evidence exists that they're of benefit outside a clinical setting. Source Oxford Univ Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.
The popularity of 'bad science' even among 'scientists' since March may explain why Peter Hitchens is angry about masks but hasn't got worked up about distancing or hygiene, both of which do work.
Mask/face covering compliance has been top notch from what I've seen in my local area. OK It's not everyone, but it's enough. ~ 90% in shops or so maybe.
The problem I repeatedly see is people go right so the rule is mask in a shop....walking down the road, no mask, have a chat with somebody they know, get to the entrance of the shop, pull out mask, do shopping, as soon as they exit, whip mask off, stop and have another chat with somebody else....
Yes outside transmission is much harder, but just wear the mask all the time, regardless of the official rule.
That's probably coming soon anyway (masks anywhere where you may come into 2m of anyone else). As long as I can walk the dog away from people without a mask I won't complain too much, and I definitely can't run wearing one, but its the next thing to try to get R below 1 again.
How much of a record does Opinium have in US polling?
I only ask because their write-up of that 17% lead says: "This is just short of the lead in the popular vote that Ronal Raegan enjoyed in his second landslide victory", which doesn't inspire confidence!
But still none showing Trump ahead. A quick check of Wiki says only one poll since the start of September has Trump ahead (47-46), in 2016 he had quite a few polls for him in that period I think. Surely the biggest polling disaster in history if Trump wins from here?
Trump could still win in theory even if Biden matches his Morning Consult national share of 51% and Trump gets 47% or 48% by narrowly holding most of his 2016 states to win the EC again
SAGE needs more engineers who are happy with approximations and an extra foot of concrete reinforcement to cover error, whereas scientists prefer precision by which time it might be too late. Engineers would also know that making sudden changes to slow feedback systems like this one can lead to wild oscillations. More psychologists too please.
Is this the best they can do? Resurrrect a controversy from the summer that did not reverberate with the public and saw a grand total of (checks notes) two statutes being removed, one by a council.
Besides, is it really wise for central government to get involved in this?
At the moment, they can pontificate to their heart's content. But if they have power, they will end up annoying someone, and it's likely that some of those someones will be part of the current Conservative coalition.
Culture wars are much better shouted about than actually fought.
SAGE needs more engineers who are happy with approximations and an extra foot of concrete reinforcement to cover error, whereas scientists prefer precision by which time it might be too late. Engineers would also know that making sudden changes to slow feedback systems like this one can lead to wild oscillations. More psychologists too please.
I think they would argue that their job is to lay out all the options from a purely scientific view of squashing the virus, and it is for the government to decide which of those measures can be used when set against the fact you can't just shut down the whole economy for years on end e.g. just like the speed limit argument, the science would say just set them ever lower, but the reality is that isn't practical.
Interesting, although polling was still showing healthy support
I would like to see the questions asked with a kicker of for x months. I think most people would say sure lets have a circuit breaker over half term for 2-3 weeks....however if they said its 6 months minimum, I think we might find a different response.
I think the initial lockdown only worked because the government said it was only going to be a few weeks.
This tier system is going to turn into a similar thing to airbridges. Changes every week or two, nobody can really remember, and then the public go mad when little Johnny's birthday has to be cancelled because the tier changed the night before and the parents screaming no fair, the government didn't tell us that COVID was getting bad in our area.
Nuanced and granulated does tend to become cluttered and confusing when the intended audience is the public. I decry the trend for brutalist sloganeering in our politics but for this sort of thing it is probably the best way.
How much of a record does Opinium have in US polling?
I only ask because their write-up of that 17% lead says: "This is just short of the lead in the popular vote that Ronal Raegan enjoyed in his second landslide victory", which doesn't inspire confidence!
I must admit I thought your critique regarded the classification of 1980 as a 'landslide'. I apologise for assuming the typos were yours...
1980 was quite..... convincing in terms of states carried/electoral votes.
Opinium rarely poll on US elections. Zogby lost all credibility on the Romney/Obama election and disappeared from the scene. You have to be suspicious that they should reappear now. Morning Consult are my idea of solid citizens.
Hyufd, what you say is not demonstrably wrong but just how many angels do you have balancing on that particular pin?
Is this the best they can do? Resurrrect a controversy from the summer that did not reverberate with the public and saw a grand total of (checks notes) two statutes being removed, one by a council.
Besides, is it really wise for central government to get involved in this?
At the moment, they can pontificate to their heart's content. But if they have power, they will end up annoying someone, and it's likely that some of those someones will be part of the current Conservative coalition.
Culture wars are much better shouted about than actually fought.
I don't suppose anything will come of it, but the precedent would be appalling. Do we really want some future Diane Abbott or even some future Yvette Cooper deciding what statues are allowed in every town and village in the country?
Keir obviously reads my posts, or I am Keir himself.
Either way, if he maps out a proper position, that will be good for us all even if you disagree
I presume he will say we should have listened to SAGE, we should have had a circuit breaker, we shouldn't have let students go back etc etc etc. But if he proposes we should have Lockdown with a Vengeance, the Northern Metro Mayors (who are mostly Labour) unless they flip flop from yesterday* they are surely going to be against.
* Andy Burnham managed to do so in the same interview on risk of spread in restaurants.
SAGE needs more engineers who are happy with approximations and an extra foot of concrete reinforcement to cover error, whereas scientists prefer precision by which time it might be too late. Engineers would also know that making sudden changes to slow feedback systems like this one can lead to wild oscillations. More psychologists too please.
I think they would argue that their job is to lay out all the options from a purely scientific view of squashing the virus, and it is for the government to decide which of those measures can be used when set against the fact you can't just shut down the whole economy for years on end e.g. just like the speed limit argument, the science would say just set them ever lower, but the reality is that isn't practical.
Yes.
I wonder if Dominic Cummings might have shifted the whole thing. SAGE was supposed to be the buffer between the real scientists and politicians, but Cummings has usurped that role, unhelpfully widening the gap between Boris and the boffins.
Epidemics operate on the Micawber Principle: R=0.8. Result epidemic happiness. R=1.2. Result misery.
Point is, the sum of interventions proposed right don't get R down to 1. Sooner or later governments will have to lock down. They don't have the authority to lock down sooner to prevent more misery later. Johnson certainly doesn't. So they take half hearted measures instead. They missed the opportunity to take rigorous steps earlier that would have prevented lockdown at any time as well, as as saving many lives and some adverse economic effects.
Sorry, the article doesn't show that public opinion is turning if you read it. It does shows that people are heartily fed up with restrictions, and that the willingness amongst some not to comply is creeping up.
There's no contradiction here. You can be fed up with the restrictions, and reluctant to have more of them, but still support them as necessary to drive down the virus. I suspect that's where most of the public are.
But still none showing Trump ahead. A quick check of Wiki says only one poll since the start of September has Trump ahead (47-46), in 2016 he had quite a few polls for him in that period I think. Surely the biggest polling disaster in history if Trump wins from here?
It would pretty much kill the sector, I'd have thought.
If you go for a circuit breaker you've got to get the psychology right. From locking down in March, it took until mid June before case numbers returned to pre-lockdown levels (albeit with expanded testing).
We are at a lower R rate and testing won't be expanding the detections at the same rate now, but it would still be 4-6 weeks before cases came back down to even their current levels., so a 2 week circuit breaker that is lifted before you even see the results is a leap of faith that even a popular government would have to be on its mettle to carry the public with them.
The logic makes me question wisdom of SAGE. As you say, there will be no data after 2 weeks if it is working or not. And stop / starting for businesses is hugely costly. So we are going to implement a policy that we can't test the outcome of much later and whose negative impact is significant. That is just bad science.
The only logical way to justify a circuit breaker is as part of a long-term strategy - i.e. We will have a strict lockdown for the first two weeks of every odd-numbered month. Then everyone can plan for it, and a short period of very strict restrictions allows you to have looser restrictions the rest of the time.
If you are implementing it as an emergency measure in response to rising hospitalization numbers then it's less understandable since you don't have lower hospitalization numbers after just two weeks.
Is this the best they can do? Resurrrect a controversy from the summer that did not reverberate with the public and saw a grand total of (checks notes) two statutes being removed, one by a council.
Besides, is it really wise for central government to get involved in this?
At the moment, they can pontificate to their heart's content. But if they have power, they will end up annoying someone, and it's likely that some of those someones will be part of the current Conservative coalition.
Culture wars are much better shouted about than actually fought.
I don't suppose anything will come of it, but the precedent would be appalling. Do we really want some future Diane Abbott or even some future Yvette Cooper deciding what statues are allowed in every town and village in the country?
Since the next thing to be fixed by Dom et al will be the electoral system that won't be an issue!
But still none showing Trump ahead. A quick check of Wiki says only one poll since the start of September has Trump ahead (47-46), in 2016 he had quite a few polls for him in that period I think. Surely the biggest polling disaster in history if Trump wins from here?
It would pretty much kill the sector, I'd have thought.
Yes, we are indeed screwed. The scientifically and economically obvious solution - swift, hard, temporary lockdown followed by efficient testing, tracing and isolation - appears to be politically and technically beyond us.
SAGE needs more engineers who are happy with approximations and an extra foot of concrete reinforcement to cover error, whereas scientists prefer precision by which time it might be too late. Engineers would also know that making sudden changes to slow feedback systems like this one can lead to wild oscillations. More psychologists too please.
That's especially true given the asymmetry of over-cooking and under-cooking the restrictions; if you overdo it you can release them a bit earlier. The global evidence seems to be that this doesn't cost much cash either. If you underdo it you have to jam on the brakes harder and more people are sick or dead. As we are seeing at the moment.
Though given the carping about some of the existing (probably insufficient) restrictions, I'm not sure that the government or media are ready for "we're putting in excess restrictions to start with to be on the safe side".
Five months of a London winter. With no pubs, restaurants, or gatherings indoors. Just tiny huddles of freezing people standing in the frigid rain in the park.
As the economy collapses.
I don't think the lockdown maniacs have quite worked out what that will do to mental health.
Sorry, the article doesn't show that public opinion is turning if you read it. It does shows that people are heartily fed up with restrictions, and that the willingness amongst some not to comply is creeping up.
There's no contradiction here. You can be fed up with the restrictions, and reluctant to have more of them, but still support them as necessary to drive down the virus. I suspect that's where most of the public are.
I would suggest that its the standard - people agree with things in principle, but find it very unfair (and, indeed, confusing) when its applied to them.
Yes, we are indeed screwed. The scientifically and economically obvious solution - swift, hard, temporary lockdown followed by efficient testing, tracing and isolation - appears to be politically and technically beyond us.
We need one next week and then a slow relaxation into the New Year.
This tier system is going to turn into a similar thing to airbridges. Changes every week or two, nobody can really remember, and then the public go mad when little Johnny's birthday has to be cancelled because the tier changed the night before and the parents screaming no fair, the government didn't tell us that COVID was getting bad in our area.
Nuanced and granulated does tend to become cluttered and confusing when the intended audience is the public. I decry the trend for brutalist sloganeering in our politics but for this sort of thing it is probably the best way.
The public needs to know to keep 2m distance and wear masks in public, how many people they can meet inside and outside their homes, recognise the symptoms of Covid, and what they need to do to self-isolate. That's it. Keep the messaging simple.
The other stuff is up to operators to manage. They stick their house rules, which are agreed with authorities/compliant with regulation, at the entrance to their establishments and on their websites. If authorities tighten up or relax, operators update their house rules accordingly.
Yes, we are indeed screwed. The scientifically and economically obvious solution - swift, hard, temporary lockdown followed by efficient testing, tracing and isolation - appears to be politically and technically beyond us.
If it is politically beyond us then presumably you mean that the majority of people don't want it?
Five months of a London winter. With no pubs, restaurants, or gatherings indoors. Just tiny huddles of freezing people standing in the frigid rain in the park.
As the economy collapses.
I don't think the lockdown maniacs have quite worked out what that will do to mental health.
Who do you mean by lockdown maniacs? Those of us advocating a swift, hard, temporary lockdown (in order to bring cases down to a level manageable by test and trace) are doing so precisely because we don't want an endless state of semi-lockdown. We could even be out in time for Christmas!
Is this the best they can do? Resurrrect a controversy from the summer that did not reverberate with the public and saw a grand total of (checks notes) two statutes being removed, one by a council.
It is a bit desperate, isn't it. One would not be utterly shocked by a leaked rumour next week that Oliver Dowden has mandated the singing of Swing Low Sweet Chariot and the half-time eating of Melton Mowbray pork pies at all sporting occasions once crowds are allowed back.
Five months of a London winter. With no pubs, restaurants, or gatherings indoors. Just tiny huddles of freezing people standing in the frigid rain in the park.
As the economy collapses.
I don't think the lockdown maniacs have quite worked out what that will do to mental health.
As long as they're disagreeing with their Emanuel Goldstein's it doesn't matter
Five months of a London winter. With no pubs, restaurants, or gatherings indoors. Just tiny huddles of freezing people standing in the frigid rain in the park.
As the economy collapses.
I don't think the lockdown maniacs have quite worked out what that will do to mental health.
It was a wet, cold afternoon in December, and the clocks were striking thirteen.
Five months of a London winter. With no pubs, restaurants, or gatherings indoors. Just tiny huddles of freezing people standing in the frigid rain in the park.
As the economy collapses.
I don't think the lockdown maniacs have quite worked out what that will do to mental health.
Who do you mean by lockdown maniacs? Those of us advocating a swift, hard, temporary lockdown (in order to bring cases down to a level manageable by test and trace) are doing so precisely because we don't want an endless state of semi-lockdown!
Sorry, the article doesn't show that public opinion is turning if you read it. It does shows that people are heartily fed up with restrictions, and that the willingness amongst some not to comply is creeping up.
There's no contradiction here. You can be fed up with the restrictions, and reluctant to have more of them, but still support them as necessary to drive down the virus. I suspect that's where most of the public are.
So Sir Keir Starmer is for the restrictions but also not for the restrictions, he welcomes the economic package but doesn't welcome the economic package, and he's in favour of the plan but also not in favour of the plan. I mean, honestly is there any wonder the Tories are back ahead in VI despite being fookin useless
Comments
Operation Xmas or some such.
Not recommending it necessarily, but you could see the psychology of it.
But...in the UK what we have seen is a significant proportion of the population when given an inch take a mile (we do have some of the opposite who still lock themselves away) e.g. the advice not to travel, people in March still went on holidays, and as soon as restrictions relaxed a bit, 10,000s headed for the same spots and we had loads of Vox Pops of people going this is outrageous it is so busy, its spreading COVID, no masks...so why the f##k are you still there, talking to the media, with pint in hand and no mask?
I think Brits are actually pretty compliant if given a clear lead. Once we're given reason to suspect our leaders have no more idea than we do, then that goes out of the window.
But I absolutely agree about making decisions earlier. Proactive beats reactive every time in a pandemic.
Anyway, Greece's performance is exceptional: only 456 deaths out of a population of 10-11 million. The equivalent in the UK would be about 3,000 deaths rather than 43,000, We'd be pretty relaxed here if we had data like Greece's. What's their secret?
17% ahead and Biden would have no trouble at all taking Texas, Ohio, Florida - in fact all remotely swing states. Clearly he's not going to do that.
"Zogby Analytics Poll Methodology
US Likely Voters
9/25/20 - 9/27/20"
Hmmmm
Morning Consult is
"The latest national results reflect surveys conducted with 16,045 likely voters from October 9-11, 2020. "
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mi/michigan_democratic_presidential_primary-5224.html#polls
Yes outside transmission is much harder, but just wear the mask all the time, regardless of the official rule.
Not saying I approve. But it is an option.
Otherwise Christmas could be carnage. Literally.
I only ask because their write-up of that 17% lead says: "This is just short of the lead in the popular vote that Ronal Raegan enjoyed in his second landslide victory", which doesn't inspire confidence!
https://www.opinium.com/resource-center/biden-extends-lead-over-trump-to-17-points/
https://twitter.com/Oldfirmfacts1/status/1316025541246373889?s=20
Incoming idiot journo with tweet saying cases up 25% in a day.
Two basic precautions that, if followed, reduce virus spread and might avoid further restrictions.
Gotta like the +8/+9 cluster from MC/IBD/YouGov. That's the Herd. It feels right.
53 v 45.
RustBelt goes. So does Arizona, NC, Georgia, Ohio.
Florida behaves bespokely and stays Red. Texas close but no cigar. Next time.
338 v 200.
This is my "keeping it real" base forecast. But hoping for more.
The popularity of 'bad science' even among 'scientists' since March may explain why Peter Hitchens is angry about masks but hasn't got worked up about distancing or hygiene, both of which do work.
https://twitter.com/spectator/status/1315926099336011776?s=20
At the moment, they can pontificate to their heart's content. But if they have power, they will end up annoying someone, and it's likely that some of those someones will be part of the current Conservative coalition.
Culture wars are much better shouted about than actually fought.
I think the initial lockdown only worked because the government said it was only going to be a few weeks.
Either way, if he maps out a proper position, that will be good for us all even if you disagree
Hyufd, what you say is not demonstrably wrong but just how many angels do you have balancing on that particular pin?
* Andy Burnham managed to do so in the same interview on risk of spread in restaurants.
I wonder if Dominic Cummings might have shifted the whole thing. SAGE was supposed to be the buffer between the real scientists and politicians, but Cummings has usurped that role, unhelpfully widening the gap between Boris and the boffins.
As a leading biographer of Churchill, Boris should recognise that Cummings is no Professor Lindemann.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-most-powerful-scientist-ever/
Big big moment that will be.
Point is, the sum of interventions proposed right don't get R down to 1. Sooner or later governments will have to lock down. They don't have the authority to lock down sooner to prevent more misery later. Johnson certainly doesn't. So they take half hearted measures instead. They missed the opportunity to take rigorous steps earlier that would have prevented lockdown at any time as well, as as saving many lives and some adverse economic effects.
Keir calls for lockdown 2.0?
There's no contradiction here. You can be fed up with the restrictions, and reluctant to have more of them, but still support them as necessary to drive down the virus. I suspect that's where most of the public are.
Keir absolutely should have had a position already on this and I was right to call him out for it. Otherwise, he's been doing well.
If you are implementing it as an emergency measure in response to rising hospitalization numbers then it's less understandable since you don't have lower hospitalization numbers after just two weeks.
Doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
UK case summary yesterday
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1316006464163467264?s=20
Though given the carping about some of the existing (probably insufficient) restrictions, I'm not sure that the government or media are ready for "we're putting in excess restrictions to start with to be on the safe side".
As the economy collapses.
I don't think the lockdown maniacs have quite worked out what that will do to mental health.
The other stuff is up to operators to manage. They stick their house rules, which are agreed with authorities/compliant with regulation, at the entrance to their establishments and on their websites. If authorities tighten up or relax, operators update their house rules accordingly.
Statues.
I mean, honestly is there any wonder the Tories are back ahead in VI despite being fookin useless