Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

And the Answers Are ….? The circuit breaker proposal – politicalbetting.com

1234568»

Comments

  • RobDRobD Posts: 49,727
    Andy_JS said:

    Sorry to sound like an old fart but why does everyone use the word "impacted" instead of "affected"?

    You don't have to remember whether it's effected or affected? :p
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 35,061
    Andy_JS said:

    Sorry to sound like an old fart but why does everyone use the word "impacted" instead of "affected"? Lance Price just used it on the BBC News paper review.

    It's more impactful.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 9,290
    LadyG said:

    MaxPB said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sunak to walk if Johnson goes full national lockdown?

    It is a very real possibility. He knows that a second lockdown will ruin the country. The economic cost of going back to what we were doing in April and then either trying to switch the economy on and off until the warm weather comes next Summer (or simply just leaving it switched off until then) is impossible to bear.

    The Treasury has apparently estimated the cost of full national lockdown at £25bn per week. That would be £700bn if it started now and carried on until the end of next April. We might as well all commit mass suicide and get the agony over with rather than attempting something that insane. You can't imagine that Sunak would want to be associated with such a course of action.

    There are absolutely no good options available to the Government and mass casualties are inevitable. Yet eternal lockdown is the worst of the lot - and it's not at all clear that trying to do it again will even delay those casualties like it did the first time around. It's arguable - and backed up by the hospital admission stats, which suggest that the initial wave of infections peaked a few days before lockdown started - that it only worked through public terror of the virus and very high levels of cooperation with the suppression measures. This time around, public faith in and goodwill towards the Government is spent, and a large fraction of the population won't comply - because they have concluded that it is very unlikely to do them serious harm, or they don't believe that lockdown does any good, or they loathe the restrictions and bridle against the loss of liberty and the real damage that it causes to their lives, or some combination of all of those things. This means that social contact in private dwellings, which is impossible to police effectively beyond dealing with the most egregious breaches, is liable to continue unchecked even if every pub, bar, restaurant, gym, swimming pool, salon, place of worship and village hall in the land is padlocked for the duration.

    Neither a hyper-efficient tracking and testing programme nor a vaccine is coming to rescue us any time soon. The former will probably never be achieved and the latter might not either. That leaves the country in a total bind, as @Cyclefree succinctly describes, and everyone in Government will know that too. All we can now do is either roll the dice on risk segmentation, or try to save more lives with full-on suppression now - at the cost of national bankruptcy and a consequent tsunami of corpses in maybe three months' time.

    From what is reported one suspects that the latter option is not supported by the Chancellor.
    Again, if you have a sufficiently large number of rapid tests, you don’t need a track & trace program. You just isolate everyone who tests positive.

    That is achievable with current technology. Though God knows how long it would take from a standing start.

    Perhaps one of those highly paid consultants could look into it.
    They could get ten thousand highly paid consultants to look into it for a thousand years. We are never getting to millions of tests a day, all processed and results sent out within hours. It's a complete fantasy.
    We don't need to, a hotel based isolation system works with the testing system we've already got.
    We are running at nearly 20,000 confirmed cases a day right now. That's not something with which a "hotel-based isolation system" can cope.
    Max talks sense. What is your alternative?
    Indeed. Just because we should've been doing something months ago doesn't mean we shouldn't start now.
    We pay to isolate. We fill empty hotels and use underemployed caterers and restaurants to fèed them.
    Not doing so is a bit like saying there is no point quitting smoking cos I already have bronchitis. And it couldn't get any worse, could it?
  • guybrushguybrush Posts: 132
    I feel it should be enunciated as "I... AM.... LONDON!!!" for full effect. While pissed, standing on the roof of a black cab, in London Underground branded boxers.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,456
    edited October 14

    dixiedean said:

    MaxPB said:

    Total meltdown London imminent

    Sadiq wants it

    He's a complete fucking moron. London has an average rate of around 100 per 100k for the last 7 days, he's going to destroy London's hospitality industry for nothing.

    Honestly, I wish we had a proper mayor in charge. Sadiq just doesn't get London, he doesn't understand what makes London what it is.
    Clearly you don't like Khan. But to suggest he doesn't get London is absurd. Born in Tooting in 1970, educated at the local comp, and as far as I can see has never lived anywhere except London. Your observation is at best patronising. Disagree with his policies by all means, but don't say he doesn't understand London.
    I am London. He doesn't get London
    If you are London why did you elect a man who doesn't get you?
    I don't vote for him
    Well most Londoners did, and will again. So maybe they are more London than the minority like you?
    If Alan Sugar was up against Khan, Khan would probably lose, he will win again mainly because no really strong opponent threw their hat into the ring to challenge him
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 35,061
    dixiedean said:

    LadyG said:

    MaxPB said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sunak to walk if Johnson goes full national lockdown?

    It is a very real possibility. He knows that a second lockdown will ruin the country. The economic cost of going back to what we were doing in April and then either trying to switch the economy on and off until the warm weather comes next Summer (or simply just leaving it switched off until then) is impossible to bear.

    The Treasury has apparently estimated the cost of full national lockdown at £25bn per week. That would be £700bn if it started now and carried on until the end of next April. We might as well all commit mass suicide and get the agony over with rather than attempting something that insane. You can't imagine that Sunak would want to be associated with such a course of action.

    There are absolutely no good options available to the Government and mass casualties are inevitable. Yet eternal lockdown is the worst of the lot - and it's not at all clear that trying to do it again will even delay those casualties like it did the first time around. It's arguable - and backed up by the hospital admission stats, which suggest that the initial wave of infections peaked a few days before lockdown started - that it only worked through public terror of the virus and very high levels of cooperation with the suppression measures. This time around, public faith in and goodwill towards the Government is spent, and a large fraction of the population won't comply - because they have concluded that it is very unlikely to do them serious harm, or they don't believe that lockdown does any good, or they loathe the restrictions and bridle against the loss of liberty and the real damage that it causes to their lives, or some combination of all of those things. This means that social contact in private dwellings, which is impossible to police effectively beyond dealing with the most egregious breaches, is liable to continue unchecked even if every pub, bar, restaurant, gym, swimming pool, salon, place of worship and village hall in the land is padlocked for the duration.

    Neither a hyper-efficient tracking and testing programme nor a vaccine is coming to rescue us any time soon. The former will probably never be achieved and the latter might not either. That leaves the country in a total bind, as @Cyclefree succinctly describes, and everyone in Government will know that too. All we can now do is either roll the dice on risk segmentation, or try to save more lives with full-on suppression now - at the cost of national bankruptcy and a consequent tsunami of corpses in maybe three months' time.

    From what is reported one suspects that the latter option is not supported by the Chancellor.
    Again, if you have a sufficiently large number of rapid tests, you don’t need a track & trace program. You just isolate everyone who tests positive.

    That is achievable with current technology. Though God knows how long it would take from a standing start.

    Perhaps one of those highly paid consultants could look into it.
    They could get ten thousand highly paid consultants to look into it for a thousand years. We are never getting to millions of tests a day, all processed and results sent out within hours. It's a complete fantasy.
    We don't need to, a hotel based isolation system works with the testing system we've already got.
    We are running at nearly 20,000 confirmed cases a day right now. That's not something with which a "hotel-based isolation system" can cope.
    Max talks sense. What is your alternative?
    Indeed. Just because we should've been doing something months ago doesn't mean we shouldn't start now.
    We pay to isolate. We fill empty hotels and use underemployed caterers and restaurants to fèed them.
    Not doing so is a bit like saying there is no point quitting smoking cos I already have bronchitis. And it couldn't get any worse, could it?
    Centralised quarantine seemed to play a big role in China getting on top of it. I think the optics of it are also better than just instructing people to isolate on their own. You would have something tangible to report on that would help harness the sense of solidarity we briefly had at the beginning of this.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 7,948
    edited October 14
    I keep wondering how we would have dealt with this crisis had it happened in various other years like say 2010, 2000, 1990 and 1980, instead of this year. The problem is you can't confidently say we're coping with it better now than we would have done in those years despite technology being more advanced.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 143

    The Government have to choose which bad headline they want.

    They can either have one about overpaid consultants or they can have one about track & trace being a complete and abject failure.

    Admittedly they might conspire to get both if they don't resource /scope/sponsor it properly but capping the market when they need skilled and urgent resources in an emergency situation is a recipe for disaster.
    What experience do BCG have of managing pandemics?
    I don't carry any card for BCG - it's not a consultant I've worked for or with - but they will have highly capable and experienced people in data interrogation, analysis and complex project and portfolio management who've got a track record of quick delivery in very urgent environments.

    The public sector simply won't have the number of required resources or skills to do it - and they pay poor salaries, typically 30-40% below what the best people can get in the private sector and don't operate at anything like the same velocity - so are left with little source but to temporarily bring consultants in if they want to get it done.
    The public sector has highly capable and experienced people in data interrogation, analysis and complex project and portfolio management who've got a track record of quick delivery in managing public health emergences. However, we're all feeling a bit demoralised and distracted by the decision to break up Public Health England, throwing everyone into a state of uncertainty.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 728
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    MaxPB said:

    Total meltdown London imminent

    Sadiq wants it

    He's a complete fucking moron. London has an average rate of around 100 per 100k for the last 7 days, he's going to destroy London's hospitality industry for nothing.

    Honestly, I wish we had a proper mayor in charge. Sadiq just doesn't get London, he doesn't understand what makes London what it is.
    Clearly you don't like Khan. But to suggest he doesn't get London is absurd. Born in Tooting in 1970, educated at the local comp, and as far as I can see has never lived anywhere except London. Your observation is at best patronising. Disagree with his policies by all means, but don't say he doesn't understand London.
    I am London. He doesn't get London
    If you are London why did you elect a man who doesn't get you?
    I don't vote for him
    Well most Londoners did, and will again. So maybe they are more London than the minority like you?
    If Alan Sugar was up against Khan, Khan would probably lose, he will win again mainly because no really strong opponent threw their hat into the ring to challenge him
    Is that a joke? Do you see Alan Sugar as London's Trump or something?
    Still, at least you recognise that your party has chosen an embarrassingly poor candidate in Shaun Bailey.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 22,814

    MaxPB said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sunak to walk if Johnson goes full national lockdown?

    It is a very real possibility. He knows that a second lockdown will ruin the country. The economic cost of going back to what we were doing in April and then either trying to switch the economy on and off until the warm weather comes next Summer (or simply just leaving it switched off until then) is impossible to bear.

    The Treasury has apparently estimated the cost of full national lockdown at £25bn per week. That would be £700bn if it started now and carried on until the end of next April. We might as well all commit mass suicide and get the agony over with rather than attempting something that insane. You can't imagine that Sunak would want to be associated with such a course of action.

    There are absolutely no good options available to the Government and mass casualties are inevitable. Yet eternal lockdown is the worst of the lot - and it's not at all clear that trying to do it again will even delay those casualties like it did the first time around. It's arguable - and backed up by the hospital admission stats, which suggest that the initial wave of infections peaked a few days before lockdown started - that it only worked through public terror of the virus and very high levels of cooperation with the suppression measures. This time around, public faith in and goodwill towards the Government is spent, and a large fraction of the population won't comply - because they have concluded that it is very unlikely to do them serious harm, or they don't believe that lockdown does any good, or they loathe the restrictions and bridle against the loss of liberty and the real damage that it causes to their lives, or some combination of all of those things. This means that social contact in private dwellings, which is impossible to police effectively beyond dealing with the most egregious breaches, is liable to continue unchecked even if every pub, bar, restaurant, gym, swimming pool, salon, place of worship and village hall in the land is padlocked for the duration.

    Neither a hyper-efficient tracking and testing programme nor a vaccine is coming to rescue us any time soon. The former will probably never be achieved and the latter might not either. That leaves the country in a total bind, as @Cyclefree succinctly describes, and everyone in Government will know that too. All we can now do is either roll the dice on risk segmentation, or try to save more lives with full-on suppression now - at the cost of national bankruptcy and a consequent tsunami of corpses in maybe three months' time.

    From what is reported one suspects that the latter option is not supported by the Chancellor.
    Again, if you have a sufficiently large number of rapid tests, you don’t need a track & trace program. You just isolate everyone who tests positive.

    That is achievable with current technology. Though God knows how long it would take from a standing start.

    Perhaps one of those highly paid consultants could look into it.
    They could get ten thousand highly paid consultants to look into it for a thousand years. We are never getting to millions of tests a day, all processed and results sent out within hours. It's a complete fantasy.
    We don't need to, a hotel based isolation system works with the testing system we've already got.
    We are running at nearly 20,000 confirmed cases a day right now. That's not something with which a "hotel-based isolation system" can cope.
    We absolutely could. Those 20,000 cases aren't all in one place, we don't need someone in Whitehall booking 20,000 hotel rooms. Local authorities could get this off the ground very quickly if they had the funding in place for it and the government put all of the relevant laws in place.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 26,845

    MaxPB said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sunak to walk if Johnson goes full national lockdown?

    It is a very real possibility. He knows that a second lockdown will ruin the country. The economic cost of going back to what we were doing in April and then either trying to switch the economy on and off until the warm weather comes next Summer (or simply just leaving it switched off until then) is impossible to bear.

    The Treasury has apparently estimated the cost of full national lockdown at £25bn per week. That would be £700bn if it started now and carried on until the end of next April. We might as well all commit mass suicide and get the agony over with rather than attempting something that insane. You can't imagine that Sunak would want to be associated with such a course of action.

    There are absolutely no good options available to the Government and mass casualties are inevitable. Yet eternal lockdown is the worst of the lot - and it's not at all clear that trying to do it again will even delay those casualties like it did the first time around. It's arguable - and backed up by the hospital admission stats, which suggest that the initial wave of infections peaked a few days before lockdown started - that it only worked through public terror of the virus and very high levels of cooperation with the suppression measures. This time around, public faith in and goodwill towards the Government is spent, and a large fraction of the population won't comply - because they have concluded that it is very unlikely to do them serious harm, or they don't believe that lockdown does any good, or they loathe the restrictions and bridle against the loss of liberty and the real damage that it causes to their lives, or some combination of all of those things. This means that social contact in private dwellings, which is impossible to police effectively beyond dealing with the most egregious breaches, is liable to continue unchecked even if every pub, bar, restaurant, gym, swimming pool, salon, place of worship and village hall in the land is padlocked for the duration.

    Neither a hyper-efficient tracking and testing programme nor a vaccine is coming to rescue us any time soon. The former will probably never be achieved and the latter might not either. That leaves the country in a total bind, as @Cyclefree succinctly describes, and everyone in Government will know that too. All we can now do is either roll the dice on risk segmentation, or try to save more lives with full-on suppression now - at the cost of national bankruptcy and a consequent tsunami of corpses in maybe three months' time.

    From what is reported one suspects that the latter option is not supported by the Chancellor.
    Again, if you have a sufficiently large number of rapid tests, you don’t need a track & trace program. You just isolate everyone who tests positive.

    That is achievable with current technology. Though God knows how long it would take from a standing start.

    Perhaps one of those highly paid consultants could look into it.
    They could get ten thousand highly paid consultants to look into it for a thousand years. We are never getting to millions of tests a day, all processed and results sent out within hours. It's a complete fantasy.
    We don't need to, a hotel based isolation system works with the testing system we've already got.
    We are running at nearly 20,000 confirmed cases a day right now. That's not something with which a "hotel-based isolation system" can cope.
    Why not ?
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 1,805
    MrEd said:

    Drutt said:

    Drutt said:

    We're all expecting Dems to vote early and by post compared to Reps, aren't we? Let me take you to sunny Wisconsin.

    R won Waukesha County, WI roughly 65-35 or thereabouts in 2016, ignoring 3rd parties. It's run-of-the-mill American suburbia, straight out of an Updike novel. Translating the national polling, you'd expect to see R60-D40, and maybe 50-50 at this stage once you allow for the Dem-votes-early phenomenon.

    But the TargetEarly figures show Reps winning somewhere between 70-30 and 90-10 so far. TE figures aren't votes, of course, they are counts of people who have declared their affiliation and returned a vote, so it can't say which way the indis went, hence the uncertainty. It does suggest that Reps have done a lot of voter reg and GOTV round that way though.

    If you play around with the TE site you can see that urban WI is going more Dem, rural WI is going more Rep, and Rep might just be gaining in suburbia too.

    R win Wisconsin is 11/4.

    While I was nerdily looking at this it appears the leaders of the country's major cities decided they want to revert to Soviet levels of economic activity again. Nice work, idiots.
    Good work Drutt. It gets forgotten but Trump has been on an election footing for 4 years and the Republicans have been maximising their GOTV capabilities by going round door to door while the Democrats have relied on virtual campaigns
    Virginia at 6/1 might also be worth a punt
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 2,634
    guybrush said:

    I feel it should be enunciated as "I... AM.... LONDON!!!" for full effect. While pissed, standing on the roof of a black cab, in London Underground branded boxers.

    That's what I do. Why, how do you do it?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,456

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    MaxPB said:

    Total meltdown London imminent

    Sadiq wants it

    He's a complete fucking moron. London has an average rate of around 100 per 100k for the last 7 days, he's going to destroy London's hospitality industry for nothing.

    Honestly, I wish we had a proper mayor in charge. Sadiq just doesn't get London, he doesn't understand what makes London what it is.
    Clearly you don't like Khan. But to suggest he doesn't get London is absurd. Born in Tooting in 1970, educated at the local comp, and as far as I can see has never lived anywhere except London. Your observation is at best patronising. Disagree with his policies by all means, but don't say he doesn't understand London.
    I am London. He doesn't get London
    If you are London why did you elect a man who doesn't get you?
    I don't vote for him
    Well most Londoners did, and will again. So maybe they are more London than the minority like you?
    If Alan Sugar was up against Khan, Khan would probably lose, he will win again mainly because no really strong opponent threw their hat into the ring to challenge him
    Is that a joke? Do you see Alan Sugar as London's Trump or something?
    Still, at least you recognise that your party has chosen an embarrassingly poor candidate in Shaun Bailey.

    He could win as an independent and Sugar unlike Trump made most of his own money, he did not inherit it.

    Bailey was the best on offer, none of the Tory candidates would have won, Sugar might have won as an Independent, back in 2009 40% of Londoners said they would vote for Sugar in the first round if he ran as an Independent

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1173974/Youre-hired-Sir-Alan-Sugar-tipped-favourite-Mayor-London.html
  • Lot of non-London retards on here tonight

    Presumably relying on London money to pay their benefits

    Anyway goodnight all - back tomorrow (maybe) :lol
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 9,290
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sunak to walk if Johnson goes full national lockdown?

    It is a very real possibility. He knows that a second lockdown will ruin the country. The economic cost of going back to what we were doing in April and then either trying to switch the economy on and off until the warm weather comes next Summer (or simply just leaving it switched off until then) is impossible to bear.

    The Treasury has apparently estimated the cost of full national lockdown at £25bn per week. That would be £700bn if it started now and carried on until the end of next April. We might as well all commit mass suicide and get the agony over with rather than attempting something that insane. You can't imagine that Sunak would want to be associated with such a course of action.

    There are absolutely no good options available to the Government and mass casualties are inevitable. Yet eternal lockdown is the worst of the lot - and it's not at all clear that trying to do it again will even delay those casualties like it did the first time around. It's arguable - and backed up by the hospital admission stats, which suggest that the initial wave of infections peaked a few days before lockdown started - that it only worked through public terror of the virus and very high levels of cooperation with the suppression measures. This time around, public faith in and goodwill towards the Government is spent, and a large fraction of the population won't comply - because they have concluded that it is very unlikely to do them serious harm, or they don't believe that lockdown does any good, or they loathe the restrictions and bridle against the loss of liberty and the real damage that it causes to their lives, or some combination of all of those things. This means that social contact in private dwellings, which is impossible to police effectively beyond dealing with the most egregious breaches, is liable to continue unchecked even if every pub, bar, restaurant, gym, swimming pool, salon, place of worship and village hall in the land is padlocked for the duration.

    Neither a hyper-efficient tracking and testing programme nor a vaccine is coming to rescue us any time soon. The former will probably never be achieved and the latter might not either. That leaves the country in a total bind, as @Cyclefree succinctly describes, and everyone in Government will know that too. All we can now do is either roll the dice on risk segmentation, or try to save more lives with full-on suppression now - at the cost of national bankruptcy and a consequent tsunami of corpses in maybe three months' time.

    From what is reported one suspects that the latter option is not supported by the Chancellor.
    Again, if you have a sufficiently large number of rapid tests, you don’t need a track & trace program. You just isolate everyone who tests positive.

    That is achievable with current technology. Though God knows how long it would take from a standing start.

    Perhaps one of those highly paid consultants could look into it.
    They could get ten thousand highly paid consultants to look into it for a thousand years. We are never getting to millions of tests a day, all processed and results sent out within hours. It's a complete fantasy.
    We don't need to, a hotel based isolation system works with the testing system we've already got.
    We are running at nearly 20,000 confirmed cases a day right now. That's not something with which a "hotel-based isolation system" can cope.
    We absolutely could. Those 20,000 cases aren't all in one place, we don't need someone in Whitehall booking 20,000 hotel rooms. Local authorities could get this off the ground very quickly if they had the funding in place for it and the government put all of the relevant laws in place.
    The issue seems to, once again, be a centralisation problem. It doesn't have to be big hotels. A couple of rooms above a pub with the local caff on expenses.
    These add up.
    But only local councils have that knowledge.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 49,727

    Lot of non-London retards on here tonight

    Presumably relying on London money to pay their benefits

    Anyway goodnight all - back tomorrow (maybe) :lol

    Too much London Pride?

    I'll get my coat.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 35,061
    dixiedean said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sunak to walk if Johnson goes full national lockdown?

    It is a very real possibility. He knows that a second lockdown will ruin the country. The economic cost of going back to what we were doing in April and then either trying to switch the economy on and off until the warm weather comes next Summer (or simply just leaving it switched off until then) is impossible to bear.

    The Treasury has apparently estimated the cost of full national lockdown at £25bn per week. That would be £700bn if it started now and carried on until the end of next April. We might as well all commit mass suicide and get the agony over with rather than attempting something that insane. You can't imagine that Sunak would want to be associated with such a course of action.

    There are absolutely no good options available to the Government and mass casualties are inevitable. Yet eternal lockdown is the worst of the lot - and it's not at all clear that trying to do it again will even delay those casualties like it did the first time around. It's arguable - and backed up by the hospital admission stats, which suggest that the initial wave of infections peaked a few days before lockdown started - that it only worked through public terror of the virus and very high levels of cooperation with the suppression measures. This time around, public faith in and goodwill towards the Government is spent, and a large fraction of the population won't comply - because they have concluded that it is very unlikely to do them serious harm, or they don't believe that lockdown does any good, or they loathe the restrictions and bridle against the loss of liberty and the real damage that it causes to their lives, or some combination of all of those things. This means that social contact in private dwellings, which is impossible to police effectively beyond dealing with the most egregious breaches, is liable to continue unchecked even if every pub, bar, restaurant, gym, swimming pool, salon, place of worship and village hall in the land is padlocked for the duration.

    Neither a hyper-efficient tracking and testing programme nor a vaccine is coming to rescue us any time soon. The former will probably never be achieved and the latter might not either. That leaves the country in a total bind, as @Cyclefree succinctly describes, and everyone in Government will know that too. All we can now do is either roll the dice on risk segmentation, or try to save more lives with full-on suppression now - at the cost of national bankruptcy and a consequent tsunami of corpses in maybe three months' time.

    From what is reported one suspects that the latter option is not supported by the Chancellor.
    Again, if you have a sufficiently large number of rapid tests, you don’t need a track & trace program. You just isolate everyone who tests positive.

    That is achievable with current technology. Though God knows how long it would take from a standing start.

    Perhaps one of those highly paid consultants could look into it.
    They could get ten thousand highly paid consultants to look into it for a thousand years. We are never getting to millions of tests a day, all processed and results sent out within hours. It's a complete fantasy.
    We don't need to, a hotel based isolation system works with the testing system we've already got.
    We are running at nearly 20,000 confirmed cases a day right now. That's not something with which a "hotel-based isolation system" can cope.
    We absolutely could. Those 20,000 cases aren't all in one place, we don't need someone in Whitehall booking 20,000 hotel rooms. Local authorities could get this off the ground very quickly if they had the funding in place for it and the government put all of the relevant laws in place.
    The issue seems to, once again, be a centralisation problem. It doesn't have to be big hotels. A couple of rooms above a pub with the local caff on expenses.
    These add up.
    But only local councils have that knowledge.
    In the early stages I thought this kind of thing could gradually scale up, and as the number of key workers with antibodies grew, you would also stand more chance of being able to manage risk segmentation effectively.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 15,166

    Sunak to walk if Johnson goes full national lockdown?

    It is a very real possibility. He knows that a second lockdown will ruin the country. The economic cost of going back to what we were doing in April and then either trying to switch the economy on and off until the warm weather comes next Summer (or simply just leaving it switched off until then) is impossible to bear.

    The Treasury has apparently estimated the cost of full national lockdown at £25bn per week. That would be £700bn if it started now and carried on until the end of next April. We might as well all commit mass suicide and get the agony over with rather than attempting something that insane. You can't imagine that Sunak would want to be associated with such a course of action.

    There are absolutely no good options available to the Government and mass casualties are inevitable. Yet eternal lockdown is the worst of the lot - and it's not at all clear that trying to do it again will even delay those casualties like it did the first time around. It's arguable - and backed up by the hospital admission stats, which suggest that the initial wave of infections peaked a few days before lockdown started - that it only worked through public terror of the virus and very high levels of cooperation with the suppression measures. This time around, public faith in and goodwill towards the Government is spent, and a large fraction of the population won't comply - because they have concluded that it is very unlikely to do them serious harm, or they don't believe that lockdown does any good, or they loathe the restrictions and bridle against the loss of liberty and the real damage that it causes to their lives, or some combination of all of those things. This means that social contact in private dwellings, which is impossible to police effectively beyond dealing with the most egregious breaches, is liable to continue unchecked even if every pub, bar, restaurant, gym, swimming pool, salon, place of worship and village hall in the land is padlocked for the duration.

    Neither a hyper-efficient tracking and testing programme nor a vaccine is coming to rescue us any time soon. The former will probably never be achieved and the latter might not either. That leaves the country in a total bind, as @Cyclefree succinctly describes, and everyone in Government will know that too. All we can now do is either roll the dice on risk segmentation, or try to save more lives with full-on suppression now - at the cost of national bankruptcy and a consequent tsunami of corpses in maybe three months' time.

    From what is reported one suspects that the latter option is not supported by the Chancellor.
    You are a ray of sunshine, eh? But we heard this "people won't comply" last time round, and they complied with such alacrity that Johnson felt he had to urge people to go back to work (until he reversed two weeks later). I think people are starting to lock themselves down again without even being asked (and it may be that we're seeing slowing growth as a result. Everyone I know is being fanatical about the rule of 6, and quite a few are simply not meeting anyone at all now, whereas they were being fairly sociable in the summer. I know several people who have decided not to walk out of their front door till the for the rest of this year.

    Sure, it's not everyone, and we've all seen pix of partying crowds, just as we did in the spring - the media like to pick extreme examples. But DIY lockdown is coming, and if Johnson goes with the flow as he usually does in the end, it'll accelerate fast.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 26,845
    ACB apparently has opinions on nothing at all, while she is being interviewed for the Supreme Court.

  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 4,647

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    MaxPB said:

    Total meltdown London imminent

    Sadiq wants it

    He's a complete fucking moron. London has an average rate of around 100 per 100k for the last 7 days, he's going to destroy London's hospitality industry for nothing.

    Honestly, I wish we had a proper mayor in charge. Sadiq just doesn't get London, he doesn't understand what makes London what it is.
    Clearly you don't like Khan. But to suggest he doesn't get London is absurd. Born in Tooting in 1970, educated at the local comp, and as far as I can see has never lived anywhere except London. Your observation is at best patronising. Disagree with his policies by all means, but don't say he doesn't understand London.
    I am London. He doesn't get London
    If you are London why did you elect a man who doesn't get you?
    I don't vote for him
    Then you aren't London.
    Er yes I am
    London Ontario?

    :D:D
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 44,294


    What's this about? What did Macron say?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,731
    Jonathan said:

    We appear to be fucked.

    It is tragic to have squandered the gains of the first lockdown for a package holiday and a cheap meal out.

    "It is your patriotic duty to go to the pub!"
  • houndtanghoundtang Posts: 449
    For goodness sake people wake up. Democracy is dying in this country. Today armed police turned up at a gym in Liverpool that refused to close. Armed police ffs.



    There is no opposition to the insane policy of lockdowns. Bad data and bad science is going virtually unchallenged by politicians and the media. There is talk of mandatory vaccinations - illegal under the Nuremburg Code but openly endorsed by the likes of Tobias Ellwood.

    Meanwhile tomorrow the very concerning Covert Human Intelligence Services Act will be passed - no doubt with Labour abstaining again, and no doubt with no comment whatsoever in the mainstream media. An Act that allows state agencies (including the Food Standards Agency!) to commit any crime on UK soil with total immunity.

    https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/news/the-covert-human-intelligence-sources-criminal-conduct-bill-2020









  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,731
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    He's so image conscious you have to assume he's making a statement with the glasses: "I'm ready to lead."
    Perhaps he needs them to read?
    image
    That's a photo op.
    Wow! He does look Prime Ministerial!
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 7,948
    If this had happened before smartphones were invented the government probably would have had to organise teams of people to visit people's homes, or to ring them up on their landlines. Who knows — that may have been more effective that what's happened so far with track and trace.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 62,613
    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    Drutt said:

    Drutt said:

    We're all expecting Dems to vote early and by post compared to Reps, aren't we? Let me take you to sunny Wisconsin.

    R won Waukesha County, WI roughly 65-35 or thereabouts in 2016, ignoring 3rd parties. It's run-of-the-mill American suburbia, straight out of an Updike novel. Translating the national polling, you'd expect to see R60-D40, and maybe 50-50 at this stage once you allow for the Dem-votes-early phenomenon.

    But the TargetEarly figures show Reps winning somewhere between 70-30 and 90-10 so far. TE figures aren't votes, of course, they are counts of people who have declared their affiliation and returned a vote, so it can't say which way the indis went, hence the uncertainty. It does suggest that Reps have done a lot of voter reg and GOTV round that way though.

    If you play around with the TE site you can see that urban WI is going more Dem, rural WI is going more Rep, and Rep might just be gaining in suburbia too.

    R win Wisconsin is 11/4.

    While I was nerdily looking at this it appears the leaders of the country's major cities decided they want to revert to Soviet levels of economic activity again. Nice work, idiots.
    Good work Drutt. It gets forgotten but Trump has been on an election footing for 4 years and the Republicans have been maximising their GOTV capabilities by going round door to door while the Democrats have relied on virtual campaigns
    Virginia at 6/1 might also be worth a punt
    How much do you want at 13-2 ?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,731



    What's this about? What did Macron say?
    It seems like the Government think they have had a good day.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 62,613
    edited October 14
    Andy_JS said:

    If this had happened before smartphones were invented the government probably would have had to organise teams of people to visit people's homes, or to ring them up on their landlines. Who knows — that may have been more effective that what's happened so far with track and trace.

    The Gov't isn't tracking anyone through their smartphone regarding the Covid App. Well unless you "scan in" a QR code, I think that could send location data back to Serco towers. But the actual alert stuff is p2p.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 49,727
    Pulpstar said:

    Andy_JS said:

    If this had happened before smartphones were invented the government probably would have had to organise teams of people to visit people's homes, or to ring them up on their landlines. Who knows — that may have been more effective that what's happened so far with track and trace.

    The Gov't isn't tracking anyone through their smartphone regarding the Covid App. Well unless you "scan in" a QR code, I think that could send location data back to Serco towers. But the actual alert stuff is p2p.
    Yeah, there's no central database of the proximity tracking data.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,731
    edited October 14



    What's this about? What did Macron say?
    Test et trace est de la merde!

  • EPGEPG Posts: 3,639
    Andy_JS said:

    I keep wondering how we would have dealt with this crisis had it happened in various other years like say 2010, 2000, 1990 and 1980, instead of this year. The problem is you can't confidently say we're coping with it better now than we would have done in those years despite technology being more advanced.

    It's hard to see large numbers of people working from home in 1980-2000 or even in 2010. And certainly without 2020 levels of smartphones and Internet entertainment, people would have gone stir crazy.
  • houndtanghoundtang Posts: 449
    EPG said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I keep wondering how we would have dealt with this crisis had it happened in various other years like say 2010, 2000, 1990 and 1980, instead of this year. The problem is you can't confidently say we're coping with it better now than we would have done in those years despite technology being more advanced.

    It's hard to see large numbers of people working from home in 1980-2000 or even in 2010. And certainly without 2020 levels of smartphones and Internet entertainment, people would have gone stir crazy.
    No leader pre-Blair would have been deranged enough to introduce a lockdown.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 3,639
    houndtang said:

    EPG said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I keep wondering how we would have dealt with this crisis had it happened in various other years like say 2010, 2000, 1990 and 1980, instead of this year. The problem is you can't confidently say we're coping with it better now than we would have done in those years despite technology being more advanced.

    It's hard to see large numbers of people working from home in 1980-2000 or even in 2010. And certainly without 2020 levels of smartphones and Internet entertainment, people would have gone stir crazy.
    No leader pre-Blair would have been deranged enough to introduce a lockdown.
    The costs of a lockdown are way lower now so you can't quite say that. Probably most people enjoy short-term benefits from lockdown by being less exposed to the disease while remaining sedentary, or working less while at home, or in some jurisdictions getting higher welfare than their pre-viral income.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 3,639
    edited October 14
    Has SeanT been on here tonight talking about "life deserving of life", i.e. one step away from Nazi rhetoric about "life unworthy of life"? Is SeanT using actual Nazi rhetoric?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 7,948
    Americans have got to stop being so politically tribal. If they don't, their political system is going to stop functioning, regardless of who wins future elections.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 9,290
    houndtang said:

    For goodness sake people wake up. Democracy is dying in this country. Today armed police turned up at a gym in Liverpool that refused to close. Armed police ffs.



    There is no opposition to the insane policy of lockdowns. Bad data and bad science is going virtually unchallenged by politicians and the media. There is talk of mandatory vaccinations - illegal under the Nuremburg Code but openly endorsed by the likes of Tobias Ellwood.

    Meanwhile tomorrow the very concerning Covert Human Intelligence Services Act will be passed - no doubt with Labour abstaining again, and no doubt with no comment whatsoever in the mainstream media. An Act that allows state agencies (including the Food Standards Agency!) to commit any crime on UK soil with total immunity.

    https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/news/the-covert-human-intelligence-sources-criminal-conduct-bill-2020









    I remember when they just used to turn up at raves.
  • EPG said:

    Has SeanT been on here tonight talking about "life deserving of life", i.e. one step away from Nazi rhetoric about "life unworthy of life"? Is SeanT using actual Nazi rhetoric?

    I don't think that's intentional. I think it's more likely that he's just compensating some deep seated insecurities with an exuberant adulation of vitality, virility and fortitude in any form, which sometimes leads him close to the Leni Riefenstahl aesthetic of yesteryear.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 9,290
    Andy_JS said:

    Americans have got to stop being so politically tribal. If they don't, their political system is going to stop functioning, regardless of who wins future elections.

    As do we.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 9,290
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 62,613
    I know it's California so it won't matter in the big picture overall but this sounds shady as hell
    Smells like possible voter fraud and it's coming from the GOP !
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 419
    Andy_JS said:

    If this had happened before smartphones were invented the government probably would have had to organise teams of people to visit people's homes, or to ring them up on their landlines. Who knows — that may have been more effective that what's happened so far with track and trace.

    Caller display might be the problem here...
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,131
    Scott_xP said:
    Twitter's response is here:

    Basically it's OK to spread lies and propaganda on twitter, but you have to make sure your propaganda doesn't inadvertently contain some information that's true, such as genuine personally-identifying information.

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 51,188
    edited October 15
    Its quite an incredible stance from twitter. This is an article in a mainstream (albeit trashy) newspaper. This isn't a link to some fishy facebook group, which is what the original complaints about the last election involved. Its the equivalent of twitter censoring people sharing a politics article from the Sun.

    The story is definitely being overspun, not I don't think anymore than the 27 million articles on anything Trump / Russia, in which there was plenty of absolute horseshit from papers and media outlets that should know better.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 35,061

    Its quite an incredible stance from twitter. This is an article in a mainstream (albeit trashy) newspaper. This isn't a link to some fishy facebook group. Its the equivalent of twitter censoring people sharing a politics article from the Sun.

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,131
    edited October 15

    Its quite an incredible stance from twitter. This is an article in a mainstream (albeit trashy) newspaper. This isn't a link to some fishy facebook group. Its the equivalent of twitter censoring people sharing a politics article from the Sun.

    Does that make a difference? Is there a situation where hacked information or potentially harmful personal details should be blocked if I post them on pastebin, but should be allowed if they're reproduced in The Sun?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 51,188

    Its quite an incredible stance from twitter. This is an article in a mainstream (albeit trashy) newspaper. This isn't a link to some fishy facebook group. Its the equivalent of twitter censoring people sharing a politics article from the Sun.

    That the equivalent of the "I am apologising for those who took offense" non-apology.....our actions weren't wrong, we just didn't tell people why were doing it clearly enough.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 51,188
    edited October 15

    Its quite an incredible stance from twitter. This is an article in a mainstream (albeit trashy) newspaper. This isn't a link to some fishy facebook group. Its the equivalent of twitter censoring people sharing a politics article from the Sun.

    Does that make a difference? Is there a situation where hacked information or potentially harmful personal details should be blocked if I post them on pastebin, but should be allowed if they're reproduced in The Sun?
    They were happy to do the same with Trump tax returns stories. That was information which was illegally released and personally harmful.

    Twitter were also happy to let all the Snowdon stuff be shared around, that was extremely harmful to national security of many Western countries. There are endless other stories where mainstream outlets have run stories from information gained illegally and twitter haven't taken this stance.

    The thing is the actual story isn't really that big a deal or add that much new.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,131
    edited October 15

    Its quite an incredible stance from twitter. This is an article in a mainstream (albeit trashy) newspaper. This isn't a link to some fishy facebook group. Its the equivalent of twitter censoring people sharing a politics article from the Sun.

    Does that make a difference? Is there a situation where hacked information or potentially harmful personal details should be blocked if I post them on pastebin, but should be allowed if they're reproduced in The Sun?
    They were happy to do the same with Trump tax returns stories. That was information which was illegally released and personally harmful.
    That wasn't the question, I don't know whether there are differences there that apply to their policy in whether the information source is hacking, or whether it divulges PII.

    I'm not trying to defend (or attack) Twitter here - in general I think we'd be better with uncensorable communication channels - I'm just wondering what the principle is that you're advancing, which seems to suggest that maybe it would be OK to block the hacked material or PII if *I* post it, rather than The Sun.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 51,188
    edited October 15

    Its quite an incredible stance from twitter. This is an article in a mainstream (albeit trashy) newspaper. This isn't a link to some fishy facebook group. Its the equivalent of twitter censoring people sharing a politics article from the Sun.

    Does that make a difference? Is there a situation where hacked information or potentially harmful personal details should be blocked if I post them on pastebin, but should be allowed if they're reproduced in The Sun?
    They were happy to do the same with Trump tax returns stories. That was information which was illegally released and personally harmful.
    That wasn't the question, I don't know whether there are differences there that apply to their policy in whether the information source is hacking, or whether it divulges PII.

    I'm not trying to defend (or attack) Twitter here - in general I think we'd be better with uncensorable communication channels - I'm just wondering what the principle is that you're advancing, which seems to suggest that maybe it would be OK to block the hacked material or PII if *I* post it, rather than The Sun.
    I would say that the whole issue of twitter / facebook taking these stances was that they claimed it was to stop the spread of fake news from these dodgy anonymous fake news groups and sites, and from twitter handles that aren't real people. I don't have an issue with that.

    This is a story in a mainstream publication. That is a totally different kettle of fish in my book. If the Post have done something illegal, there are clear chains of command in that organisation who will be challenged over it and can be prosecuted or sued.

    But "hacked" information or information gained illegally by somebody in itself has a long history of being released by the mainstream media.

    This is a very slippery slope. One day we censor the Post, should we censor the Guardian when they get a big illegally gained load of info on tax dodgers? Or as I staid, Snowdon?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 51,188
    edited October 15
    Should twitter have censored Jezza's big announcement on the leaked documents regarding trade talks with the US that included the NHS. That was gained from hacking by the Russians. And should twitter have censored tweets sent out by the likes of the BBC reporting the story?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,131
    edited October 15

    Its quite an incredible stance from twitter. This is an article in a mainstream (albeit trashy) newspaper. This isn't a link to some fishy facebook group. Its the equivalent of twitter censoring people sharing a politics article from the Sun.

    Does that make a difference? Is there a situation where hacked information or potentially harmful personal details should be blocked if I post them on pastebin, but should be allowed if they're reproduced in The Sun?
    They were happy to do the same with Trump tax returns stories. That was information which was illegally released and personally harmful.
    That wasn't the question, I don't know whether there are differences there that apply to their policy in whether the information source is hacking, or whether it divulges PII.

    I'm not trying to defend (or attack) Twitter here - in general I think we'd be better with uncensorable communication channels - I'm just wondering what the principle is that you're advancing, which seems to suggest that maybe it would be OK to block the hacked material or PII if *I* post it, rather than The Sun.
    I would say that the whole issue of twitter / facebook taking these stances was that they claimed it was to stop the spread of fake news from these dodgy anonymous fake looking news groups and sites, and from twitter handles that aren't real people. I don't have an issue with that.

    This is a story in a mainstream publication. That is a totally different kettle of fish in my book. If the Post have done something illegal, there are clear chains of command in that organisation who will be challenged over it and can be prosecuted.

    But "hacked" information or information gained illegally by somebody in itself has a long history of being released by the mainstream media.

    This is a very slippery slope. One day we censor the Post, should we censor the Guardian when they get a big illegally gained load of info on tax dodgers? Or as I staid, Snowdon?
    It may well be a slippery slope but I think the slope starts when you censor *me*, not when you censor The Sun. Even if you somebody can sue The Sun, it's too late, the information has already been published. And you probably can't, at least in the case of hacking, because disseminating hacked documents wouldn't be illegal, even if I did it.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 51,188
    edited October 15

    Its quite an incredible stance from twitter. This is an article in a mainstream (albeit trashy) newspaper. This isn't a link to some fishy facebook group. Its the equivalent of twitter censoring people sharing a politics article from the Sun.

    Does that make a difference? Is there a situation where hacked information or potentially harmful personal details should be blocked if I post them on pastebin, but should be allowed if they're reproduced in The Sun?
    They were happy to do the same with Trump tax returns stories. That was information which was illegally released and personally harmful.
    That wasn't the question, I don't know whether there are differences there that apply to their policy in whether the information source is hacking, or whether it divulges PII.

    I'm not trying to defend (or attack) Twitter here - in general I think we'd be better with uncensorable communication channels - I'm just wondering what the principle is that you're advancing, which seems to suggest that maybe it would be OK to block the hacked material or PII if *I* post it, rather than The Sun.
    I would say that the whole issue of twitter / facebook taking these stances was that they claimed it was to stop the spread of fake news from these dodgy anonymous fake looking news groups and sites, and from twitter handles that aren't real people. I don't have an issue with that.

    This is a story in a mainstream publication. That is a totally different kettle of fish in my book. If the Post have done something illegal, there are clear chains of command in that organisation who will be challenged over it and can be prosecuted.

    But "hacked" information or information gained illegally by somebody in itself has a long history of being released by the mainstream media.

    This is a very slippery slope. One day we censor the Post, should we censor the Guardian when they get a big illegally gained load of info on tax dodgers? Or as I staid, Snowdon?
    It may well be a slippery slope but I think the slope starts when you censor *me*, not when you censor The Sun. Even if you somebody can sue The Sun, it's too late, the information has already been published. But you probably can't, at least in the case of hacking, because disseminating hacked documents wouldn't be illegal, even if I did it.
    See my example of the last GE. It was deemed ok by twitter for everybody to share the hacked NHS US trade documents. And that was from Russian hacking.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,131

    Its quite an incredible stance from twitter. This is an article in a mainstream (albeit trashy) newspaper. This isn't a link to some fishy facebook group. Its the equivalent of twitter censoring people sharing a politics article from the Sun.

    Does that make a difference? Is there a situation where hacked information or potentially harmful personal details should be blocked if I post them on pastebin, but should be allowed if they're reproduced in The Sun?
    They were happy to do the same with Trump tax returns stories. That was information which was illegally released and personally harmful.
    That wasn't the question, I don't know whether there are differences there that apply to their policy in whether the information source is hacking, or whether it divulges PII.

    I'm not trying to defend (or attack) Twitter here - in general I think we'd be better with uncensorable communication channels - I'm just wondering what the principle is that you're advancing, which seems to suggest that maybe it would be OK to block the hacked material or PII if *I* post it, rather than The Sun.
    I would say that the whole issue of twitter / facebook taking these stances was that they claimed it was to stop the spread of fake news from these dodgy anonymous fake looking news groups and sites, and from twitter handles that aren't real people. I don't have an issue with that.

    This is a story in a mainstream publication. That is a totally different kettle of fish in my book. If the Post have done something illegal, there are clear chains of command in that organisation who will be challenged over it and can be prosecuted.

    But "hacked" information or information gained illegally by somebody in itself has a long history of being released by the mainstream media.

    This is a very slippery slope. One day we censor the Post, should we censor the Guardian when they get a big illegally gained load of info on tax dodgers? Or as I staid, Snowdon?
    It may well be a slippery slope but I think the slope starts when you censor *me*, not when you censor The Sun. Even if you somebody can sue The Sun, it's too late, the information has already been published. But you probably can't, at least in the case of hacking, because disseminating hacked documents wouldn't be illegal, even if I did it.
    See my example of the last GE. It was deemed ok by twitter for everybody to share the hacked NHS US trade documents. And that was from Russian hacking.
    You're doing two things here. First you're trying to accuse Twitter of hypocrisy by comparing various different cases. That may be right, but we'd have to hear what Twitter says about them, as they're all different cases.

    But you're also - I think - advocating censoring *me* for things that you wouldn't advocated if The Sun did them. That's what I'm taking issue with: I think you probably shouldn't have any censorship, but if you do, it should depend on the content and provenance of the material, not on who's publishing it.
  • The IMF says austerity is not needed. That is the most important story in the morning papers.
    IMF says austerity is not inevitable to ease pandemic impact on public finances
    https://www.ft.com/content/722ef9c0-36f6-4119-a00b-06d33fced78f (£££)
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 51,188
    There is no way that twitter and facebook can remain consistent after taking this stance. If they were, they will literally having to be censoring a massive chunk of tweets linking mainstream media articles e.g. I am not sure a day goes by without the Guardian running a story based on leaked government documents. Is tweeting a link to the Guardian report now to be censored?
  • Television licence, erm, hold on.

    Government casts doubt on decriminalising non-payment of licence fee
    Oliver Dowden, the Culture Secretary, said decriminalisation would present 'major challenges'

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/14/government-casts-doubt-decriminalising-non-payment-licence-fee/
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 51,188
    edited October 15

    Its quite an incredible stance from twitter. This is an article in a mainstream (albeit trashy) newspaper. This isn't a link to some fishy facebook group. Its the equivalent of twitter censoring people sharing a politics article from the Sun.

    Does that make a difference? Is there a situation where hacked information or potentially harmful personal details should be blocked if I post them on pastebin, but should be allowed if they're reproduced in The Sun?
    They were happy to do the same with Trump tax returns stories. That was information which was illegally released and personally harmful.
    That wasn't the question, I don't know whether there are differences there that apply to their policy in whether the information source is hacking, or whether it divulges PII.

    I'm not trying to defend (or attack) Twitter here - in general I think we'd be better with uncensorable communication channels - I'm just wondering what the principle is that you're advancing, which seems to suggest that maybe it would be OK to block the hacked material or PII if *I* post it, rather than The Sun.
    I would say that the whole issue of twitter / facebook taking these stances was that they claimed it was to stop the spread of fake news from these dodgy anonymous fake looking news groups and sites, and from twitter handles that aren't real people. I don't have an issue with that.

    This is a story in a mainstream publication. That is a totally different kettle of fish in my book. If the Post have done something illegal, there are clear chains of command in that organisation who will be challenged over it and can be prosecuted.

    But "hacked" information or information gained illegally by somebody in itself has a long history of being released by the mainstream media.

    This is a very slippery slope. One day we censor the Post, should we censor the Guardian when they get a big illegally gained load of info on tax dodgers? Or as I staid, Snowdon?
    It may well be a slippery slope but I think the slope starts when you censor *me*, not when you censor The Sun. Even if you somebody can sue The Sun, it's too late, the information has already been published. But you probably can't, at least in the case of hacking, because disseminating hacked documents wouldn't be illegal, even if I did it.
    See my example of the last GE. It was deemed ok by twitter for everybody to share the hacked NHS US trade documents. And that was from Russian hacking.
    You're doing two things here. First you're trying to accuse Twitter of hypocrisy by comparing various different cases. That may be right, but we'd have to hear what Twitter says about them, as they're all different cases.

    But you're also - I think - advocating censoring *me* for things that you wouldn't advocated if The Sun did them. That's what I'm taking issue with: I think you probably shouldn't have any censorship, but if you do, it should depend on the content and provenance of the material, not on who's publishing it.
    What I am saying is this is what twitter and facebook supposed stance is...that they wanted to clamp down on the spread of fake news via all these articles that deliberately attempt to look like genuine well known media outlets and contain totally false information.

    That supposedly their standard. But instead they appear to be censoring people linking to the US equivalent of the Sun.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,131

    There is no way that twitter and facebook can remain consistent after taking this stance. If they were, they will literally having to be censoring a massive chunk of tweets linking mainstream media articles e.g. I am not sure a day goes by without the Guardian running a story based on leaked government documents. Is tweeting a link to the Guardian report now to be censored?

    I don't think it would be under the policy because "leaked" doesn't equal "hacked".
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,131

    Its quite an incredible stance from twitter. This is an article in a mainstream (albeit trashy) newspaper. This isn't a link to some fishy facebook group. Its the equivalent of twitter censoring people sharing a politics article from the Sun.

    Does that make a difference? Is there a situation where hacked information or potentially harmful personal details should be blocked if I post them on pastebin, but should be allowed if they're reproduced in The Sun?
    They were happy to do the same with Trump tax returns stories. That was information which was illegally released and personally harmful.
    That wasn't the question, I don't know whether there are differences there that apply to their policy in whether the information source is hacking, or whether it divulges PII.

    I'm not trying to defend (or attack) Twitter here - in general I think we'd be better with uncensorable communication channels - I'm just wondering what the principle is that you're advancing, which seems to suggest that maybe it would be OK to block the hacked material or PII if *I* post it, rather than The Sun.
    I would say that the whole issue of twitter / facebook taking these stances was that they claimed it was to stop the spread of fake news from these dodgy anonymous fake looking news groups and sites, and from twitter handles that aren't real people. I don't have an issue with that.

    This is a story in a mainstream publication. That is a totally different kettle of fish in my book. If the Post have done something illegal, there are clear chains of command in that organisation who will be challenged over it and can be prosecuted.

    But "hacked" information or information gained illegally by somebody in itself has a long history of being released by the mainstream media.

    This is a very slippery slope. One day we censor the Post, should we censor the Guardian when they get a big illegally gained load of info on tax dodgers? Or as I staid, Snowdon?
    It may well be a slippery slope but I think the slope starts when you censor *me*, not when you censor The Sun. Even if you somebody can sue The Sun, it's too late, the information has already been published. But you probably can't, at least in the case of hacking, because disseminating hacked documents wouldn't be illegal, even if I did it.
    See my example of the last GE. It was deemed ok by twitter for everybody to share the hacked NHS US trade documents. And that was from Russian hacking.
    You're doing two things here. First you're trying to accuse Twitter of hypocrisy by comparing various different cases. That may be right, but we'd have to hear what Twitter says about them, as they're all different cases.

    But you're also - I think - advocating censoring *me* for things that you wouldn't advocated if The Sun did them. That's what I'm taking issue with: I think you probably shouldn't have any censorship, but if you do, it should depend on the content and provenance of the material, not on who's publishing it.
    What I am saying is this is what twitter and facebook supposed stance is...that they wanted to clamp down on the spread of fake news via all these articles that deliberately attempt to look like genuine well known media outlets and contain totally false information.

    That supposedly their standard. But instead they appear to be censoring people linking to the US equivalent of the Sun.
    The justification Twitter are giving here is nothing to do with fake news. You're still free to circulate fake news on Twitter and Facebook as far as I can tell. At best Twitter might attach a warning to it.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 51,188

    There is no way that twitter and facebook can remain consistent after taking this stance. If they were, they will literally having to be censoring a massive chunk of tweets linking mainstream media articles e.g. I am not sure a day goes by without the Guardian running a story based on leaked government documents. Is tweeting a link to the Guardian report now to be censored?

    I don't think it would be under the policy because "leaked" doesn't equal "hacked".
    Isn't the NY Post based supposed on a hard drive found by a repair man? How is that different to when the Guardian get leaked info? Also the likes of the paradise papers came via a hack.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 26,845

    Its quite an incredible stance from twitter. This is an article in a mainstream (albeit trashy) newspaper. This isn't a link to some fishy facebook group. Its the equivalent of twitter censoring people sharing a politics article from the Sun.

    Does that make a difference? Is there a situation where hacked information or potentially harmful personal details should be blocked if I post them on pastebin, but should be allowed if they're reproduced in The Sun?
    They were happy to do the same with Trump tax returns stories. That was information which was illegally released and personally harmful.
    That wasn't the question, I don't know whether there are differences there that apply to their policy in whether the information source is hacking, or whether it divulges PII.

    I'm not trying to defend (or attack) Twitter here - in general I think we'd be better with uncensorable communication channels - I'm just wondering what the principle is that you're advancing, which seems to suggest that maybe it would be OK to block the hacked material or PII if *I* post it, rather than The Sun.
    I would say that the whole issue of twitter / facebook taking these stances was that they claimed it was to stop the spread of fake news from these dodgy anonymous fake looking news groups and sites, and from twitter handles that aren't real people. I don't have an issue with that.

    This is a story in a mainstream publication. That is a totally different kettle of fish in my book. If the Post have done something illegal, there are clear chains of command in that organisation who will be challenged over it and can be prosecuted.

    But "hacked" information or information gained illegally by somebody in itself has a long history of being released by the mainstream media.

    This is a very slippery slope. One day we censor the Post, should we censor the Guardian when they get a big illegally gained load of info on tax dodgers? Or as I staid, Snowdon?
    It may well be a slippery slope but I think the slope starts when you censor *me*, not when you censor The Sun. Even if you somebody can sue The Sun, it's too late, the information has already been published. But you probably can't, at least in the case of hacking, because disseminating hacked documents wouldn't be illegal, even if I did it.
    See my example of the last GE. It was deemed ok by twitter for everybody to share the hacked NHS US trade documents. And that was from Russian hacking.
    Are you not mischaracterising their action, though ?



  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 5,307
    edited October 15
    Unintended lockdown consequences for the secret squirrels and our terrorist foes:
    Spies have found it more difficult to trail suspects during the pandemic because of the empty streets caused by lockdown, the director-general of MI5 revealed yesterday.

    Ken McCallum, who took over the security service in April, also revealed that would-be terrorists were altering their plans because there were fewer crowds to target.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/china-changing-the-climate-of-spying-mi5-boss-warns-09hlzprzw (£££ -- not sure why China is in the URL as it is not mentioned in the free part of the story)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 26,845
    edited October 15
    I’m not sure that the counter examples you give are inconsistent with that ?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 51,188
    edited October 15
    Nigelb said:

    Its quite an incredible stance from twitter. This is an article in a mainstream (albeit trashy) newspaper. This isn't a link to some fishy facebook group. Its the equivalent of twitter censoring people sharing a politics article from the Sun.

    Does that make a difference? Is there a situation where hacked information or potentially harmful personal details should be blocked if I post them on pastebin, but should be allowed if they're reproduced in The Sun?
    They were happy to do the same with Trump tax returns stories. That was information which was illegally released and personally harmful.
    That wasn't the question, I don't know whether there are differences there that apply to their policy in whether the information source is hacking, or whether it divulges PII.

    I'm not trying to defend (or attack) Twitter here - in general I think we'd be better with uncensorable communication channels - I'm just wondering what the principle is that you're advancing, which seems to suggest that maybe it would be OK to block the hacked material or PII if *I* post it, rather than The Sun.
    I would say that the whole issue of twitter / facebook taking these stances was that they claimed it was to stop the spread of fake news from these dodgy anonymous fake looking news groups and sites, and from twitter handles that aren't real people. I don't have an issue with that.

    This is a story in a mainstream publication. That is a totally different kettle of fish in my book. If the Post have done something illegal, there are clear chains of command in that organisation who will be challenged over it and can be prosecuted.

    But "hacked" information or information gained illegally by somebody in itself has a long history of being released by the mainstream media.

    This is a very slippery slope. One day we censor the Post, should we censor the Guardian when they get a big illegally gained load of info on tax dodgers? Or as I staid, Snowdon?
    It may well be a slippery slope but I think the slope starts when you censor *me*, not when you censor The Sun. Even if you somebody can sue The Sun, it's too late, the information has already been published. But you probably can't, at least in the case of hacking, because disseminating hacked documents wouldn't be illegal, even if I did it.
    See my example of the last GE. It was deemed ok by twitter for everybody to share the hacked NHS US trade documents. And that was from Russian hacking.
    Are you not mischaracterising their action, though ?



    "Our policy only covers links to or images of hacked material themselves."

    NHS trade documents were hacked and allowed to be freely shared.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,131

    There is no way that twitter and facebook can remain consistent after taking this stance. If they were, they will literally having to be censoring a massive chunk of tweets linking mainstream media articles e.g. I am not sure a day goes by without the Guardian running a story based on leaked government documents. Is tweeting a link to the Guardian report now to be censored?

    I don't think it would be under the policy because "leaked" doesn't equal "hacked".
    Isn't the NY Post based supposed on a hard drive found by a repair man? How is that different to when the Guardian get leaked info? Also the likes of the paradise papers came via a hack.
    That's what's claimed in the article but it's very unlikely to be true.

    On the face of it sounds like the current policy would ban linking to the Paradise Papers.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 26,845

    Scott_xP said:
    Twitter's response is here:

    Basically it's OK to spread lies and propaganda on twitter, but you have to make sure your propaganda doesn't inadvertently contain some information that's true, such as genuine personally-identifying information..
    Not personally identifying information - rather personal information such as phone numbers and email addresses.
    They are quite clear about that distinction, which you aren’t.

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 51,188

    There is no way that twitter and facebook can remain consistent after taking this stance. If they were, they will literally having to be censoring a massive chunk of tweets linking mainstream media articles e.g. I am not sure a day goes by without the Guardian running a story based on leaked government documents. Is tweeting a link to the Guardian report now to be censored?

    I don't think it would be under the policy because "leaked" doesn't equal "hacked".
    Isn't the NY Post based supposed on a hard drive found by a repair man? How is that different to when the Guardian get leaked info? Also the likes of the paradise papers came via a hack.
    That's what's claimed in the article but it's very unlikely to be true.

    On the face of it sounds like the current policy would ban linking to the Paradise Papers.
    Its seems highly unlikely Trump tax returns were all gained 100% legally either.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,131
    edited October 15

    There is no way that twitter and facebook can remain consistent after taking this stance. If they were, they will literally having to be censoring a massive chunk of tweets linking mainstream media articles e.g. I am not sure a day goes by without the Guardian running a story based on leaked government documents. Is tweeting a link to the Guardian report now to be censored?

    I don't think it would be under the policy because "leaked" doesn't equal "hacked".
    Isn't the NY Post based supposed on a hard drive found by a repair man? How is that different to when the Guardian get leaked info? Also the likes of the paradise papers came via a hack.
    That's what's claimed in the article but it's very unlikely to be true.

    On the face of it sounds like the current policy would ban linking to the Paradise Papers.
    Its seems highly unlikely Trump tax returns were all gained 100% legally either.
    Dunno but "not 100% legally" isn't the same as "by hacking".
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 51,188
    edited October 15
    Here is a whole thread from Faisal Islam on hacked trade documents, complete with screen captured images of the actual documents...still there, no problem. Twitter just making it up as they go along.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 26,845
    .

    There is no way that twitter and facebook can remain consistent after taking this stance. If they were, they will literally having to be censoring a massive chunk of tweets linking mainstream media articles e.g. I am not sure a day goes by without the Guardian running a story based on leaked government documents. Is tweeting a link to the Guardian report now to be censored?

    I don't think it would be under the policy because "leaked" doesn't equal "hacked".
    Isn't the NY Post based supposed on a hard drive found by a repair man? How is that different to when the Guardian get leaked info? Also the likes of the paradise papers came via a hack.
    That's what's claimed in the article but it's very unlikely to be true.

    On the face of it sounds like the current policy would ban linking to the Paradise Papers.
    Its seems highly unlikely Trump tax returns were all gained 100% legally either.
    Again, those do not fall foul of the Twitter policy in the same way.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 26,845

    Here is a whole thread from Faisal Islam on hacked trade documents, complete with screen captured images of the actual documents...

    So what ?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 51,188
    edited October 15
    Nigelb said:

    Here is a whole thread from Faisal Islam on hacked trade documents, complete with screen captured images of the actual documents...

    So what ?
    One of the claims that twitter is making for blocking some links and screenshots is this...





    That is 100% what Faisal Islam did and it is still there.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 26,845
    edited October 15

    Nigelb said:

    Its quite an incredible stance from twitter. This is an article in a mainstream (albeit trashy) newspaper. This isn't a link to some fishy facebook group. Its the equivalent of twitter censoring people sharing a politics article from the Sun.

    Does that make a difference? Is there a situation where hacked information or potentially harmful personal details should be blocked if I post them on pastebin, but should be allowed if they're reproduced in The Sun?
    They were happy to do the same with Trump tax returns stories. That was information which was illegally released and personally harmful.
    That wasn't the question, I don't know whether there are differences there that apply to their policy in whether the information source is hacking, or whether it divulges PII.

    I'm not trying to defend (or attack) Twitter here - in general I think we'd be better with uncensorable communication channels - I'm just wondering what the principle is that you're advancing, which seems to suggest that maybe it would be OK to block the hacked material or PII if *I* post it, rather than The Sun.
    I would say that the whole issue of twitter / facebook taking these stances was that they claimed it was to stop the spread of fake news from these dodgy anonymous fake looking news groups and sites, and from twitter handles that aren't real people. I don't have an issue with that.

    This is a story in a mainstream publication. That is a totally different kettle of fish in my book. If the Post have done something illegal, there are clear chains of command in that organisation who will be challenged over it and can be prosecuted.

    But "hacked" information or information gained illegally by somebody in itself has a long history of being released by the mainstream media.

    This is a very slippery slope. One day we censor the Post, should we censor the Guardian when they get a big illegally gained load of info on tax dodgers? Or as I staid, Snowdon?
    It may well be a slippery slope but I think the slope starts when you censor *me*, not when you censor The Sun. Even if you somebody can sue The Sun, it's too late, the information has already been published. But you probably can't, at least in the case of hacking, because disseminating hacked documents wouldn't be illegal, even if I did it.
    See my example of the last GE. It was deemed ok by twitter for everybody to share the hacked NHS US trade documents. And that was from Russian hacking.
    Are you not mischaracterising their action, though ?



    "Our policy only covers links to or images of hacked material themselves."

    NHS trade documents were hacked and allowed to be freely shared.
    Do those fall into the category of “trade secrets” ?

    I think that would depend of Twitter’s definition of that term, which isn’t clear from the link.

    There’s no possible debate about personal phone numbers and email addresses, of course.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,131

    Here is a whole thread from Faisal Islam on hacked trade documents, complete with screen captured images of the actual documents...still there, no problem. Twitter just making it up as they go along.

    Try reporting it and see what they say.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,131
    edited October 15
    Nigelb said:


    Do those fall into the category of “trade secrets” ?

    I think you're reading the policy differently to me, I'm reading it as banning "obtained by hacking" *or* "containing information of types x, y and z", so the Post thing is bad in two different ways. I think you're reading it as *and*? Maybe the second way is right, not sure.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 26,845
    edited October 15

    Nigelb said:


    Do those fall into the category of “trade secrets” ?

    I think you're reading the policy differently to me, I'm reading it as banning "obtained by hacking" *or* "containing information of types x, y and z", I think you're reading it as *and*? Maybe the second way is right, not sure.
    “You can discuss a hack that has taken place (including reporting on a hack, or sharing press coverage of hacking), provided that you don’t include someone’s private information, information that could put people at risk of physical harm or danger; and/or information related to trade secrets.”
    https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hacked-materials
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,131
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:


    Do those fall into the category of “trade secrets” ?

    I think you're reading the policy differently to me, I'm reading it as banning "obtained by hacking" *or* "containing information of types x, y and z", I think you're reading it as *and*? Maybe the second way is right, not sure.
    “You can discuss a hack that has taken place (including reporting on a hack, or sharing press coverage of hacking), provided that you don’t include someone’s private information, information that could put people at risk of physical harm or danger; and/or information related to trade secrets.”
    https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hacked-materials
    Right but in the trade docs case Francis mentioned I think they're linking direct to the hacked documents, which seems to be banned, rather than to reporting on the hacked documents, which seems to be OK unless it contains the things you mention? Which is a slightly weird distinction to have but I think I see how they got to that weird place.

    PS The complication is that I think at the time the trade docs were first published they were only known to be "leaked", and the attribution (Russian hacking) came later. If that's right then per their policy as I read it they should have taken the tweet down once they found out, but maybe by that point nobody cared enough to report the tweet...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 26,845
    No, I think your fine showing documents, provided they don’t fall into particular categories.
    From the top of that link:
    “ We don’t condone attempts to compromise or infiltrate computer systems for malicious purposes. As such, we don’t permit the use of our services to directly distribute content obtained through hacking that contains private information, may put people in physical harm or danger, or contains trade secrets. You also may not threaten to hack or break into someone’s digital information or attempt to incentivize others to do so.”

    Twitter ought to have better communicated what they did.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 35,061
    Nigelb said:
    I think it's pretty obvious that an indoor spin class is going to lead to transmission if anyone is infectious.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 26,845
    edited October 15

    Nigelb said:
    I think it's pretty obvious that an indoor spin class is going to lead to transmission if anyone is infectious.
    You’d think, yes.
    Though there is an interesting question around improved ventilation. Would it have made a difference ?
  • kamskikamski Posts: 1,560
    Surely supporters of the "free market" should just let people choose not to use Twitter or Facebook?

    I think I would support them being treated like any other publisher making money from publishing content.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 26,845
    Nigelb said:

    No, I think your fine showing documents, provided they don’t fall into particular categories.
    From the top of that link:
    “ We don’t condone attempts to compromise or infiltrate computer systems for malicious purposes. As such, we don’t permit the use of our services to directly distribute content obtained through hacking that contains private information, may put people in physical harm or danger, or contains trade secrets. You also may not threaten to hack or break into someone’s digital information or attempt to incentivize others to do so.”

    Twitter ought to have better communicated what they did.

    The other bottom line is that the Post probably ought not to be publishing articles based on Russian disinformation, but I guess that’s their business.

    If they want Twitter to link to them, though, they need to improve their piss poor standards only as far as redacting personal email addresses or phone numbers.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,131
    Good thread on hack-and-leak policy. I think this shows why it's dumb idea to make rules but make exceptions for big newspapers or whatever. If you do that, you create a loophole that your adversary will exploit. You may as well just not have the rule.

  • kamskikamski Posts: 1,560

    Good thread on hack-and-leak policy. I think this shows why it's dumb idea to make rules but make exceptions for big newspapers or whatever. If you do that, you create a loophole that your adversary will exploit. You may as well just not have the rule.

    So far both twitter and the Post have got a load of attention. And they both want to help trump, so it's all good no?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 26,845
    edited October 15

    Good thread on hack-and-leak policy. I think this shows why it's dumb idea to make rules but make exceptions for big newspapers or whatever. If you do that, you create a loophole that your adversary will exploit. You may as well just not have the rule.

    I disagree.
    They just need to be better and quicker about their communication in high profile cases.

    If they immediately used a slightly politer version of my formulation* (which didn’t take long to come up with, & I had no prior knowledge of Twitter’s particular policy here), it would have shut down most of the nonsense immediately

    * “If they want Twitter to link to their stories, they need to improve their piss poor standards only as far as redacting personal email addresses or phone numbers.”
This discussion has been closed.