What do you expect when the negotiations are overseen by the likes of Johnson and Cummings?
And Barnier
As far as I can see the EU leaders have instructed Barnier to maintain a consistent line. We and they also know he can be trusted. The same cannot be said of Johnson, Cummings and their representatives.
Their consistent line is an unacceptable one, that's the problem.
In a negotiation people compromise not remain consistent to their opening position.
Sometimes the price is the price, you take it or leave it.
And that's the heart of the matter. Going back to Dave's renegotiation, the UK's assumption has been that determined enough haggling and refusal to blink can unlock some secret better deal that the EU has been hiding under the counter all along. Whereas the EU's attitude has been that access to their market is a valuable thing, not to be given away willy-nilly. And that they'll be the judge of that value, thank you very much.
And that question- how much are the benefits of seamless trade between the EU and UK worth to each party?- is at the heart of the disagreement. Disagreements like that happen all the time; it's why betting is interesting.
Maybe those who think that the UK can just walk away with minor temporary damage are right. (Though it's interesting that people who understandably fear the Covid hit to the public finances are casual about a WTO Brexit hit of similar magnitude.) Maybe the EU, which has completed a lot more of these negotiations successfully, has more heft to absorb shocks and (let's face it) doesn't have Boris'n'Dom, is better at judging the odds.
Faites vos jeux messieurs, faites vos jeux.
From the EU's perspective the main win from a deal is to get leverage over the UK to stop it misbehaving. It can't apply sanctions unless there is something in place that it can remove. From the UK's point of view it's worth having a deal because No Deal is effectively sanctions applied in full from Day 1.
I'm struggling to see what incentive the EU actually has to do a deal before 1 Jan. Surely it would be better from their POV to let the UK dangle in the wind for a month or two before coming back to the table next year?
I think EU and members are worried about the UK becoming a rogue state. They are worried much more about that than the opportunities afforded by a thin, high-friction deal. The Internal Market Bill gave them a jolt. Cummings was right in a way. The IMB DID change the negotiating dynamics and make the EU keener on a deal. But their keenness is to nail everything to the floor.
Schools and universities certainly didn't help, but bear in mind that cases were low-but-rising from mid July. Quite a bit of the September rise was simple extrapolation from August. If you really want R<1, you probably need to go back to before the Great July 4 Reopening, plus a few more restrictions to cover schools being fully open. Or a much better TTI.
That's the trouble with exponential growth, or even power laws. The first few steps look small and manageable... then WHOOSH.
And that's the political problem- the smart time to put the controls in is before the whoosh, when the systems are still on top of things. Because if you wait a couple of weeks until the problem is obvious, it's much harder (and probably more expensive overall) to get control back.
Interesting comment by the Staggers' Stephen Bush in his mornign email to subscribers:
"[...] t for a pandemic like Covid-19, the First Ministers have the ability to close businesses or curtail their trading - but not the ability to support them.
Most hospitality businesses rely on the trade that comes from two or more households mixing: they can't live on the business solely driven by households living together.
Yet businesses receive no meaningful support if they are in Tier 2 - and most businesses will not receive support even in Tier 3, because only businesses which are compelled to close will receive wage and operational subsidy. [...]
But the question is: what's the point? The perverse consequence of Sunak's approach is that the devolved governments are incentivised to shut things down, in order to maintain their eligibility for the furlough and other measures, rather than experiment with new ways to keep the economy going in the age of lockdown.
And in England, either businesses and households will follow the rules in Tier 2, and bars, restaurants and clubs will go bankrupt in large numbers, or they won't, and cases will spike and they'll end up in Tier 3. The most likely outcome is that a bit of both will happen: and that whether by a thousand local lockdowns or through a panicked second lockdown later this month, we end up with all of the costs of lockdown and all of the costs of no lockdown, too."
What do you expect when the negotiations are overseen by the likes of Johnson and Cummings?
And Barnier
As far as I can see the EU leaders have instructed Barnier to maintain a consistent line. We and they also know he can be trusted. The same cannot be said of Johnson, Cummings and their representatives.
Their consistent line is an unacceptable one, that's the problem.
In a negotiation people compromise not remain consistent to their opening position.
They could compromise by mixing their position with bananas, or by playing aeroplanes to make accepting their position fun.
Before accepting the inevitable conclusion that the mewling infant needs its nappy changed.
Yeah and what happens in September, schools and universities are back. We just have to live with it.
Yes. My girlfriend said yesterday that it's dificult for the govt as they have a duty to keep us safe, but I had to ask "Do they?" I dont think it is the governments job to stop us dying from naturally occurring diseases, they aren't their fault. If some people want to stay in and have everything delivered, and avoid everyone who doesnt do likewise, so be it. The rest of us should be allowed to take our chances
It's not the duty of government to keep you safe - you can make your own choices where the risk is only to yourself.
However, it is the duty of government to prevent you from imperiling other people's safety.
'imperiling the safety of others. The refrain of the tyrant echoes down the centuries.
Yeah and what happens in September, schools and universities are back. We just have to live with it.
Yes. My girlfriend said yesterday that it's dificult for the govt as they have a duty to keep us safe, but I had to ask "Do they?" I dont think it is the governments job to stop us dying from naturally occurring diseases, they aren't their fault. If some people want to stay in and have everything delivered, and avoid everyone who doesnt do likewise, so be it. The rest of us should be allowed to take our chances
It's not the duty of government to keep you safe - you can make your own choices where the risk is only to yourself.
However, it is the duty of government to prevent you from imperiling other people's safety.
'imperiling the safety of others'. The refrain of the tyrant echoes down the centuries.
Steve Baker is the MP that seems to be most onside with the lockdown sceptics. I think he is a cracking bet for next Con leader. Comprehensively educated, speaks like a normal person with some interesting ideas. Bit full of himself, perhaps, but this is a very interesting interview - he doesn't deny he would like the job
Steve Baker is the MP that seems to be most onside with the lockdown sceptics. I think he is a cracking bet for next Con leader. Comprehensively educated, speaks like a normal person with some interesting ideas. Bit full of himself, perhaps, but this is a very interesting interview - he doesn't deny he would like the job
Interesting comment by the Staggers' Stephen Bush in his mornign email to subscribers:
"[...] t for a pandemic like Covid-19, the First Ministers have the ability to close businesses or curtail their trading - but not the ability to support them.
Most hospitality businesses rely on the trade that comes from two or more households mixing: they can't live on the business solely driven by households living together.
Yet businesses receive no meaningful support if they are in Tier 2 - and most businesses will not receive support even in Tier 3, because only businesses which are compelled to close will receive wage and operational subsidy. [...]
But the question is: what's the point? The perverse consequence of Sunak's approach is that the devolved governments are incentivised to shut things down, in order to maintain their eligibility for the furlough and other measures, rather than experiment with new ways to keep the economy going in the age of lockdown.
And in England, either businesses and households will follow the rules in Tier 2, and bars, restaurants and clubs will go bankrupt in large numbers, or they won't, and cases will spike and they'll end up in Tier 3. The most likely outcome is that a bit of both will happen: and that whether by a thousand local lockdowns or through a panicked second lockdown later this month, we end up with all of the costs of lockdown and all of the costs of no lockdown, too."
Scotland has tax raising powers, Sturgeon can raise taxes to support those businesses.
The question is why hasn't Sturgeon used those powers?
Test everyone at airports (inbound or outbound), and guys like this would be in isolation before they did the damage.
A rapid antigen test might miss a few, but it would pick up 90-95% of those actually infectious.
Would he be in isolation, we'd send him home and say "now don't go outside" and he'd be down the pub immediately.
If we were to have adopted my testing regime, I'm pretty sure we'd have done the same for your isolation policy first. And he certainly wouldn't have made it onto the plane.
Yes, though unfortunately I don't think either are going to be implemented though and we'll end up in an unnecessary lockdown which wil destroy businesses and jobs.
While rapid testing and secure isolation is certainly desirable, I don't see how it is feasible with current case numbers. It seems to me that we need a short sharp lockdown in order to get the numbers down to a level at which it is feasible.
Because the cases are distributed across the whole country, it isn't 20,000 people that need to isolated together in one place. There are 408 local authorities in the country, they could absolutely find a way to run local isolation systems as long as they had the funding. The system doesn't need to be a gigantic national 600k capacity monster that would take months to build.
Schools and universities certainly didn't help, but bear in mind that cases were low-but-rising from mid July. Quite a bit of the September rise was simple extrapolation from August. If you really want R<1, you probably need to go back to before the Great July 4 Reopening, plus a few more restrictions to cover schools being fully open. Or a much better TTI.
That's the trouble with exponential growth, or even power laws. The first few steps look small and manageable... then WHOOSH.
And that's the political problem- the smart time to put the controls in is before the whoosh, when the systems are still on top of things. Because if you wait a couple of weeks until the problem is obvious, it's much harder (and probably more expensive overall) to get control back.</p>
Schools and universities certainly didn't help, but bear in mind that cases were low-but-rising from mid July. Quite a bit of the September rise was simple extrapolation from August. If you really want R<1, you probably need to go back to before the Great July 4 Reopening, plus a few more restrictions to cover schools being fully open. Or a much better TTI.
That's the trouble with exponential growth, or even power laws. The first few steps look small and manageable... then WHOOSH.
And that's the political problem- the smart time to put the controls in is before the whoosh, when the systems are still on top of things. Because if you wait a couple of weeks until the problem is obvious, it's much harder (and probably more expensive overall) to get control back.</p>
Agreed. R works on the Micawber principle. R=0.8, result epidemic happiness. R=1.2, result epidemic misery. Everything counts if R is greater than 1. Which is why hospitality gets such a big hit, despite being a relatively small contributor to R. If we prioritise schools (big contribution to R) and healthcare, and have gone essentially as far as we can on household restrictions, that leaves hospitality in the firing line.
Interesting that Elmbridge has been singed out, rather than simply the whole of Surrey.
That's JohnO's parish, clearly the government are punishing Elmbridge because JohnO and I are friends.
Elmbridge has the highest house prices of any district outside London I believe (and an average house price even above the London average), clearly a lot of wealthy London commuters live there and some have started going back to the office and brought cases back on the tube
Elmbridge is the Beverly Hills of the UK, it really is
Indeed, John Terry, the Linekers, Frank Lampard and Didier Drogba, Theo Paphitis, Eamonn Holmes, Chris Tarrant, Andy Murray, Nicola Roberts and Peter Crouch amongst its residents (plus John O of course).
Yeah and what happens in September, schools and universities are back. We just have to live with it.
Yes. My girlfriend said yesterday that it's dificult for the govt as they have a duty to keep us safe, but I had to ask "Do they?" I dont think it is the governments job to stop us dying from naturally occurring diseases, they aren't their fault. If some people want to stay in and have everything delivered, and avoid everyone who doesnt do likewise, so be it. The rest of us should be allowed to take our chances
It's not the duty of government to keep you safe - you can make your own choices where the risk is only to yourself.
However, it is the duty of government to prevent you from imperiling other people's safety.
This is not really true with the current drug laws.
Surely a process question though, so doesn't matter?
(wasn't that the defence on Hunter Biden yesterday?)
Freedom of religion, assembly, press, speech and err....(no cheating now)
Petition for grievances?
Having googled, yes. I would never have got that one myself. Is that even a thing in the US today?
I went to school in the States, and remember my Civics.
The right to be listened to by government is actually quite important.
Well, we introduced these online petitions in our country requiring debates in Parliament etc. Mixed success would be kind, I think. I have just not heard of this being a procedure in the US. Live and learn.
Test everyone at airports (inbound or outbound), and guys like this would be in isolation before they did the damage.
A rapid antigen test might miss a few, but it would pick up 90-95% of those actually infectious.
Would he be in isolation, we'd send him home and say "now don't go outside" and he'd be down the pub immediately.
If we were to have adopted my testing regime, I'm pretty sure we'd have done the same for your isolation policy first. And he certainly wouldn't have made it onto the plane.
Yes, though unfortunately I don't think either are going to be implemented though and we'll end up in an unnecessary lockdown which wil destroy businesses and jobs.
While rapid testing and secure isolation is certainly desirable, I don't see how it is feasible with current case numbers. It seems to me that we need a short sharp lockdown in order to get the numbers down to a level at which it is feasible.
Because the cases are distributed across the whole country, it isn't 20,000 people that need to isolated together in one place. There are 408 local authorities in the country, they could absolutely find a way to run local isolation systems as long as they had the funding. The system doesn't need to be a gigantic national 600k capacity monster that would take months to build.
And the rest. It not just those who are tested positive. What about their family, carers and contacts?
Steve Baker is the MP that seems to be most onside with the lockdown sceptics. I think he is a cracking bet for next Con leader. Comprehensively educated, speaks like a normal person with some interesting ideas. Bit full of himself, perhaps, but this is a very interesting interview - he doesn't deny he would like the job
Its not a bad tip, when Johnson's feed went down on a recent call to PMs Baker said he would fill in before May said no way! So agree he obviously sees himself as a leader, and is more polite and less duplicitous than most of his fellow Tory extreme Brexiteers. If the Tories are searching for a Brexit harder candidate it may come down to him vs Patel.
Interesting comment by the Staggers' Stephen Bush in his mornign email to subscribers:
"[...] t for a pandemic like Covid-19, the First Ministers have the ability to close businesses or curtail their trading - but not the ability to support them.
Most hospitality businesses rely on the trade that comes from two or more households mixing: they can't live on the business solely driven by households living together.
Yet businesses receive no meaningful support if they are in Tier 2 - and most businesses will not receive support even in Tier 3, because only businesses which are compelled to close will receive wage and operational subsidy. [...]
But the question is: what's the point? The perverse consequence of Sunak's approach is that the devolved governments are incentivised to shut things down, in order to maintain their eligibility for the furlough and other measures, rather than experiment with new ways to keep the economy going in the age of lockdown.
And in England, either businesses and households will follow the rules in Tier 2, and bars, restaurants and clubs will go bankrupt in large numbers, or they won't, and cases will spike and they'll end up in Tier 3. The most likely outcome is that a bit of both will happen: and that whether by a thousand local lockdowns or through a panicked second lockdown later this month, we end up with all of the costs of lockdown and all of the costs of no lockdown, too."
Scotland has tax raising powers, Sturgeon can raise taxes to support those businesses.
The question is why hasn't Sturgeon used those powers?
Is raising income tax a sensible strategy for countering a current and fast changing crisis, and if so why isn't Rishsi doing it?
Edit - Unfair comparison, at least Trump was elected Head of State, Brenda's not even got that.
Is she in a shop, a museum, the cinema or on public transport? No, so she does not need a mask
Role model though. It is a bit Trumpian of her to go bare faced. The message is "Virus, what virus?" I'm sure she doesn't mean to say that, but you know how people are.
Interesting comment by the Staggers' Stephen Bush in his mornign email to subscribers:
"[...] t for a pandemic like Covid-19, the First Ministers have the ability to close businesses or curtail their trading - but not the ability to support them.
Most hospitality businesses rely on the trade that comes from two or more households mixing: they can't live on the business solely driven by households living together.
Yet businesses receive no meaningful support if they are in Tier 2 - and most businesses will not receive support even in Tier 3, because only businesses which are compelled to close will receive wage and operational subsidy. [...]
But the question is: what's the point? The perverse consequence of Sunak's approach is that the devolved governments are incentivised to shut things down, in order to maintain their eligibility for the furlough and other measures, rather than experiment with new ways to keep the economy going in the age of lockdown.
And in England, either businesses and households will follow the rules in Tier 2, and bars, restaurants and clubs will go bankrupt in large numbers, or they won't, and cases will spike and they'll end up in Tier 3. The most likely outcome is that a bit of both will happen: and that whether by a thousand local lockdowns or through a panicked second lockdown later this month, we end up with all of the costs of lockdown and all of the costs of no lockdown, too."
Scotland has tax raising powers, Sturgeon can raise taxes to support those businesses.
The question is why hasn't Sturgeon used those powers?
She doesn't want to raise taxes, she wants to borrow money and she can't do that. The Scottish government has found £40m but that is a very token gesture in light of the damage being done and the rules about its distribution seem to be a work in progress.
I'm going to stop now before I get accused of supporting the Scottish government.
Steve Baker is the MP that seems to be most onside with the lockdown sceptics. I think he is a cracking bet for next Con leader. Comprehensively educated, speaks like a normal person with some interesting ideas. Bit full of himself, perhaps, but this is a very interesting interview - he doesn't deny he would like the job
Its not a bad tip, when Johnson's feed went down on a recent call to PMs Baker said he would fill in before May said no way! So agree he obviously sees himself as a leader, and is more polite and less duplicitous than most of his fellow Tory extreme Brexiteers. If the Tories are searching for a Brexit harder candidate it may come down to him vs Patel.
In the interview he tells how he was pro EU and the Euro until the Lisbon Treaty. Pro FOM too. He just seems like an intelligent, compassionate, thinker to me.
Test everyone at airports (inbound or outbound), and guys like this would be in isolation before they did the damage.
A rapid antigen test might miss a few, but it would pick up 90-95% of those actually infectious.
Would he be in isolation, we'd send him home and say "now don't go outside" and he'd be down the pub immediately.
If we were to have adopted my testing regime, I'm pretty sure we'd have done the same for your isolation policy first. And he certainly wouldn't have made it onto the plane.
Yes, though unfortunately I don't think either are going to be implemented though and we'll end up in an unnecessary lockdown which wil destroy businesses and jobs.
While rapid testing and secure isolation is certainly desirable, I don't see how it is feasible with current case numbers. It seems to me that we need a short sharp lockdown in order to get the numbers down to a level at which it is feasible.
Because the cases are distributed across the whole country, it isn't 20,000 people that need to isolated together in one place. There are 408 local authorities in the country, they could absolutely find a way to run local isolation systems as long as they had the funding. The system doesn't need to be a gigantic national 600k capacity monster that would take months to build.
Even getting 600k is quick to do if the political will was there. Just requisition all the country's hotels and you have about 800k rooms available. Given we shut nearly all of them down in March and April, paying them for their rooms and taking over would be fine.
The government promised we would mobilise on a war footing, yet wont take big, decisive actions.
Steve Baker is the MP that seems to be most onside with the lockdown sceptics. I think he is a cracking bet for next Con leader. Comprehensively educated, speaks like a normal person with some interesting ideas. Bit full of himself, perhaps, but this is a very interesting interview - he doesn't deny he would like the job
Its not a bad tip, when Johnson's feed went down on a recent call to PMs Baker said he would fill in before May said no way! So agree he obviously sees himself as a leader, and is more polite and less duplicitous than most of his fellow Tory extreme Brexiteers. If the Tories are searching for a Brexit harder candidate it may come down to him vs Patel.
As I understand it Baker got bought off by a seat on the privy council
Steve Baker is the MP that seems to be most onside with the lockdown sceptics. I think he is a cracking bet for next Con leader. Comprehensively educated, speaks like a normal person with some interesting ideas. Bit full of himself, perhaps, but this is a very interesting interview - he doesn't deny he would like the job
Its not a bad tip, when Johnson's feed went down on a recent call to PMs Baker said he would fill in before May said no way! So agree he obviously sees himself as a leader, and is more polite and less duplicitous than most of his fellow Tory extreme Brexiteers. If the Tories are searching for a Brexit harder candidate it may come down to him vs Patel.
In the interview he tells how he was pro EU and the Euro until the Lisbon Treaty. Pro FOM too. He just seems like an intelligent, compassionate, thinker to me.
How much is that down to you largely agreeing with him on the big issues of the day though? I do agree he has more about him than most of the ERG though.
Test everyone at airports (inbound or outbound), and guys like this would be in isolation before they did the damage.
A rapid antigen test might miss a few, but it would pick up 90-95% of those actually infectious.
Would he be in isolation, we'd send him home and say "now don't go outside" and he'd be down the pub immediately.
If we were to have adopted my testing regime, I'm pretty sure we'd have done the same for your isolation policy first. And he certainly wouldn't have made it onto the plane.
Yes, though unfortunately I don't think either are going to be implemented though and we'll end up in an unnecessary lockdown which wil destroy businesses and jobs.
While rapid testing and secure isolation is certainly desirable, I don't see how it is feasible with current case numbers. It seems to me that we need a short sharp lockdown in order to get the numbers down to a level at which it is feasible.
Because the cases are distributed across the whole country, it isn't 20,000 people that need to isolated together in one place. There are 408 local authorities in the country, they could absolutely find a way to run local isolation systems as long as they had the funding. The system doesn't need to be a gigantic national 600k capacity monster that would take months to build.
And the rest. It not just those who are tested positive. What about their family, carers and contacts?
You don't need to, the whole point of proper isolation is that it reduces the R of symptomatic people to below 1 and the R of asymptomatic people is already below 1 because of NPIs. You cut the number of days people who have mild symptoms are out in the community from 10-14 to just 3 or 4 days.
The point of an actual isolation system is that it completely short circuits the need to do the whole track and trace part of it which as has been pointed out by the scientists had a negligible effect on the R.
The best part about it is that it can be done from a standing start and the effects will be fairly fast as people come into the net and stop spreading the virus but it doesn't impact on the lives of people who don't have the virus.
We are talking about a "stay home, protect the NHS, stop the virus" or whatever it was type of lockdown because that is the only way the government knows to keep people with the virus indoors and out of the community. This is an alternative method of doing that.
Steve Baker is the MP that seems to be most onside with the lockdown sceptics. I think he is a cracking bet for next Con leader. Comprehensively educated, speaks like a normal person with some interesting ideas. Bit full of himself, perhaps, but this is a very interesting interview - he doesn't deny he would like the job
Its not a bad tip, when Johnson's feed went down on a recent call to PMs Baker said he would fill in before May said no way! So agree he obviously sees himself as a leader, and is more polite and less duplicitous than most of his fellow Tory extreme Brexiteers. If the Tories are searching for a Brexit harder candidate it may come down to him vs Patel.
In the interview he tells how he was pro EU and the Euro until the Lisbon Treaty. Pro FOM too. He just seems like an intelligent, compassionate, thinker to me.
How much is that down to you largely agreeing with him on the big issues of the day though? I do agree he has more about him than most of the ERG though.
Yes, there is probably a lot of that - I was thinking you should only bet on people you disagree with when politicalbetting maybe, although that would have left me worse off I suppose as I backed Leave. But I am as guilty as anyone else of thinking someone who kind of thinks the same as me would make a great PM!
His idea for same sex marriage was exactly what I thought should happen - maybe that was the clincher
"A new principle would have become established: that the Government has the right and even the obligation to lock us down at the first sign of any new epidemic, even one that doesn’t truly threaten the survival of our society. Johnson must resist going down that route with every fibre of his being."
More Elmbridge reminiscences. A couple who were friends of my parents sold their house in Esher to Errol Brown, of Hot Chocolate, who was discussed on this board a few days ago. By coincidence the wife died the same week as Errol.
Chris Tarrant, who has already been mentioned, is generally regarded as an a**e by locals and was once rude to my mother in Esher carpark.
Any excuse.
An underrated minor classic with a funky backbeat and poignant lyrics -
Interesting comment by the Staggers' Stephen Bush in his mornign email to subscribers:
"[...] t for a pandemic like Covid-19, the First Ministers have the ability to close businesses or curtail their trading - but not the ability to support them.
Most hospitality businesses rely on the trade that comes from two or more households mixing: they can't live on the business solely driven by households living together.
Yet businesses receive no meaningful support if they are in Tier 2 - and most businesses will not receive support even in Tier 3, because only businesses which are compelled to close will receive wage and operational subsidy. [...]
But the question is: what's the point? The perverse consequence of Sunak's approach is that the devolved governments are incentivised to shut things down, in order to maintain their eligibility for the furlough and other measures, rather than experiment with new ways to keep the economy going in the age of lockdown.
And in England, either businesses and households will follow the rules in Tier 2, and bars, restaurants and clubs will go bankrupt in large numbers, or they won't, and cases will spike and they'll end up in Tier 3. The most likely outcome is that a bit of both will happen: and that whether by a thousand local lockdowns or through a panicked second lockdown later this month, we end up with all of the costs of lockdown and all of the costs of no lockdown, too."
Scotland has tax raising powers, Sturgeon can raise taxes to support those businesses.
The question is why hasn't Sturgeon used those powers?
She doesn't want to raise taxes, she wants to borrow money and she can't do that. The Scottish government has found £40m but that is a very token gesture in light of the damage being done and the rules about its distribution seem to be a work in progress.
I'm going to stop now before I get accused of supporting the Scottish government.
Just imagine if Dave and Ed and Nick (who he?) had meant all the airy fairy bullshit of The Vow and Scotland had fiscal autonomy, the SNP would have to be taking all the financial responsibility for the current crisis (and no doubt be pummeled for it). Karma, eh?
"A new principle would have become established: that the Government has the right and even the obligation to lock us down at the first sign of any new epidemic, even one that doesn’t truly threaten the survival of our society. Johnson must resist going down that route with every fibre of his being."
Nothing will change until there is a political party championing this stuff that is taking money and vote share out of the tories.
One of the reasons why the US presidential is such an earthshakingly massive, massive event. If the get on with life party wins there, it can sure enough win here.
Yeah and what happens in September, schools and universities are back. We just have to live with it.
Yes. My girlfriend said yesterday that it's dificult for the govt as they have a duty to keep us safe, but I had to ask "Do they?" I dont think it is the governments job to stop us dying from naturally occurring diseases, they aren't their fault. If some people want to stay in and have everything delivered, and avoid everyone who doesnt do likewise, so be it. The rest of us should be allowed to take our chances
More Elmbridge reminiscences. A couple who were friends of my parents sold their house in Esher to Errol Brown, of Hot Chocolate, who was discussed on this board a few days ago. By coincidence the wife died the same week as Errol.
Chris Tarrant, who has already been mentioned, is generally regarded as an a**e by locals and was once rude to my mother in Esher carpark.
Any excuse.
An underrated minor classic with a funky backbeat and poignant lyrics -
Steve Baker is the MP that seems to be most onside with the lockdown sceptics. I think he is a cracking bet for next Con leader. Comprehensively educated, speaks like a normal person with some interesting ideas. Bit full of himself, perhaps, but this is a very interesting interview - he doesn't deny he would like the job
Test everyone at airports (inbound or outbound), and guys like this would be in isolation before they did the damage.
A rapid antigen test might miss a few, but it would pick up 90-95% of those actually infectious.
Would he be in isolation, we'd send him home and say "now don't go outside" and he'd be down the pub immediately.
If we were to have adopted my testing regime, I'm pretty sure we'd have done the same for your isolation policy first. And he certainly wouldn't have made it onto the plane.
Yes, though unfortunately I don't think either are going to be implemented though and we'll end up in an unnecessary lockdown which wil destroy businesses and jobs.
While rapid testing and secure isolation is certainly desirable, I don't see how it is feasible with current case numbers. It seems to me that we need a short sharp lockdown in order to get the numbers down to a level at which it is feasible.
Because the cases are distributed across the whole country, it isn't 20,000 people that need to isolated together in one place. There are 408 local authorities in the country, they could absolutely find a way to run local isolation systems as long as they had the funding. The system doesn't need to be a gigantic national 600k capacity monster that would take months to build.
So as things stand, isolating people in hotels might just about work today, but another doubling and it wouldn't really. (Assuming that some hotels are still being used normally, and not all of them are suitable).
But the problem becomes much more manageable if the caseload can fall by a factor of 4 or so. Anyone know a quick way of achieving that?
Steve Baker is the MP that seems to be most onside with the lockdown sceptics. I think he is a cracking bet for next Con leader. Comprehensively educated, speaks like a normal person with some interesting ideas. Bit full of himself, perhaps, but this is a very interesting interview - he doesn't deny he would like the job
50/1
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsDx7CM0SkI
Couldn't get past all the macho stuff about 'hooligan motorcycles', skydiving and stuntmen.
How open minded of you! Not my cup of tea either to be honest
Test everyone at airports (inbound or outbound), and guys like this would be in isolation before they did the damage.
A rapid antigen test might miss a few, but it would pick up 90-95% of those actually infectious.
Would he be in isolation, we'd send him home and say "now don't go outside" and he'd be down the pub immediately.
If we were to have adopted my testing regime, I'm pretty sure we'd have done the same for your isolation policy first. And he certainly wouldn't have made it onto the plane.
Yes, though unfortunately I don't think either are going to be implemented though and we'll end up in an unnecessary lockdown which wil destroy businesses and jobs.
While rapid testing and secure isolation is certainly desirable, I don't see how it is feasible with current case numbers. It seems to me that we need a short sharp lockdown in order to get the numbers down to a level at which it is feasible.
Because the cases are distributed across the whole country, it isn't 20,000 people that need to isolated together in one place. There are 408 local authorities in the country, they could absolutely find a way to run local isolation systems as long as they had the funding. The system doesn't need to be a gigantic national 600k capacity monster that would take months to build.
And the rest. It not just those who are tested positive. What about their family, carers and contacts?
You don't need to, the whole point of proper isolation is that it reduces the R of symptomatic people to below 1 and the R of asymptomatic people is already below 1 because of NPIs. You cut the number of days people who have mild symptoms are out in the community from 10-14 to just 3 or 4 days.
The point of an actual isolation system is that it completely short circuits the need to do the whole track and trace part of it which as has been pointed out by the scientists had a negligible effect on the R.
The best part about it is that it can be done from a standing start and the effects will be fairly fast as people come into the net and stop spreading the virus but it doesn't impact on the lives of people who don't have the virus.
We are talking about a "stay home, protect the NHS, stop the virus" or whatever it was type of lockdown because that is the only way the government knows to keep people with the virus indoors and out of the community. This is an alternative method of doing that.
I still think it's a lot harder than you make out. Look at Victoria in Australia, for example. As I understand it, pretty much their whole second wave was due to a security guard becoming infected by "inmates" at a facility there. Keeping a large number of people securely contained is not easy, and there will also be a lot of people very unhappy about being forcibly quarantined.
It would, I think, make good sense to at least reduce the numbers first through lockdown. Then, if possible, implement your policy and let people go about their lives largely as normal.
Steve Baker is the MP that seems to be most onside with the lockdown sceptics. I think he is a cracking bet for next Con leader. Comprehensively educated, speaks like a normal person with some interesting ideas. Bit full of himself, perhaps, but this is a very interesting interview - he doesn't deny he would like the job
Its not a bad tip, when Johnson's feed went down on a recent call to PMs Baker said he would fill in before May said no way! So agree he obviously sees himself as a leader, and is more polite and less duplicitous than most of his fellow Tory extreme Brexiteers. If the Tories are searching for a Brexit harder candidate it may come down to him vs Patel.
In the interview he tells how he was pro EU and the Euro until the Lisbon Treaty. Pro FOM too. He just seems like an intelligent, compassionate, thinker to me.
Steve Baker is the MP that seems to be most onside with the lockdown sceptics. I think he is a cracking bet for next Con leader. Comprehensively educated, speaks like a normal person with some interesting ideas. Bit full of himself, perhaps, but this is a very interesting interview - he doesn't deny he would like the job
Its not a bad tip, when Johnson's feed went down on a recent call to PMs Baker said he would fill in before May said no way! So agree he obviously sees himself as a leader, and is more polite and less duplicitous than most of his fellow Tory extreme Brexiteers. If the Tories are searching for a Brexit harder candidate it may come down to him vs Patel.
In the interview he tells how he was pro EU and the Euro until the Lisbon Treaty. Pro FOM too. He just seems like an intelligent, compassionate, thinker to me.
"Born again" evangelical. Not put you off at all?
Say it ain't so. I had been warming to him of late.
Steve Baker is the MP that seems to be most onside with the lockdown sceptics. I think he is a cracking bet for next Con leader. Comprehensively educated, speaks like a normal person with some interesting ideas. Bit full of himself, perhaps, but this is a very interesting interview - he doesn't deny he would like the job
Its not a bad tip, when Johnson's feed went down on a recent call to PMs Baker said he would fill in before May said no way! So agree he obviously sees himself as a leader, and is more polite and less duplicitous than most of his fellow Tory extreme Brexiteers. If the Tories are searching for a Brexit harder candidate it may come down to him vs Patel.
In the interview he tells how he was pro EU and the Euro until the Lisbon Treaty. Pro FOM too. He just seems like an intelligent, compassionate, thinker to me.
Test everyone at airports (inbound or outbound), and guys like this would be in isolation before they did the damage.
A rapid antigen test might miss a few, but it would pick up 90-95% of those actually infectious.
Would he be in isolation, we'd send him home and say "now don't go outside" and he'd be down the pub immediately.
If we were to have adopted my testing regime, I'm pretty sure we'd have done the same for your isolation policy first. And he certainly wouldn't have made it onto the plane.
Yes, though unfortunately I don't think either are going to be implemented though and we'll end up in an unnecessary lockdown which wil destroy businesses and jobs.
While rapid testing and secure isolation is certainly desirable, I don't see how it is feasible with current case numbers. It seems to me that we need a short sharp lockdown in order to get the numbers down to a level at which it is feasible.
Because the cases are distributed across the whole country, it isn't 20,000 people that need to isolated together in one place. There are 408 local authorities in the country, they could absolutely find a way to run local isolation systems as long as they had the funding. The system doesn't need to be a gigantic national 600k capacity monster that would take months to build.
So as things stand, isolating people in hotels might just about work today, but another doubling and it wouldn't really. (Assuming that some hotels are still being used normally, and not all of them are suitable).
But the problem becomes much more manageable if the caseload can fall by a factor of 4 or so. Anyone know a quick way of achieving that?
Yes it could be done today, definitely.
A lockdown would take months to reduce the caseload by 75%. That's bringing the R down below 1 and then two halving cycles. We had halving cycles of around 8-12 days even under the toughest lockdown measures, and what is being proposed still has schools open so the halving rate would inevitably be slower so two cycles could take a month each.
Why wait for that? Just start isolating people now while it's still possible.
Edit - Unfair comparison, at least Trump was elected Head of State, Brenda's not even got that.
Is she in a shop, a museum, the cinema or on public transport? No, so she does not need a mask
Role model though. It is a bit Trumpian of her to go bare faced. The message is "Virus, what virus?" I'm sure she doesn't mean to say that, but you know how people are.
She may have taken a stand on this. She is about the only person in the country who routinely rides a norse without a hard hat on.
Test everyone at airports (inbound or outbound), and guys like this would be in isolation before they did the damage.
A rapid antigen test might miss a few, but it would pick up 90-95% of those actually infectious.
Would he be in isolation, we'd send him home and say "now don't go outside" and he'd be down the pub immediately.
If we were to have adopted my testing regime, I'm pretty sure we'd have done the same for your isolation policy first. And he certainly wouldn't have made it onto the plane.
Yes, though unfortunately I don't think either are going to be implemented though and we'll end up in an unnecessary lockdown which wil destroy businesses and jobs.
While rapid testing and secure isolation is certainly desirable, I don't see how it is feasible with current case numbers. It seems to me that we need a short sharp lockdown in order to get the numbers down to a level at which it is feasible.
Because the cases are distributed across the whole country, it isn't 20,000 people that need to isolated together in one place. There are 408 local authorities in the country, they could absolutely find a way to run local isolation systems as long as they had the funding. The system doesn't need to be a gigantic national 600k capacity monster that would take months to build.
So as things stand, isolating people in hotels might just about work today, but another doubling and it wouldn't really. (Assuming that some hotels are still being used normally, and not all of them are suitable).
But the problem becomes much more manageable if the caseload can fall by a factor of 4 or so. Anyone know a quick way of achieving that?
Whilst there is something in what you say, it is also another example of looking for things to be consistent and perfect before we consider them seriously.
If there are 350k actives and we isolate 100k of them in hotel rooms instead of in homes and communities it should make a significant difference - it doesnt need to be all 350k. We need to try some big picture things, and soon.
Steve Baker is the MP that seems to be most onside with the lockdown sceptics. I think he is a cracking bet for next Con leader. Comprehensively educated, speaks like a normal person with some interesting ideas. Bit full of himself, perhaps, but this is a very interesting interview - he doesn't deny he would like the job
Its not a bad tip, when Johnson's feed went down on a recent call to PMs Baker said he would fill in before May said no way! So agree he obviously sees himself as a leader, and is more polite and less duplicitous than most of his fellow Tory extreme Brexiteers. If the Tories are searching for a Brexit harder candidate it may come down to him vs Patel.
In the interview he tells how he was pro EU and the Euro until the Lisbon Treaty. Pro FOM too. He just seems like an intelligent, compassionate, thinker to me.
"Born again" evangelical. Not put you off at all?
Say it ain't so. I had been warming to him of late.
He does have a pleasant manner and you can tell he isn't a "bad-un" as many of his political ilk are. But he also has that intense and slightly overwrought air about him that one often sees in born-agains. The sincere ones, I mean, the ones who consume it rather than sell it.
Test everyone at airports (inbound or outbound), and guys like this would be in isolation before they did the damage.
A rapid antigen test might miss a few, but it would pick up 90-95% of those actually infectious.
Would he be in isolation, we'd send him home and say "now don't go outside" and he'd be down the pub immediately.
If we were to have adopted my testing regime, I'm pretty sure we'd have done the same for your isolation policy first. And he certainly wouldn't have made it onto the plane.
Yes, though unfortunately I don't think either are going to be implemented though and we'll end up in an unnecessary lockdown which wil destroy businesses and jobs.
While rapid testing and secure isolation is certainly desirable, I don't see how it is feasible with current case numbers. It seems to me that we need a short sharp lockdown in order to get the numbers down to a level at which it is feasible.
Because the cases are distributed across the whole country, it isn't 20,000 people that need to isolated together in one place. There are 408 local authorities in the country, they could absolutely find a way to run local isolation systems as long as they had the funding. The system doesn't need to be a gigantic national 600k capacity monster that would take months to build.
And the rest. It not just those who are tested positive. What about their family, carers and contacts?
You don't need to, the whole point of proper isolation is that it reduces the R of symptomatic people to below 1 and the R of asymptomatic people is already below 1 because of NPIs. You cut the number of days people who have mild symptoms are out in the community from 10-14 to just 3 or 4 days.
The point of an actual isolation system is that it completely short circuits the need to do the whole track and trace part of it which as has been pointed out by the scientists had a negligible effect on the R.
The best part about it is that it can be done from a standing start and the effects will be fairly fast as people come into the net and stop spreading the virus but it doesn't impact on the lives of people who don't have the virus.
We are talking about a "stay home, protect the NHS, stop the virus" or whatever it was type of lockdown because that is the only way the government knows to keep people with the virus indoors and out of the community. This is an alternative method of doing that.
I still think it's a lot harder than you make out. Look at Victoria in Australia, for example. As I understand it, pretty much their whole second wave was due to a security guard becoming infected by "inmates" at a facility there. Keeping a large number of people securely contained is not easy, and there will also be a lot of people very unhappy about being forcibly quarantined.
It would, I think, make good sense to at least reduce the numbers first through lockdown. Then, if possible, implement your policy and let people go about their lives largely as normal.
You're asking for two weeks of someone's life and giving them £500 per week of isolation and giving them a nice hotel room and food. I don't think you'll find many people who won't just go along with it and for them you can use wrist strap GPS tracking and automated fines and loss of isolation money for leaving the registered premises.
The policy is possible to do today and avoids the need of having a second lockdown which will destroy parts of the economy for good. I'd rather spend extra money on isolation than have a lockdown.
Test everyone at airports (inbound or outbound), and guys like this would be in isolation before they did the damage.
A rapid antigen test might miss a few, but it would pick up 90-95% of those actually infectious.
Would he be in isolation, we'd send him home and say "now don't go outside" and he'd be down the pub immediately.
If we were to have adopted my testing regime, I'm pretty sure we'd have done the same for your isolation policy first. And he certainly wouldn't have made it onto the plane.
Yes, though unfortunately I don't think either are going to be implemented though and we'll end up in an unnecessary lockdown which wil destroy businesses and jobs.
While rapid testing and secure isolation is certainly desirable, I don't see how it is feasible with current case numbers. It seems to me that we need a short sharp lockdown in order to get the numbers down to a level at which it is feasible.
Because the cases are distributed across the whole country, it isn't 20,000 people that need to isolated together in one place. There are 408 local authorities in the country, they could absolutely find a way to run local isolation systems as long as they had the funding. The system doesn't need to be a gigantic national 600k capacity monster that would take months to build.
So as things stand, isolating people in hotels might just about work today, but another doubling and it wouldn't really. (Assuming that some hotels are still being used normally, and not all of them are suitable).
But the problem becomes much more manageable if the caseload can fall by a factor of 4 or so. Anyone know a quick way of achieving that?
The key is getting people to comply with quarantine. GIven that testing is only picking up half to one third of cases anyway and then only two thirds of close contacts are reached (England), there is no point (I think) in chasing 100% compliance. 90+% is good enough until you get the case rate down to a trickle. The main measure is for the government to pay people their wages through their company (repayable in case of quarantine breach) so that people have no reason to breach. Then do some kind of daily check - landline calls are the easiest if people have them. Hotels can be part of that mix if it's easier for people
More Elmbridge reminiscences. A couple who were friends of my parents sold their house in Esher to Errol Brown, of Hot Chocolate, who was discussed on this board a few days ago. By coincidence the wife died the same week as Errol.
Chris Tarrant, who has already been mentioned, is generally regarded as an a**e by locals and was once rude to my mother in Esher carpark.
Any excuse.
An underrated minor classic with a funky backbeat and poignant lyrics -
I also think that we need to deal with the fact that contact tracing just isn't going to work here. People aren't going to voluntarily isolate because someone on the end of the phone says you should. I'd get rid of that aspect and just get them all tested with mobile testing units and door knocks.
Test everyone at airports (inbound or outbound), and guys like this would be in isolation before they did the damage.
A rapid antigen test might miss a few, but it would pick up 90-95% of those actually infectious.
Would he be in isolation, we'd send him home and say "now don't go outside" and he'd be down the pub immediately.
If we were to have adopted my testing regime, I'm pretty sure we'd have done the same for your isolation policy first. And he certainly wouldn't have made it onto the plane.
Yes, though unfortunately I don't think either are going to be implemented though and we'll end up in an unnecessary lockdown which wil destroy businesses and jobs.
While rapid testing and secure isolation is certainly desirable, I don't see how it is feasible with current case numbers. It seems to me that we need a short sharp lockdown in order to get the numbers down to a level at which it is feasible.
Because the cases are distributed across the whole country, it isn't 20,000 people that need to isolated together in one place. There are 408 local authorities in the country, they could absolutely find a way to run local isolation systems as long as they had the funding. The system doesn't need to be a gigantic national 600k capacity monster that would take months to build.
And the rest. It not just those who are tested positive. What about their family, carers and contacts?
You don't need to, the whole point of proper isolation is that it reduces the R of symptomatic people to below 1 and the R of asymptomatic people is already below 1 because of NPIs. You cut the number of days people who have mild symptoms are out in the community from 10-14 to just 3 or 4 days.
The point of an actual isolation system is that it completely short circuits the need to do the whole track and trace part of it which as has been pointed out by the scientists had a negligible effect on the R.
The best part about it is that it can be done from a standing start and the effects will be fairly fast as people come into the net and stop spreading the virus but it doesn't impact on the lives of people who don't have the virus.
We are talking about a "stay home, protect the NHS, stop the virus" or whatever it was type of lockdown because that is the only way the government knows to keep people with the virus indoors and out of the community. This is an alternative method of doing that.
I still think it's a lot harder than you make out. Look at Victoria in Australia, for example. As I understand it, pretty much their whole second wave was due to a security guard becoming infected by "inmates" at a facility there. Keeping a large number of people securely contained is not easy, and there will also be a lot of people very unhappy about being forcibly quarantined.
It would, I think, make good sense to at least reduce the numbers first through lockdown. Then, if possible, implement your policy and let people go about their lives largely as normal.
You're asking for two weeks of someone's life and giving them £500 per week of isolation and giving them a nice hotel room and food. I don't think you'll find many people who won't just go along with it and for them you can use wrist strap GPS tracking and automated fines and loss of isolation money for leaving the registered premises.
The policy is possible to do today and avoids the need of having a second lockdown which will destroy parts of the economy for good. I'd rather spend extra money on isolation than have a lockdown.
Well I for one wouldn't go along with it voluntarily. I don't need the money, and I prefer the comfort of my own home and food to a hotel room, especially if I'm not feeling well. I'm the family cook too, so they'd struggle too if I were gone. If you want me to stay in a hotel, you'll have to force me or fine me a sufficiently high amount.
I'm guessing that quite a few others wouldn't go quietly either!
Yeah and what happens in September, schools and universities are back. We just have to live with it.
Yes. My girlfriend said yesterday that it's dificult for the govt as they have a duty to keep us safe, but I had to ask "Do they?" I dont think it is the governments job to stop us dying from naturally occurring diseases, they aren't their fault. If some people want to stay in and have everything delivered, and avoid everyone who doesnt do likewise, so be it. The rest of us should be allowed to take our chances
Test everyone at airports (inbound or outbound), and guys like this would be in isolation before they did the damage.
A rapid antigen test might miss a few, but it would pick up 90-95% of those actually infectious.
Would he be in isolation, we'd send him home and say "now don't go outside" and he'd be down the pub immediately.
If we were to have adopted my testing regime, I'm pretty sure we'd have done the same for your isolation policy first. And he certainly wouldn't have made it onto the plane.
Yes, though unfortunately I don't think either are going to be implemented though and we'll end up in an unnecessary lockdown which wil destroy businesses and jobs.
While rapid testing and secure isolation is certainly desirable, I don't see how it is feasible with current case numbers. It seems to me that we need a short sharp lockdown in order to get the numbers down to a level at which it is feasible.
Because the cases are distributed across the whole country, it isn't 20,000 people that need to isolated together in one place. There are 408 local authorities in the country, they could absolutely find a way to run local isolation systems as long as they had the funding. The system doesn't need to be a gigantic national 600k capacity monster that would take months to build.
And the rest. It not just those who are tested positive. What about their family, carers and contacts?
You don't need to, the whole point of proper isolation is that it reduces the R of symptomatic people to below 1 and the R of asymptomatic people is already below 1 because of NPIs. You cut the number of days people who have mild symptoms are out in the community from 10-14 to just 3 or 4 days.
The point of an actual isolation system is that it completely short circuits the need to do the whole track and trace part of it which as has been pointed out by the scientists had a negligible effect on the R.
The best part about it is that it can be done from a standing start and the effects will be fairly fast as people come into the net and stop spreading the virus but it doesn't impact on the lives of people who don't have the virus.
We are talking about a "stay home, protect the NHS, stop the virus" or whatever it was type of lockdown because that is the only way the government knows to keep people with the virus indoors and out of the community. This is an alternative method of doing that.
I still think it's a lot harder than you make out. Look at Victoria in Australia, for example. As I understand it, pretty much their whole second wave was due to a security guard becoming infected by "inmates" at a facility there. Keeping a large number of people securely contained is not easy, and there will also be a lot of people very unhappy about being forcibly quarantined.
It would, I think, make good sense to at least reduce the numbers first through lockdown. Then, if possible, implement your policy and let people go about their lives largely as normal.
You're asking for two weeks of someone's life and giving them £500 per week of isolation and giving them a nice hotel room and food. I don't think you'll find many people who won't just go along with it and for them you can use wrist strap GPS tracking and automated fines and loss of isolation money for leaving the registered premises.
The policy is possible to do today and avoids the need of having a second lockdown which will destroy parts of the economy for good. I'd rather spend extra money on isolation than have a lockdown.
Well I for one wouldn't go along with it voluntarily. I don't need the money, and I prefer the comfort of my own home and food to a hotel room. I'm the family cook too, so they'd struggle too if I were gone. If you want me to stay in a hotel, you'll have to force me or fine me a sufficiently high amount.
I'm guessing that quite a few others wouldn't go quietly either!
Interesting that Elmbridge has been singed out, rather than simply the whole of Surrey.
That's JohnO's parish, clearly the government are punishing Elmbridge because JohnO and I are friends.
Elmbridge has the highest house prices of any district outside London I believe (and an average house price even above the London average), clearly a lot of wealthy London commuters live there and some have started going back to the office and brought cases back on the tube
Elmbridge is the Beverly Hills of the UK, it really is
I used to live there in the 60s and 70s along with George Harrison of the Beatles (His then wife Pattie Boyd once asked my mother in the local grocers if she could recommend somewhere for Afternoon Tea), Adam Faith (He lived two roads away. He once did the raffle for the local fete. Nice chap but short) and two members of Pan's People, who lived in the same road (Their rent was paid by an elderly admirer. There was a lot of speculation about which one he was bonking or was it both of them and if so, was it at the same time?).
Happy memories.
Eric Clapton was brought up in nearby Ripley and would return from time to time to visit an aunt. The story goes that the local vicar called one day and Eric answered the door and after some polite conversation the vicar remarked on a guitar standing in the hallway and asked if Eric could play. When Clapton indicated that he did the vicar asked if he might come along to church and play something for the congregation. This so amused Clapton that he agreed. I'm not sure how many recognised him but I am sure they enjoyed the occasion.
A local pub, the Onslow Arms in Clandon, is the only one I have ever visited with its own helicopter pad. It was reputedly for Clapton and his showbiz friends, but sadly I never saw one land. Pretty decent pub though.
Radio 4 just had a vox pop with a Biden and Trump US voter and a neutral, and it descended into a shouting match and finally threats of looming civil war from the vocal Trump supporter
"Wealthy supporters of a second national lockdown ignore the extreme hardship this would cause It might not feel like it to breakfast television hosts and government scientists, but millions of livelihoods are hanging by a thread"
Edit - Unfair comparison, at least Trump was elected Head of State, Brenda's not even got that.
Is she in a shop, a museum, the cinema or on public transport? No, so she does not need a mask
Role model though. It is a bit Trumpian of her to go bare faced. The message is "Virus, what virus?" I'm sure she doesn't mean to say that, but you know how people are.
She may have taken a stand on this. She is about the only person in the country who routinely rides a norse without a hard hat on.
HMQ clearly leads a more racy life than I had imagined.
Yeah and what happens in September, schools and universities are back. We just have to live with it.
Yes. My girlfriend said yesterday that it's dificult for the govt as they have a duty to keep us safe, but I had to ask "Do they?" I dont think it is the governments job to stop us dying from naturally occurring diseases, they aren't their fault. If some people want to stay in and have everything delivered, and avoid everyone who doesnt do likewise, so be it. The rest of us should be allowed to take our chances
It's not the duty of government to keep you safe - you can make your own choices where the risk is only to yourself.
However, it is the duty of government to prevent you from imperiling other people's safety.
'imperiling the safety of others. The refrain of the tyrant echoes down the centuries.
A major purpose of government down the ages is mediating conflicts between the rights of individuals.
Roman tablets etc..
That your rights get restricted in an epidemic is an ancient governmental action - quarantine etc.
Steve Baker is the MP that seems to be most onside with the lockdown sceptics. I think he is a cracking bet for next Con leader. Comprehensively educated, speaks like a normal person with some interesting ideas. Bit full of himself, perhaps, but this is a very interesting interview - he doesn't deny he would like the job
Its not a bad tip, when Johnson's feed went down on a recent call to PMs Baker said he would fill in before May said no way! So agree he obviously sees himself as a leader, and is more polite and less duplicitous than most of his fellow Tory extreme Brexiteers. If the Tories are searching for a Brexit harder candidate it may come down to him vs Patel.
In the interview he tells how he was pro EU and the Euro until the Lisbon Treaty. Pro FOM too. He just seems like an intelligent, compassionate, thinker to me.
"Born again" evangelical. Not put you off at all?
If that occurred Steve Baker would follow current Australian PM Scott Morrison and former Canadian PM Stephen Harper who were also evangelical Christians and became conservative leaders of their countries.
The UK has not had an evangelical PM as such, most PMs have been mainline Anglicans, Boris is a baptised Catholic though since converted to Anglicanism, Thatcher did the same after being brought up Methodist, Callaghan was brought up Baptist but an atheist as an adult, Wilson was a Congregationalist and Brown Church of Scotland.
Yeah and what happens in September, schools and universities are back. We just have to live with it.
Yes. My girlfriend said yesterday that it's dificult for the govt as they have a duty to keep us safe, but I had to ask "Do they?" I dont think it is the governments job to stop us dying from naturally occurring diseases, they aren't their fault. If some people want to stay in and have everything delivered, and avoid everyone who doesnt do likewise, so be it. The rest of us should be allowed to take our chances
Test everyone at airports (inbound or outbound), and guys like this would be in isolation before they did the damage.
A rapid antigen test might miss a few, but it would pick up 90-95% of those actually infectious.
Would he be in isolation, we'd send him home and say "now don't go outside" and he'd be down the pub immediately.
If we were to have adopted my testing regime, I'm pretty sure we'd have done the same for your isolation policy first. And he certainly wouldn't have made it onto the plane.
Yes, though unfortunately I don't think either are going to be implemented though and we'll end up in an unnecessary lockdown which wil destroy businesses and jobs.
While rapid testing and secure isolation is certainly desirable, I don't see how it is feasible with current case numbers. It seems to me that we need a short sharp lockdown in order to get the numbers down to a level at which it is feasible.
Because the cases are distributed across the whole country, it isn't 20,000 people that need to isolated together in one place. There are 408 local authorities in the country, they could absolutely find a way to run local isolation systems as long as they had the funding. The system doesn't need to be a gigantic national 600k capacity monster that would take months to build.
And the rest. It not just those who are tested positive. What about their family, carers and contacts?
You don't need to, the whole point of proper isolation is that it reduces the R of symptomatic people to below 1 and the R of asymptomatic people is already below 1 because of NPIs. You cut the number of days people who have mild symptoms are out in the community from 10-14 to just 3 or 4 days.
The point of an actual isolation system is that it completely short circuits the need to do the whole track and trace part of it which as has been pointed out by the scientists had a negligible effect on the R.
The best part about it is that it can be done from a standing start and the effects will be fairly fast as people come into the net and stop spreading the virus but it doesn't impact on the lives of people who don't have the virus.
We are talking about a "stay home, protect the NHS, stop the virus" or whatever it was type of lockdown because that is the only way the government knows to keep people with the virus indoors and out of the community. This is an alternative method of doing that.
I still think it's a lot harder than you make out. Look at Victoria in Australia, for example. As I understand it, pretty much their whole second wave was due to a security guard becoming infected by "inmates" at a facility there. Keeping a large number of people securely contained is not easy, and there will also be a lot of people very unhappy about being forcibly quarantined.
It would, I think, make good sense to at least reduce the numbers first through lockdown. Then, if possible, implement your policy and let people go about their lives largely as normal.
You're asking for two weeks of someone's life and giving them £500 per week of isolation and giving them a nice hotel room and food. I don't think you'll find many people who won't just go along with it and for them you can use wrist strap GPS tracking and automated fines and loss of isolation money for leaving the registered premises.
The policy is possible to do today and avoids the need of having a second lockdown which will destroy parts of the economy for good. I'd rather spend extra money on isolation than have a lockdown.
Well I for one wouldn't go along with it voluntarily. I don't need the money, and I prefer the comfort of my own home and food to a hotel room. I'm the family cook too, so they'd struggle too if I were gone. If you want me to stay in a hotel, you'll have to force me or fine me a sufficiently high amount.
I'm guessing that quite a few others wouldn't go quietly either!
Then you have be wrist strap GPS tracking option.
Can you point to any other country that has implemented something similar? This isn't meant as a gotcha - I'm genuinely interested. Far eastern countries, for example?
Yeah and what happens in September, schools and universities are back. We just have to live with it.
Yes. My girlfriend said yesterday that it's dificult for the govt as they have a duty to keep us safe, but I had to ask "Do they?" I dont think it is the governments job to stop us dying from naturally occurring diseases, they aren't their fault. If some people want to stay in and have everything delivered, and avoid everyone who doesnt do likewise, so be it. The rest of us should be allowed to take our chances
If that occurred Steve Baker would follow current Australian PM Scott Morrison and former Canadian PM Stephen Harper who were also evangelical Christians and became conservative leaders of their countries.
The UK has not had an evangelical PM as such, most PMs have been mainline Anglicans, Boris is a baptised Catholic though since converted to Anglicanism, Thatcher did the same after being brought up Methodist, Callaghan was brought up Baptist but an atheist as an adult, Wilson was a Congregationalist and Brown Church of Scotland.
Test everyone at airports (inbound or outbound), and guys like this would be in isolation before they did the damage.
A rapid antigen test might miss a few, but it would pick up 90-95% of those actually infectious.
Would he be in isolation, we'd send him home and say "now don't go outside" and he'd be down the pub immediately.
If we were to have adopted my testing regime, I'm pretty sure we'd have done the same for your isolation policy first. And he certainly wouldn't have made it onto the plane.
Yes, though unfortunately I don't think either are going to be implemented though and we'll end up in an unnecessary lockdown which wil destroy businesses and jobs.
While rapid testing and secure isolation is certainly desirable, I don't see how it is feasible with current case numbers. It seems to me that we need a short sharp lockdown in order to get the numbers down to a level at which it is feasible.
Because the cases are distributed across the whole country, it isn't 20,000 people that need to isolated together in one place. There are 408 local authorities in the country, they could absolutely find a way to run local isolation systems as long as they had the funding. The system doesn't need to be a gigantic national 600k capacity monster that would take months to build.
And the rest. It not just those who are tested positive. What about their family, carers and contacts?
You don't need to, the whole point of proper isolation is that it reduces the R of symptomatic people to below 1 and the R of asymptomatic people is already below 1 because of NPIs. You cut the number of days people who have mild symptoms are out in the community from 10-14 to just 3 or 4 days.
The point of an actual isolation system is that it completely short circuits the need to do the whole track and trace part of it which as has been pointed out by the scientists had a negligible effect on the R.
The best part about it is that it can be done from a standing start and the effects will be fairly fast as people come into the net and stop spreading the virus but it doesn't impact on the lives of people who don't have the virus.
We are talking about a "stay home, protect the NHS, stop the virus" or whatever it was type of lockdown because that is the only way the government knows to keep people with the virus indoors and out of the community. This is an alternative method of doing that.
I still think it's a lot harder than you make out. Look at Victoria in Australia, for example. As I understand it, pretty much their whole second wave was due to a security guard becoming infected by "inmates" at a facility there. Keeping a large number of people securely contained is not easy, and there will also be a lot of people very unhappy about being forcibly quarantined.
It would, I think, make good sense to at least reduce the numbers first through lockdown. Then, if possible, implement your policy and let people go about their lives largely as normal.
You're asking for two weeks of someone's life and giving them £500 per week of isolation and giving them a nice hotel room and food. I don't think you'll find many people who won't just go along with it and for them you can use wrist strap GPS tracking and automated fines and loss of isolation money for leaving the registered premises.
The policy is possible to do today and avoids the need of having a second lockdown which will destroy parts of the economy for good. I'd rather spend extra money on isolation than have a lockdown.
Well I for one wouldn't go along with it voluntarily. I don't need the money, and I prefer the comfort of my own home and food to a hotel room. I'm the family cook too, so they'd struggle too if I were gone. If you want me to stay in a hotel, you'll have to force me or fine me a sufficiently high amount.
I'm guessing that quite a few others wouldn't go quietly either!
Then you have be wrist strap GPS tracking option.
Can you point to any other country that has implemented something similar? This isn't meant as a gotcha - I'm genuinely interested. Far eastern countries, for example?
SK do it with a smartphone app that is mandatory to install and the UAE do it with an ankle tag off the top of my head.
I don't think the first would be acceptable so the second makes sense, but using the wrist strap makes it look less like people are being treated like convicts.
Test everyone at airports (inbound or outbound), and guys like this would be in isolation before they did the damage.
A rapid antigen test might miss a few, but it would pick up 90-95% of those actually infectious.
Would he be in isolation, we'd send him home and say "now don't go outside" and he'd be down the pub immediately.
If we were to have adopted my testing regime, I'm pretty sure we'd have done the same for your isolation policy first. And he certainly wouldn't have made it onto the plane.
Yes, though unfortunately I don't think either are going to be implemented though and we'll end up in an unnecessary lockdown which wil destroy businesses and jobs.
While rapid testing and secure isolation is certainly desirable, I don't see how it is feasible with current case numbers. It seems to me that we need a short sharp lockdown in order to get the numbers down to a level at which it is feasible.
Because the cases are distributed across the whole country, it isn't 20,000 people that need to isolated together in one place. There are 408 local authorities in the country, they could absolutely find a way to run local isolation systems as long as they had the funding. The system doesn't need to be a gigantic national 600k capacity monster that would take months to build.
So as things stand, isolating people in hotels might just about work today, but another doubling and it wouldn't really. (Assuming that some hotels are still being used normally, and not all of them are suitable).
But the problem becomes much more manageable if the caseload can fall by a factor of 4 or so. Anyone know a quick way of achieving that?
The key is getting people to comply with quarantine. GIven that testing is only picking up half to one third of cases anyway and then only two thirds of close contacts are reached (England), there is no point (I think) in chasing 100% compliance. 90+% is good enough until you get the case rate down to a trickle. The main measure is for the government to pay people their wages through their company (repayable in case of quarantine breach) so that people have no reason to breach. Then do some kind of daily check - landline calls are the easiest if people have them. Hotels can be part of that mix if it's easier for people
Someone was saying on the radio this morning that the main reasons for quarantine breaches are for shopping and work. People need food and worry that they will lose their job if they don't show. So simply providing people with food, compensating them, and ensuring that their employers don't sack them would go a long way towards aiding compliance.
Edit - Unfair comparison, at least Trump was elected Head of State, Brenda's not even got that.
Is she in a shop, a museum, the cinema or on public transport? No, so she does not need a mask
Role model though. It is a bit Trumpian of her to go bare faced. The message is "Virus, what virus?" I'm sure she doesn't mean to say that, but you know how people are.
She may have taken a stand on this. She is about the only person in the country who routinely rides a norse without a hard hat on.
HMQ clearly leads a more racy life than I had imagined.
At least we now know why Prince Philip is so grumpy.
I also think that we need to deal with the fact that contact tracing just isn't going to work here. People aren't going to voluntarily isolate because someone on the end of the phone says you should. I'd get rid of that aspect and just get them all tested with mobile testing units and door knocks.
When you compare with South Korea...
They have a cultural... issue.. with extreme defence to authority. In several cases, South Korean co-pilots of planes have allowed the plane to crash, rather than override the actions of a senior pilot.
It's not hard to see how that translates to self quarantining when asked.
Yeah and what happens in September, schools and universities are back. We just have to live with it.
Yes. My girlfriend said yesterday that it's dificult for the govt as they have a duty to keep us safe, but I had to ask "Do they?" I dont think it is the governments job to stop us dying from naturally occurring diseases, they aren't their fault. If some people want to stay in and have everything delivered, and avoid everyone who doesnt do likewise, so be it. The rest of us should be allowed to take our chances
But how do we avoid you?
Will you wear a badge?
Pull the bedclothes right up over your heads!
You wouldn't be getting near the bedroom, isam, I assure you.
Yeah and what happens in September, schools and universities are back. We just have to live with it.
Yes. My girlfriend said yesterday that it's dificult for the govt as they have a duty to keep us safe, but I had to ask "Do they?" I dont think it is the governments job to stop us dying from naturally occurring diseases, they aren't their fault. If some people want to stay in and have everything delivered, and avoid everyone who doesnt do likewise, so be it. The rest of us should be allowed to take our chances
It's not the duty of government to keep you safe - you can make your own choices where the risk is only to yourself.
However, it is the duty of government to prevent you from imperiling other people's safety.
'imperiling the safety of others. The refrain of the tyrant echoes down the centuries.
You must know of some pretty dickless tyrants. "I'm going to kill you because I can" is more mainstream.
Test everyone at airports (inbound or outbound), and guys like this would be in isolation before they did the damage.
A rapid antigen test might miss a few, but it would pick up 90-95% of those actually infectious.
Would he be in isolation, we'd send him home and say "now don't go outside" and he'd be down the pub immediately.
If we were to have adopted my testing regime, I'm pretty sure we'd have done the same for your isolation policy first. And he certainly wouldn't have made it onto the plane.
Yes, though unfortunately I don't think either are going to be implemented though and we'll end up in an unnecessary lockdown which wil destroy businesses and jobs.
While rapid testing and secure isolation is certainly desirable, I don't see how it is feasible with current case numbers. It seems to me that we need a short sharp lockdown in order to get the numbers down to a level at which it is feasible.
Because the cases are distributed across the whole country, it isn't 20,000 people that need to isolated together in one place. There are 408 local authorities in the country, they could absolutely find a way to run local isolation systems as long as they had the funding. The system doesn't need to be a gigantic national 600k capacity monster that would take months to build.
And the rest. It not just those who are tested positive. What about their family, carers and contacts?
You don't need to, the whole point of proper isolation is that it reduces the R of symptomatic people to below 1 and the R of asymptomatic people is already below 1 because of NPIs. You cut the number of days people who have mild symptoms are out in the community from 10-14 to just 3 or 4 days.
The point of an actual isolation system is that it completely short circuits the need to do the whole track and trace part of it which as has been pointed out by the scientists had a negligible effect on the R.
The best part about it is that it can be done from a standing start and the effects will be fairly fast as people come into the net and stop spreading the virus but it doesn't impact on the lives of people who don't have the virus.
We are talking about a "stay home, protect the NHS, stop the virus" or whatever it was type of lockdown because that is the only way the government knows to keep people with the virus indoors and out of the community. This is an alternative method of doing that.
I still think it's a lot harder than you make out. Look at Victoria in Australia, for example. As I understand it, pretty much their whole second wave was due to a security guard becoming infected by "inmates" at a facility there. Keeping a large number of people securely contained is not easy, and there will also be a lot of people very unhappy about being forcibly quarantined.
It would, I think, make good sense to at least reduce the numbers first through lockdown. Then, if possible, implement your policy and let people go about their lives largely as normal.
You're asking for two weeks of someone's life and giving them £500 per week of isolation and giving them a nice hotel room and food. I don't think you'll find many people who won't just go along with it and for them you can use wrist strap GPS tracking and automated fines and loss of isolation money for leaving the registered premises.
The policy is possible to do today and avoids the need of having a second lockdown which will destroy parts of the economy for good. I'd rather spend extra money on isolation than have a lockdown.
Well I for one wouldn't go along with it voluntarily. I don't need the money, and I prefer the comfort of my own home and food to a hotel room, especially if I'm not feeling well. I'm the family cook too, so they'd struggle too if I were gone. If you want me to stay in a hotel, you'll have to force me or fine me a sufficiently high amount.
I'm guessing that quite a few others wouldn't go quietly either!
Let me see if I understand you -
- You are diagnosed with COVID19 - Because you are the family cook, you would stay at home and cook for the family? - As opposed to be paid to stay in a hotel room for a week or 2
What do you expect when the negotiations are overseen by the likes of Johnson and Cummings?
And Barnier
As far as I can see the EU leaders have instructed Barnier to maintain a consistent line. We and they also know he can be trusted. The same cannot be said of Johnson, Cummings and their representatives.
Their consistent line is an unacceptable one, that's the problem.
In a negotiation people compromise not remain consistent to their opening position.
Sometimes the price is the price, you take it or leave it.
Radio 4 just had a vox pop with a Biden and Trump US voter and a neutral, and it descended into a shouting match and finally threats of looming civil war from the vocal Trump supporter
Overcoming their congenital shyness on this occasion then?
Good to hear. It can be crippling and ruin life chances.
I agree that there are no good choices for the Governement now. It is paying the price for its late reaction to the crisis, failure to discipline miscreants like Cummings, easing off lockdown too soon and various failures in communications since. I just don't know where it goes from here.
The opposition has no idea either, although it will no doubt continue to harry the helpless creature that the Government has become, just for the sake of it and because that's what Oppositions do.
Test everyone at airports (inbound or outbound), and guys like this would be in isolation before they did the damage.
A rapid antigen test might miss a few, but it would pick up 90-95% of those actually infectious.
Would he be in isolation, we'd send him home and say "now don't go outside" and he'd be down the pub immediately.
If we were to have adopted my testing regime, I'm pretty sure we'd have done the same for your isolation policy first. And he certainly wouldn't have made it onto the plane.
Yes, though unfortunately I don't think either are going to be implemented though and we'll end up in an unnecessary lockdown which wil destroy businesses and jobs.
While rapid testing and secure isolation is certainly desirable, I don't see how it is feasible with current case numbers. It seems to me that we need a short sharp lockdown in order to get the numbers down to a level at which it is feasible.
Because the cases are distributed across the whole country, it isn't 20,000 people that need to isolated together in one place. There are 408 local authorities in the country, they could absolutely find a way to run local isolation systems as long as they had the funding. The system doesn't need to be a gigantic national 600k capacity monster that would take months to build.
And the rest. It not just those who are tested positive. What about their family, carers and contacts?
You don't need to, the whole point of proper isolation is that it reduces the R of symptomatic people to below 1 and the R of asymptomatic people is already below 1 because of NPIs. You cut the number of days people who have mild symptoms are out in the community from 10-14 to just 3 or 4 days.
The point of an actual isolation system is that it completely short circuits the need to do the whole track and trace part of it which as has been pointed out by the scientists had a negligible effect on the R.
The best part about it is that it can be done from a standing start and the effects will be fairly fast as people come into the net and stop spreading the virus but it doesn't impact on the lives of people who don't have the virus.
We are talking about a "stay home, protect the NHS, stop the virus" or whatever it was type of lockdown because that is the only way the government knows to keep people with the virus indoors and out of the community. This is an alternative method of doing that.
I still think it's a lot harder than you make out. Look at Victoria in Australia, for example. As I understand it, pretty much their whole second wave was due to a security guard becoming infected by "inmates" at a facility there. Keeping a large number of people securely contained is not easy, and there will also be a lot of people very unhappy about being forcibly quarantined.
It would, I think, make good sense to at least reduce the numbers first through lockdown. Then, if possible, implement your policy and let people go about their lives largely as normal.
You're asking for two weeks of someone's life and giving them £500 per week of isolation and giving them a nice hotel room and food. I don't think you'll find many people who won't just go along with it and for them you can use wrist strap GPS tracking and automated fines and loss of isolation money for leaving the registered premises.
The policy is possible to do today and avoids the need of having a second lockdown which will destroy parts of the economy for good. I'd rather spend extra money on isolation than have a lockdown.
Well I for one wouldn't go along with it voluntarily. I don't need the money, and I prefer the comfort of my own home and food to a hotel room. I'm the family cook too, so they'd struggle too if I were gone. If you want me to stay in a hotel, you'll have to force me or fine me a sufficiently high amount.
I'm guessing that quite a few others wouldn't go quietly either!
Then you have be wrist strap GPS tracking option.
Can you point to any other country that has implemented something similar? This isn't meant as a gotcha - I'm genuinely interested. Far eastern countries, for example?
SK do it with a smartphone app that is mandatory to install and the UAE do it with an ankle tag off the top of my head.
I don't think the first would be acceptable so the second makes sense, but using the wrist strap makes it look less like people are being treated like convicts.
Test everyone at airports (inbound or outbound), and guys like this would be in isolation before they did the damage.
A rapid antigen test might miss a few, but it would pick up 90-95% of those actually infectious.
Would he be in isolation, we'd send him home and say "now don't go outside" and he'd be down the pub immediately.
If we were to have adopted my testing regime, I'm pretty sure we'd have done the same for your isolation policy first. And he certainly wouldn't have made it onto the plane.
Yes, though unfortunately I don't think either are going to be implemented though and we'll end up in an unnecessary lockdown which wil destroy businesses and jobs.
While rapid testing and secure isolation is certainly desirable, I don't see how it is feasible with current case numbers. It seems to me that we need a short sharp lockdown in order to get the numbers down to a level at which it is feasible.
Because the cases are distributed across the whole country, it isn't 20,000 people that need to isolated together in one place. There are 408 local authorities in the country, they could absolutely find a way to run local isolation systems as long as they had the funding. The system doesn't need to be a gigantic national 600k capacity monster that would take months to build.
So as things stand, isolating people in hotels might just about work today, but another doubling and it wouldn't really. (Assuming that some hotels are still being used normally, and not all of them are suitable).
But the problem becomes much more manageable if the caseload can fall by a factor of 4 or so. Anyone know a quick way of achieving that?
The key is getting people to comply with quarantine. GIven that testing is only picking up half to one third of cases anyway and then only two thirds of close contacts are reached (England), there is no point (I think) in chasing 100% compliance. 90+% is good enough until you get the case rate down to a trickle. The main measure is for the government to pay people their wages through their company (repayable in case of quarantine breach) so that people have no reason to breach. Then do some kind of daily check - landline calls are the easiest if people have them. Hotels can be part of that mix if it's easier for people
Someone was saying on the radio this morning that the main reasons for quarantine breaches are for shopping and work. People need food and worry that they will lose their job if they don't show. So simply providing people with food, compensating them, and ensuring that their employers don't sack them would go a long way towards aiding compliance.
Yes that is true, but it doesnt deal with families (or other shared households) in small cramped conditions where it is close to impossible to isolate from each other. There should definitely be a free isolate at the local isolation hotel option regardless but Max's plan to pay them to stay there would probably be better, not sure you need the tags.
What do you expect when the negotiations are overseen by the likes of Johnson and Cummings?
And Barnier
As far as I can see the EU leaders have instructed Barnier to maintain a consistent line. We and they also know he can be trusted. The same cannot be said of Johnson, Cummings and their representatives.
Their consistent line is an unacceptable one, that's the problem.
In a negotiation people compromise not remain consistent to their opening position.
Sometimes the price is the price, you take it or leave it.
Test everyone at airports (inbound or outbound), and guys like this would be in isolation before they did the damage.
A rapid antigen test might miss a few, but it would pick up 90-95% of those actually infectious.
Would he be in isolation, we'd send him home and say "now don't go outside" and he'd be down the pub immediately.
If we were to have adopted my testing regime, I'm pretty sure we'd have done the same for your isolation policy first. And he certainly wouldn't have made it onto the plane.
Yes, though unfortunately I don't think either are going to be implemented though and we'll end up in an unnecessary lockdown which wil destroy businesses and jobs.
While rapid testing and secure isolation is certainly desirable, I don't see how it is feasible with current case numbers. It seems to me that we need a short sharp lockdown in order to get the numbers down to a level at which it is feasible.
Because the cases are distributed across the whole country, it isn't 20,000 people that need to isolated together in one place. There are 408 local authorities in the country, they could absolutely find a way to run local isolation systems as long as they had the funding. The system doesn't need to be a gigantic national 600k capacity monster that would take months to build.
And the rest. It not just those who are tested positive. What about their family, carers and contacts?
You don't need to, the whole point of proper isolation is that it reduces the R of symptomatic people to below 1 and the R of asymptomatic people is already below 1 because of NPIs. You cut the number of days people who have mild symptoms are out in the community from 10-14 to just 3 or 4 days.
The point of an actual isolation system is that it completely short circuits the need to do the whole track and trace part of it which as has been pointed out by the scientists had a negligible effect on the R.
The best part about it is that it can be done from a standing start and the effects will be fairly fast as people come into the net and stop spreading the virus but it doesn't impact on the lives of people who don't have the virus.
We are talking about a "stay home, protect the NHS, stop the virus" or whatever it was type of lockdown because that is the only way the government knows to keep people with the virus indoors and out of the community. This is an alternative method of doing that.
I still think it's a lot harder than you make out. Look at Victoria in Australia, for example. As I understand it, pretty much their whole second wave was due to a security guard becoming infected by "inmates" at a facility there. Keeping a large number of people securely contained is not easy, and there will also be a lot of people very unhappy about being forcibly quarantined.
It would, I think, make good sense to at least reduce the numbers first through lockdown. Then, if possible, implement your policy and let people go about their lives largely as normal.
You're asking for two weeks of someone's life and giving them £500 per week of isolation and giving them a nice hotel room and food. I don't think you'll find many people who won't just go along with it and for them you can use wrist strap GPS tracking and automated fines and loss of isolation money for leaving the registered premises.
The policy is possible to do today and avoids the need of having a second lockdown which will destroy parts of the economy for good. I'd rather spend extra money on isolation than have a lockdown.
Well I for one wouldn't go along with it voluntarily. I don't need the money, and I prefer the comfort of my own home and food to a hotel room, especially if I'm not feeling well. I'm the family cook too, so they'd struggle too if I were gone. If you want me to stay in a hotel, you'll have to force me or fine me a sufficiently high amount.
I'm guessing that quite a few others wouldn't go quietly either!
Let me see if I understand you -
- You are diagnosed with COVID19 - Because you are the family cook, you would stay at home and cook for the family? - As opposed to be paid to stay in a hotel room for a week or 2
wut?
Well, maybe they could fend for themselves food-wise for a couple of weeks, but no, I certainly would not prefer an enforced stay in a hotel room to the comfort of my own home (especially if I wasn't feeling well)! Is that unusual? Don't most people like living in their own houses?
Steve Baker is the MP that seems to be most onside with the lockdown sceptics. I think he is a cracking bet for next Con leader. Comprehensively educated, speaks like a normal person with some interesting ideas. Bit full of himself, perhaps, but this is a very interesting interview - he doesn't deny he would like the job
Its not a bad tip, when Johnson's feed went down on a recent call to PMs Baker said he would fill in before May said no way! So agree he obviously sees himself as a leader, and is more polite and less duplicitous than most of his fellow Tory extreme Brexiteers. If the Tories are searching for a Brexit harder candidate it may come down to him vs Patel.
In the interview he tells how he was pro EU and the Euro until the Lisbon Treaty. Pro FOM too. He just seems like an intelligent, compassionate, thinker to me.
"Born again" evangelical. Not put you off at all?
If that occurred Steve Baker would follow current Australian PM Scott Morrison and former Canadian PM Stephen Harper who were also evangelical Christians and became conservative leaders of their countries.
The UK has not had an evangelical PM as such, most PMs have been mainline Anglicans, Boris is a baptised Catholic though since converted to Anglicanism, Thatcher did the same after being brought up Methodist, Callaghan was brought up Baptist but an atheist as an adult, Wilson was a Congregationalist and Brown Church of Scotland.
I'm tempted to do a piece about this but not about Baker
If that occurred Steve Baker would follow current Australian PM Scott Morrison and former Canadian PM Stephen Harper who were also evangelical Christians and became conservative leaders of their countries.
The UK has not had an evangelical PM as such, most PMs have been mainline Anglicans, Boris is a baptised Catholic though since converted to Anglicanism, Thatcher did the same after being brought up Methodist, Callaghan was brought up Baptist but an atheist as an adult, Wilson was a Congregationalist and Brown Church of Scotland.
Blair?
Spencer Perceval, I believe - deeply evangelical and major opponent of the slave trade in consequence.
Test everyone at airports (inbound or outbound), and guys like this would be in isolation before they did the damage.
A rapid antigen test might miss a few, but it would pick up 90-95% of those actually infectious.
Would he be in isolation, we'd send him home and say "now don't go outside" and he'd be down the pub immediately.
If we were to have adopted my testing regime, I'm pretty sure we'd have done the same for your isolation policy first. And he certainly wouldn't have made it onto the plane.
Yes, though unfortunately I don't think either are going to be implemented though and we'll end up in an unnecessary lockdown which wil destroy businesses and jobs.
While rapid testing and secure isolation is certainly desirable, I don't see how it is feasible with current case numbers. It seems to me that we need a short sharp lockdown in order to get the numbers down to a level at which it is feasible.
Because the cases are distributed across the whole country, it isn't 20,000 people that need to isolated together in one place. There are 408 local authorities in the country, they could absolutely find a way to run local isolation systems as long as they had the funding. The system doesn't need to be a gigantic national 600k capacity monster that would take months to build.
So as things stand, isolating people in hotels might just about work today, but another doubling and it wouldn't really. (Assuming that some hotels are still being used normally, and not all of them are suitable).
But the problem becomes much more manageable if the caseload can fall by a factor of 4 or so. Anyone know a quick way of achieving that?
The key is getting people to comply with quarantine. GIven that testing is only picking up half to one third of cases anyway and then only two thirds of close contacts are reached (England), there is no point (I think) in chasing 100% compliance. 90+% is good enough until you get the case rate down to a trickle. The main measure is for the government to pay people their wages through their company (repayable in case of quarantine breach) so that people have no reason to breach. Then do some kind of daily check - landline calls are the easiest if people have them. Hotels can be part of that mix if it's easier for people
Someone was saying on the radio this morning that the main reasons for quarantine breaches are for shopping and work. People need food and worry that they will lose their job if they don't show. So simply providing people with food, compensating them, and ensuring that their employers don't sack them would go a long way towards aiding compliance.
Yes. Another thing that is worth doing is a health visitor style visit early on to ensure the patient is OK, got everything they need and have the quarantine arrangements in place.
To be clear, I am with Max that we need to get a lot more serious about quarantine compliance. Every bit of R we save that way means one less intervention needed to keep the epidemic in check.
I also think that we need to deal with the fact that contact tracing just isn't going to work here. People aren't going to voluntarily isolate because someone on the end of the phone says you should. I'd get rid of that aspect and just get them all tested with mobile testing units and door knocks.
When you compare with South Korea...
They have a cultural... issue.. with extreme defence to authority. In several cases, South Korean co-pilots of planes have allowed the plane to crash, rather than override the actions of a senior pilot.
It's not hard to see how that translates to self quarantining when asked.
And yet they have a functioning democracy as a result of a popular revolt in the 80s. So it’s possible to exaggerate that ‘extreme deference to authority’.
I also think that we need to deal with the fact that contact tracing just isn't going to work here. People aren't going to voluntarily isolate because someone on the end of the phone says you should. I'd get rid of that aspect and just get them all tested with mobile testing units and door knocks.
When you compare with South Korea...
They have a cultural... issue.. with extreme defence to authority. In several cases, South Korean co-pilots of planes have allowed the plane to crash, rather than override the actions of a senior pilot.
It's not hard to see how that translates to self quarantining when asked.
We seem to have a cabinet with similar inclinations to those South Korean co-pilots.
I see a good case for matching responses to local conditions. On the other hand the current arguments about which tier particular regions go into shows that local arrangements aren't an easy option either. The mess isn't entirely due to government incompetence. This stuff is hard.
Comments
That's the trouble with exponential growth, or even power laws. The first few steps look small and manageable... then WHOOSH.
And that's the political problem- the smart time to put the controls in is before the whoosh, when the systems are still on top of things. Because if you wait a couple of weeks until the problem is obvious, it's much harder (and probably more expensive overall) to get control back.
"[...] t for a pandemic like Covid-19, the First Ministers have the ability to close businesses or curtail their trading - but not the ability to support them.
Most hospitality businesses rely on the trade that comes from two or more households mixing: they can't live on the business solely driven by households living together.
Yet businesses receive no meaningful support if they are in Tier 2 - and most businesses will not receive support even in Tier 3, because only businesses which are compelled to close will receive wage and operational subsidy. [...]
But the question is: what's the point? The perverse consequence of Sunak's approach is that the devolved governments are incentivised to shut things down, in order to maintain their eligibility for the furlough and other measures, rather than experiment with new ways to keep the economy going in the age of lockdown.
And in England, either businesses and households will follow the rules in Tier 2, and bars, restaurants and clubs will go bankrupt in large numbers, or they won't, and cases will spike and they'll end up in Tier 3. The most likely outcome is that a bit of both will happen: and that whether by a thousand local lockdowns or through a panicked second lockdown later this month, we end up with all of the costs of lockdown and all of the costs of no lockdown, too."
50/1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsDx7CM0SkI
The question is why hasn't Sturgeon used those powers?
The right to be listened to by government is actually quite important.
A facemask in matching pink would have been rather fetching.
I'm going to stop now before I get accused of supporting the Scottish government.
The government promised we would mobilise on a war footing, yet wont take big, decisive actions.
The point of an actual isolation system is that it completely short circuits the need to do the whole track and trace part of it which as has been pointed out by the scientists had a negligible effect on the R.
The best part about it is that it can be done from a standing start and the effects will be fairly fast as people come into the net and stop spreading the virus but it doesn't impact on the lives of people who don't have the virus.
We are talking about a "stay home, protect the NHS, stop the virus" or whatever it was type of lockdown because that is the only way the government knows to keep people with the virus indoors and out of the community. This is an alternative method of doing that.
His idea for same sex marriage was exactly what I thought should happen - maybe that was the clincher
"A new principle would have become established: that the Government has the right and even the obligation to lock us down at the first sign of any new epidemic, even one that doesn’t truly threaten the survival of our society. Johnson must resist going down that route with every fibre of his being."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/10/14/vicious-cycle-lockdowns-would-condemn-britain-terminal-decline/
An underrated minor classic with a funky backbeat and poignant lyrics -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIXrAhgkxNE&list=RDNIXrAhgkxNE&start_radio=1&t=0
One of the reasons why the US presidential is such an earthshakingly massive, massive event. If the get on with life party wins there, it can sure enough win here.
Will you wear a badge?
https://www.statista.com/topics/3146/hotel-industry-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/
And the ZOE app estimates 350k active Covid cases;
https://covid.joinzoe.com/data
So as things stand, isolating people in hotels might just about work today, but another doubling and it wouldn't really. (Assuming that some hotels are still being used normally, and not all of them are suitable).
But the problem becomes much more manageable if the caseload can fall by a factor of 4 or so. Anyone know a quick way of achieving that?
It would, I think, make good sense to at least reduce the numbers first through lockdown. Then, if possible, implement your policy and let people go about their lives largely as normal.
A lockdown would take months to reduce the caseload by 75%. That's bringing the R down below 1 and then two halving cycles. We had halving cycles of around 8-12 days even under the toughest lockdown measures, and what is being proposed still has schools open so the halving rate would inevitably be slower so two cycles could take a month each.
Why wait for that? Just start isolating people now while it's still possible.
If there are 350k actives and we isolate 100k of them in hotel rooms instead of in homes and communities it should make a significant difference - it doesnt need to be all 350k. We need to try some big picture things, and soon.
The policy is possible to do today and avoids the need of having a second lockdown which will destroy parts of the economy for good. I'd rather spend extra money on isolation than have a lockdown.
I'm guessing that quite a few others wouldn't go quietly either!
A local pub, the Onslow Arms in Clandon, is the only one I have ever visited with its own helicopter pad. It was reputedly for Clapton and his showbiz friends, but sadly I never saw one land. Pretty decent pub though.
It might not feel like it to breakfast television hosts and government scientists, but millions of livelihoods are hanging by a thread"
https://twitter.com/cjsnowdon/status/1316406103832432648?s=20
Roman tablets etc..
That your rights get restricted in an epidemic is an ancient governmental action - quarantine etc.
The UK has not had an evangelical PM as such, most PMs have been mainline Anglicans, Boris is a baptised Catholic though since converted to Anglicanism, Thatcher did the same after being brought up Methodist, Callaghan was brought up Baptist but an atheist as an adult, Wilson was a Congregationalist and Brown Church of Scotland.
I don't think the first would be acceptable so the second makes sense, but using the wrist strap makes it look less like people are being treated like convicts.
They have a cultural... issue.. with extreme defence to authority. In several cases, South Korean co-pilots of planes have allowed the plane to crash, rather than override the actions of a senior pilot.
It's not hard to see how that translates to self quarantining when asked.
- You are diagnosed with COVID19
- Because you are the family cook, you would stay at home and cook for the family?
- As opposed to be paid to stay in a hotel room for a week or 2
wut?
So f**k the French, leave it.
PB Tories will explain this away!
Good to hear. It can be crippling and ruin life chances.
The opposition has no idea either, although it will no doubt continue to harry the helpless creature that the Government has become, just for the sake of it and because that's what Oppositions do.
Coronavirus: South Korea returns to lockdown and pleads with citizens to adhere to social distancing guidelines
But well done for not typing "Frogs".
Must have been an effort.
Del: "Same place you got them Kings. I knew you was cheating, Boycie."
Boycie: "Oh yeah? How?"
Del: "'Cos that wasn't the hand that I dealt you."
Bet he "loves women" and there "isn't a sexist bone in his body".
To be clear, I am with Max that we need to get a lot more serious about quarantine compliance. Every bit of R we save that way means one less intervention needed to keep the epidemic in check.
https://twitter.com/WSJopinion/status/1316369657973157888
So it’s possible to exaggerate that ‘extreme deference to authority’.
I see a good case for matching responses to local conditions. On the other hand the current arguments about which tier particular regions go into shows that local arrangements aren't an easy option either. The mess isn't entirely due to government incompetence. This stuff is hard.