Except the crux of the problem was Burnham demanded a different enhanced job support scheme. He wouldn't accept the same scheme as everybody else.
It is why the government should have never said they would negotiation with each region, as it was only a matter of time before one said no we are special, we have these different problems, so I want something else.
I attend a lot of premier league football matches and I'm not middle class.
What about those attending horse race meetings?
I suppose if you go in the Members Enclosure you are upper class, if you are in Grandstand you are middle class and if you are in the Silver Ring or Family Enclosure you are working class.
In truth, that was the original division.
Horse racing - flat not jumps - is in my experience a great way to escape the middle classes. They don't seem to get it. You just get the posh and the plebs.
Except the crux of the problem was Burnham demanded a different enhanced job support scheme. He wouldn't accept the same scheme as everybody else.
He wanted the business support scheme to be based on the amount of business in the area and not the population.
Given there are far more businesses based in Manchester per head of population compared to Liverpool or Manchester his argument is more businesses require the support.
It's just Utah. They're all insanely nice there. Another part of the company I used to work at was based in SLC and they were the most charming people I've ever met. Don't think I'd ever want to live in SLC for other reasons (climate, urban planning etc) but the people were not one of them.
Except the crux of the problem was Burnham demanded a different enhanced job support scheme. He wouldn't accept the same scheme as everybody else.
He wanted the business support scheme to be based on the amount of business in the area and not the population.
Given there are far more businesses based in Manchester per head of population compared to Liverpool or Manchester his argument is more businesses require the support.
I believe it is the paying 80% of wages that will have been the problem. If the government agrees to that, within days they would have to rewrite the whole scheme.
I am not saying one is right or wrong, just saying that I think this is the crux of the issue, not a few million quid extra.
No I am not advocating staffless trains, I am advocating driverless like the DLR. Exactly like the DLR.
I wouldn't be unhappy with that though you'd need a couple of staff members on some of the busier trains in the morning.
The two big issues which concern passengers are information and assistance. As long as people know what is happening when their tube stops in a tunnel and/or the lights go out they don't panic. I've been there - it's a stressful situation but hearing the driver tell you what's happening is immensely re-assuring.
The other situation is what to do if a passenger faints or is taken ill. Having knowledgeable and confident staff at times like that is really helpful whether they are at a station or on a train and the new "through" trains would be hugely helpful in allowing staff to move up and down the train to render assistance.
The drivers do all that now as well as drive the train - they do maintenance when doors don't open or close properly for example. It's a lot more than sitting up the front.
The trouble is, there's very little benefit in moving the driver from the front of the train to somewhere else. The big win from driverless is to decouple the running of the service from a fixed roster of staff. I guess moving to more of a DLR model may save a few quid on salaries, but that's not really enough to justify the whole endeavour.
The technology is there - although the main function of tube drivers nowadays is to operate doors and avoid trapping/dragging kids and granny - the riskiest part of the whole operation. It's accepted that platform doors would be needed before the driver can be got ride of. This is expensive, in some cases impossible (inter-running of different stock), and in some cases would require stations to be re-built.
There's also, as you say, a lot to be said for having a staff presence on a train potentially moving 1000 people in a 10ft tunnel underground, with no trackside walkway (most automated metros in tunnels have these).
If I was the government I'd do it, just to piss off the unions, but that's just me and in truth it would probably be a major distraction to a system with enough issues already.
Now I'm imagining Graham Brady standing in a room of poisoned cabinet ministers saying "the North remembers, when people ask tell them winter came for House Cummings".
I have avoided PB today, primarily because of work, but also to short circuit the Johnson triumphalists claiming a Boris victory over Burnham and over business.
I may be wrong but it looks like a hollow victory for Johnson.
Except the crux of the problem was Burnham demanded a different enhanced job support scheme. He wouldn't accept the same scheme as everybody else.
He wanted the business support scheme to be based on the amount of business in the area and not the population.
Given there are far more businesses based in Manchester per head of population compared to Liverpool or Manchester his argument is more businesses require the support.
I believe it is the paying 80% of wages that will have been the problem. If the government agrees to that, within days they would have to rewrite the whole scheme.
I am not saying one is right or wrong, just saying that I think this is the crux of the issue, not a few million quid extra.
When the government said that was not ever a thing at the start it changed to a model to support businesses in Manchester at the same £££ as they are in Liverpool.
That came to £90m due to the much higher business in Manc than Liverpool.
Except the crux of the problem was Burnham demanded a different enhanced job support scheme. He wouldn't accept the same scheme as everybody else.
He wanted the business support scheme to be based on the amount of business in the area and not the population.
Given there are far more businesses based in Manchester per head of population compared to Liverpool or Manchester his argument is more businesses require the support.
I believe it is the paying 80% of wages that will have been the problem. If the government agrees to that, within days they would have to rewrite the whole scheme.
I am not saying one is right or wrong, just saying that I think this is the crux of the issue, not a few million quid extra.
When the government said that was not ever a thing at the start it changed to a model to support businesses in Manchester at the same £££ as they are in Liverpool.
That came to £90m due to the much higher business in Manc than Liverpool.
What do you mean its not a thing? Andy Burnham keeps saying exactly this, that he wants to set up a special local scheme to pay the extra to get people to 80%, and of course that will be funded by the government money.
Except the crux of the problem was Burnham demanded a different enhanced job support scheme. He wouldn't accept the same scheme as everybody else.
He wanted the business support scheme to be based on the amount of business in the area and not the population.
Given there are far more businesses based in Manchester per head of population compared to Liverpool or Manchester his argument is more businesses require the support.
I believe it is the paying 80% of wages that will have been the problem. If the government agrees to that, within days they would have to rewrite the whole scheme.
I am not saying one is right or wrong, just saying that I think this is the crux of the issue, not a few million quid extra.
When the government said that was not ever a thing at the start it changed to a model to support businesses in Manchester at the same £££ as they are in Liverpool.
That came to £90m due to the much higher business in Manc than Liverpool.
What do you mean its not a thing? Andy Burnham keeps saying exactly this, that he wants to set up a special local scheme to pay the extra to get people to 80%, and of course that will be funded by the government money.
I am saying the specific request for £90m that was lowered to £65m was based on a model based on volume of businesses impacted by the move to tier 3 in comparison to other cities which was far far more than the ask for 80% furlough.
Now I'm imagining Graham Brady standing in a room of poisoned cabinet ministers saying "the North remembers, when people ask tell them winter came for House Cummings".
If Joffrey had survived to his 50s he might well resemble Boris.
Now I'm imagining Graham Brady standing in a room of poisoned cabinet ministers saying "the North remembers, when people ask tell them winter came for House Cummings".
If Joffrey had survived to his 50s he might well resemble Boris.
Now I'm imagining Graham Brady standing in a room of poisoned cabinet ministers saying "the North remembers, when people ask tell them winter came for House Cummings".
If Joffrey had survived to his 50s he might well resemble Boris.
Have you looked at that guys other Tweets. Took me about 10 seconds to spot a pattern in his Tweets.
'In any other year, Democrats would have a time-tested, if imperfect way to address their turnout concerns — thousands of volunteers and organizers knocking on doors to register voters and prod them to return their ballots. But Biden abandoned a door-knocking campaign due to concerns about the coronavirus until the final month of the election, ceding traditional field operations to Trump.
The effect that decision will have on the outcome will be impossible to fully quantify until the election is over. But it is one likely reason that Republicans have been able to make registration gains in several states, including Florida, where the GOP has significantly narrowed the party’s voter registration gap with Democrats.'
Current Covid hospitalisation rates, by nations and regions, per 100,000 population:
South West 3 South East 4 East 4 London 6 Midlands 9 England 10 Northern Ireland 14 Scotland 14 Wales 15 North East & Yorkshire 16 North West 25
So long as the UK Government persists in the belief that lockdowns are worth the trouble then it is in an impossible bind. If it goes for a second national lockdown in England then it's taking a baseball bat to large swathes of the country where the situation is effectively under control: what rationale is there for closing everything in Norfolk or Cornwall?
If, on the other hand, it persists in doing what its own logic dictates and implements the targeted incarceration of Northerners, then it will inevitably be accused of picking on them.
Of course, the leader of Manchester City Council has offered the Government a way out of the corner into which it has painted itself by proposing risk segmentation. Will it listen? I think we all know the answer to that one.
I have avoided PB today, primarily because of work, but also to short circuit the Johnson triumphalists claiming a Boris victory over Burnham and over business. I may be wrong but it looks like a hollow victory for Johnson.
Does anybody think that Burnham is the new Churchill?
Have you looked at that guys other Tweets. Took me about 10 seconds to spot a pattern in his Tweets.
The top story on Politico is about Biden's cabinet picks. I sure hope that doesn't turn out to be hubris, but there's no sign of the story @HYUFD is pushing.
Current Covid hospitalisation rates, by nations and regions, per 100,000 population:
South West 3 South East 4 East 4 London 6 Midlands 9 England 10 Northern Ireland 14 Scotland 14 Wales 15 North East & Yorkshire 16 North West 25
So long as the UK Government persists in the belief that lockdowns are worth the trouble then it is in an impossible bind. If it goes for a second national lockdown in England then it's taking a baseball bat to large swathes of the country where the situation is effectively under control: what rationale is there for closing everything in Norfolk or Cornwall?
If, on the other hand, it persists in doing what its own logic dictates and implements the targeted incarceration of Northerners, then it will inevitably be accused of picking on them.
Of course, the leader of Manchester City Council has offered the Government a way out of the corner into which it has painted itself by proposing risk segmentation. Will it listen? I think we all know the answer to that one.
The real crux of the issue is that if you run a system where you wait for those with the virus to come to you, i.e. our current testing system...by the time you know you have a problem in a region is it probably too late already.
Biden up by just over 5% in Arizona, interesting thing here is this pollster (think they are A rated by 538) is a local one in Phoenix so closer to the action. Think their last one was +2 or +3 so a slight uptick for Joe but if he gains Arizona it gives him options on how to reach 270.
It would be an unusual evening if Biden gained AZ and not the Presidency.
Indeed but if Trafalgar is correct Trump could hold Michigan and possibly Wisconsin and lose Pennsylvania and Arizona (given their record was better in the MidWest than West in 2016).
In which case it would be Trump 274 and Biden 264, the closest election since 2000 but Trump is re elected
You seem to persist in your belief that Trafalgar is a poster, and not just some bloke who invents numbers.
Not much comment on here about today's reported death toll of 241. Yes, I know it's an inflated Tuesday figure, but it looks like we're heading for around 200 deaths a day next week. And yes, most of them will be elderly. But it seems to me we are too sanguine, even blase, about this. Imagine, say, a cruise ship with 1,000 elderly passengers sank, and 200 of them drowned while 800 were saved - that would be big news, and few would say, "well, they were pretty old". Then imagine the same happened the next day. And the day after that. And - you get my drift. This is happening with the virus, even though most old people are being very cautious and many are still rarely leaving the house.
The infection case data suggests that any fall or levelling off is simply because it has stopped spreading through so many students, but in the meantime they have succeeded (unwittingly and unsurprisingly) in spreading it out into the community, including the over 60s.
I'd like to think that the Great Barrington Declaration types and their followers on here would now reflect on what's happening and recognise that letting younger people catch the virus while protecting the elderly/vulnerable is a flawed strategy that would result in thousands of unnecessary deaths. But I doubt they will. They will, however, continue to rail against the collateral damage of undiagnosed/untreated cancer etc., while stubbornly failing to recognise that if we don't reduce Covid infections quickly then cancer treatments will become much harder to get when the hospitals are full of Covid patients.
I have avoided PB today, primarily because of work, but also to short circuit the Johnson triumphalists claiming a Boris victory over Burnham and over business. I may be wrong but it looks like a hollow victory for Johnson.
Does anybody think that Burnham is the new Churchill?
Biden up by just over 5% in Arizona, interesting thing here is this pollster (think they are A rated by 538) is a local one in Phoenix so closer to the action. Think their last one was +2 or +3 so a slight uptick for Joe but if he gains Arizona it gives him options on how to reach 270.
It would be an unusual evening if Biden gained AZ and not the Presidency.
Indeed but if Trafalgar is correct Trump could hold Michigan and possibly Wisconsin and lose Pennsylvania and Arizona (given their record was better in the MidWest than West in 2016).
In which case it would be Trump 274 and Biden 264, the closest election since 2000 but Trump is re elected
You seem to persist in your belief that Trafalgar is a poster, and not just some bloke who invents numbers.
Given IBID/TIPP today Trafalgar looks very much like it could be in line with the national picture
I have avoided PB today, primarily because of work, but also to short circuit the Johnson triumphalists claiming a Boris victory over Burnham and over business. I may be wrong but it looks like a hollow victory for Johnson.
Does anybody think that Burnham is the new Churchill?
I attend a lot of premier league football matches and I'm not middle class.
What about those attending horse race meetings?
I suppose if you go in the Members Enclosure you are upper class, if you are in Grandstand you are middle class and if you are in the Silver Ring or Family Enclosure you are working class.
In truth, that was the original division.
Horse racing - flat not jumps - is in my experience a great way to escape the middle classes. They don't seem to get it. You just get the posh and the plebs.
the best sporting event to attend as a spectator has to be imo the Cheltenham Festival !
I have avoided PB today, primarily because of work, but also to short circuit the Johnson triumphalists claiming a Boris victory over Burnham and over business. I may be wrong but it looks like a hollow victory for Johnson.
Does anybody think that Burnham is the new Churchill?
Yes Boris Johnson is the new Churchill.
Randolph Churchill.
Could still be Winston Churchill...
American Winston became managing editor of Cosmopolitan magazine...
I dunno, I'm sure Johnson will be able to negotiate a gigantic pay package to edit the Telegraph.
I don't see why Boris can't edit the Telegraph whilst still PM. It is not as if the Telegraph editorial could be any more pro- Johnson. With Boris' occassional self-doubt, it may be somewhat less partisan.
With Biden miles ahead in the polls and destined to win, one thing bothers me. There seems a real lack of public support for him, for example his rallies get about 10 people.
Has a president ever won before with almost zero enthusiasm?
Biden up by just over 5% in Arizona, interesting thing here is this pollster (think they are A rated by 538) is a local one in Phoenix so closer to the action. Think their last one was +2 or +3 so a slight uptick for Joe but if he gains Arizona it gives him options on how to reach 270.
It would be an unusual evening if Biden gained AZ and not the Presidency.
Indeed but if Trafalgar is correct Trump could hold Michigan and possibly Wisconsin and lose Pennsylvania and Arizona (given their record was better in the MidWest than West in 2016).
In which case it would be Trump 274 and Biden 264, the closest election since 2000 but Trump is re elected
Do you have a theory as to why Trafalgar had exactly the same Congressional area response breakdowns for all 3 Michigan polls they did across August, September and October?
Not much comment on here about today's reported death toll of 241. Yes, I know it's an inflated Tuesday figure, but it looks like we're heading for around 200 deaths a day next week. And yes, most of them will be elderly. But it seems to me we are too sanguine, even blase, about this. Imagine, say, a cruise ship with 1,000 elderly passengers sank, and 200 of them drowned while 800 were saved - that would be big news, and few would say, "well, they were pretty old". Then imagine the same happened the next day. And the day after that. And - you get my drift. This is happening with the virus, even though most old people are being very cautious and many are still rarely leaving the house.
The infection case data suggests that any fall or levelling off is simply because it has stopped spreading through so many students, but in the meantime they have succeeded (unwittingly and unsurprisingly) in spreading it out into the community, including the over 60s.
I'd like to think that the Great Barrington Declaration types and their followers on here would now reflect on what's happening and recognise that letting younger people catch the virus while protecting the elderly/vulnerable is a flawed strategy that would result in thousands of unnecessary deaths. But I doubt they will. They will, however, continue to rail against the collateral damage of undiagnosed/untreated cancer etc., while stubbornly failing to recognise that if we don't reduce Covid infections quickly then cancer treatments will become much harder to get when the hospitals are full of Covid patients.
Absent a vaccine, there are two alternatives to targeted shielding of the vulnerable. One is to do nothing. The other is a treadmill of lockdowns.
Lockdowns don't work because they cannot be sustained indefinitely, and if you relax them then the disease simply takes off again, in which case the effort expended on the lockdown was wasted (we only got such a large breathing space in Summer because the lockdown was relaxed gradually, and into the driest and warmest part of the year.) Presumably you're not in favour of doing nothing? That leaves shielding.
It's shit but it's less shit than precipitating complete societal collapse by impoverishing everyone. In which case the frail people saved by the lockdowns just die of poverty and neglect anyway.
With Biden miles ahead in the polls and destined to win, one thing bothers me. There seems a real lack of public support for him, for example his rallies get about 10 people.
Has a president ever won before with almost zero enthusiasm?
It's almost like the campaign has urged people not to attend because of Covid-19 and that Dems are more likely to believe that Covid-19 is real.
Not much comment on here about today's reported death toll of 241. Yes, I know it's an inflated Tuesday figure, but it looks like we're heading for around 200 deaths a day next week. And yes, most of them will be elderly. But it seems to me we are too sanguine, even blase, about this. Imagine, say, a cruise ship with 1,000 elderly passengers sank, and 200 of them drowned while 800 were saved - that would be big news, and few would say, "well, they were pretty old". Then imagine the same happened the next day. And the day after that. And - you get my drift. This is happening with the virus, even though most old people are being very cautious and many are still rarely leaving the house.
The infection case data suggests that any fall or levelling off is simply because it has stopped spreading through so many students, but in the meantime they have succeeded (unwittingly and unsurprisingly) in spreading it out into the community, including the over 60s.
I'd like to think that the Great Barrington Declaration types and their followers on here would now reflect on what's happening and recognise that letting younger people catch the virus while protecting the elderly/vulnerable is a flawed strategy that would result in thousands of unnecessary deaths. But I doubt they will. They will, however, continue to rail against the collateral damage of undiagnosed/untreated cancer etc., while stubbornly failing to recognise that if we don't reduce Covid infections quickly then cancer treatments will become much harder to get when the hospitals are full of Covid patients.
Deaths by date of death -
Cases by specimen date -
It looks like MaxPB is right - the rate of increase is slowing quite a bit.
Possibly not by any Labour gain, just Labour staying steady on around 40 whilst Tory drops into the high 30s, seems possible.
I think if Labour is to win an election, they are not going to outpoll Corbyn by very much - they'd only have to go up 3 points to match Blair's best
A good point, that I agree with, but difficult to see where the dropped Con. votes go, if it is not to Labour to whom? I don't think Sir Ed needs to go back to his constituency any time soon and prepare for government.
This Government has no strategy. It has no direction. It has no clue. It has no plot.
It is clear as day that beyond Brexit delivery, they haven't a clue. Labour just needs to keep looking competent and people will surely see in time this Government is just like every other Tory Government and it's now time for a change after 14 years.
Until Fraser Nelson realises that Greater Manchester isn't just Manchester his observations can be safely ignored.
Quite so. And I suspect that peak in Manchester was hundreds of students at Manchester Met University. So while infection rates are going down among students, they're still going up in the community.
That's sure to get the votes out for Sean Bailey! Lol
They don't care, they know they've lost London. They're basically turning into the GOP at this rate: Entrench on your base and hope they don't defect at any point.
Not much comment on here about today's reported death toll of 241. Yes, I know it's an inflated Tuesday figure, but it looks like we're heading for around 200 deaths a day next week. And yes, most of them will be elderly. But it seems to me we are too sanguine, even blase, about this. Imagine, say, a cruise ship with 1,000 elderly passengers sank, and 200 of them drowned while 800 were saved - that would be big news, and few would say, "well, they were pretty old". Then imagine the same happened the next day. And the day after that. And - you get my drift. This is happening with the virus, even though most old people are being very cautious and many are still rarely leaving the house.
The infection case data suggests that any fall or levelling off is simply because it has stopped spreading through so many students, but in the meantime they have succeeded (unwittingly and unsurprisingly) in spreading it out into the community, including the over 60s.
I'd like to think that the Great Barrington Declaration types and their followers on here would now reflect on what's happening and recognise that letting younger people catch the virus while protecting the elderly/vulnerable is a flawed strategy that would result in thousands of unnecessary deaths. But I doubt they will. They will, however, continue to rail against the collateral damage of undiagnosed/untreated cancer etc., while stubbornly failing to recognise that if we don't reduce Covid infections quickly then cancer treatments will become much harder to get when the hospitals are full of Covid patients.
Deaths by date of death -
Cases by specimen date -
It looks like MaxPB is right - the rate of increase is slowing quite a bit.
ONS:
"In Week 41, the number of deaths registered was 1.5% above the five-year average (143 deaths higher)."
With Biden miles ahead in the polls and destined to win, one thing bothers me. There seems a real lack of public support for him, for example his rallies get about 10 people.
Has a president ever won before with almost zero enthusiasm?
The last one was maybe Bush Snr in 1988, few disliked him like Biden but there was not much enthusiasm for him like Biden too, however the same applied to Dukakis, there were few diehard Dukakis fans either. Trump has far more fans than Dukakis did even if a lot hate him too
That's sure to get the votes out for Sean Bailey! Lol
They don't care, they know they've lost London. They're basically turning into the GOP at this rate: Entrench on your base and hope they don't defect at any point.
At this point the Tories are being run out of London, good chance Labour pick up a few seats there even if they lose, it would be good to see a Lib Dev resurgence too.
The Tories are not welcome in London, we've played that game and we don't want them again.
I attend a lot of premier league football matches and I'm not middle class.
What about those attending horse race meetings?
I suppose if you go in the Members Enclosure you are upper class, if you are in Grandstand you are middle class and if you are in the Silver Ring or Family Enclosure you are working class.
In truth, that was the original division.
Horse racing - flat not jumps - is in my experience a great way to escape the middle classes. They don't seem to get it. You just get the posh and the plebs.
the best sporting event to attend as a spectator has to be imo the Cheltenham Festival !
Been twice. It's great. Very atmospheric. But I'm much more into flat racing.
With Biden miles ahead in the polls and destined to win, one thing bothers me. There seems a real lack of public support for him, for example his rallies get about 10 people.
Has a president ever won before with almost zero enthusiasm?
It's almost like the campaign has urged people not to attend because of Covid-19 and that Dems are more likely to believe that Covid-19 is real.
Fair enough, but I think my point still stands as there is a fair enthusiasm gap between Trump and Biden supporters, as yougov and others have noted:
With Biden miles ahead in the polls and destined to win, one thing bothers me. There seems a real lack of public support for him, for example his rallies get about 10 people.
Has a president ever won before with almost zero enthusiasm?
And yet his town hall pulled millions more viewers than Trump's. Despite Trump's being on a network with a far wider distribution.
Comments
It is why the government should have never said they would negotiation with each region, as it was only a matter of time before one said no we are special, we have these different problems, so I want something else.
Given there are far more businesses based in Manchester per head of population compared to Liverpool or Manchester his argument is more businesses require the support.
I am not saying one is right or wrong, just saying that I think this is the crux of the issue, not a few million quid extra.
The technology is there - although the main function of tube drivers nowadays is to operate doors and avoid trapping/dragging kids and granny - the riskiest part of the whole operation. It's accepted that platform doors would be needed before the driver can be got ride of. This is expensive, in some cases impossible (inter-running of different stock), and in some cases would require stations to be re-built.
There's also, as you say, a lot to be said for having a staff presence on a train potentially moving 1000 people in a 10ft tunnel underground, with no trackside walkway (most automated metros in tunnels have these).
If I was the government I'd do it, just to piss off the unions, but that's just me and in truth it would probably be a major distraction to a system with enough issues already.
I may be wrong but it looks like a hollow victory for Johnson.
That came to £90m due to the much higher business in Manc than Liverpool.
FTFY
Thank goodness May has gone.
... And HYUFD would be posting "but Trafalgar ..."
https://twitter.com/henrymance/status/1318308147455528960?s=20
Have you looked at that guys other Tweets. Took me about 10 seconds to spot a pattern in his Tweets.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Jack+Gleeson+images&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwisoYDh9cPsAhWigM4BHTEVBMoQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=Jack+Gleeson+images&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzoECAAQQzoCCAA6BggAEAgQHlD9qQNYqLgDYPW5A2gAcAB4AIABOYgB3gKSAQE3mAEAoAEBqgELZ3dzLXdpei1pbWfAAQE&sclient=img&ei=cjyPX6ygNqKBur4PsaqQ0Aw
Think I'll come back tomorrow.
The effect that decision will have on the outcome will be impossible to fully quantify until the election is over. But it is one likely reason that Republicans have been able to make registration gains in several states, including Florida, where the GOP has significantly narrowed the party’s voter registration gap with Democrats.'
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/trump-victory-democrats-election-430013
This is the Paul Sperry who is a conservative commentator and conspiracy theorist and huge supporter of Trump.
Is there just the faintest possibility this could be disinformation?
South West 3
South East 4
East 4
London 6
Midlands 9
England 10
Northern Ireland 14
Scotland 14
Wales 15
North East & Yorkshire 16
North West 25
So long as the UK Government persists in the belief that lockdowns are worth the trouble then it is in an impossible bind. If it goes for a second national lockdown in England then it's taking a baseball bat to large swathes of the country where the situation is effectively under control: what rationale is there for closing everything in Norfolk or Cornwall?
If, on the other hand, it persists in doing what its own logic dictates and implements the targeted incarceration of Northerners, then it will inevitably be accused of picking on them.
Of course, the leader of Manchester City Council has offered the Government a way out of the corner into which it has painted itself by proposing risk segmentation. Will it listen? I think we all know the answer to that one.
The infection case data suggests that any fall or levelling off is simply because it has stopped spreading through so many students, but in the meantime they have succeeded (unwittingly and unsurprisingly) in spreading it out into the community, including the over 60s.
I'd like to think that the Great Barrington Declaration types and their followers on here would now reflect on what's happening and recognise that letting younger people catch the virus while protecting the elderly/vulnerable is a flawed strategy that would result in thousands of unnecessary deaths. But I doubt they will. They will, however, continue to rail against the collateral damage of undiagnosed/untreated cancer etc., while stubbornly failing to recognise that if we don't reduce Covid infections quickly then cancer treatments will become much harder to get when the hospitals are full of Covid patients.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1318548607772053512?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1318615572519813121?s=20
Randolph Churchill.
Now I am worried. Not about the election - about you.
i.e. until Hancock removes his covid blinkers and starts looking at actual evidence.
So, probably months if not years.
American Winston became managing editor of Cosmopolitan magazine...
https://richardlangworth.com/novelist-winston-churchill
That's sure to get the votes out for Sean Bailey! Lol
April at least then.
Has a president ever won before with almost zero enthusiasm?
I think if Labour is to win an election, they are not going to outpoll Corbyn by very much - they'd only have to go up 3 points to match Blair's best
We've had enough of experts!
That graph shows students being isolated.
Lockdowns don't work because they cannot be sustained indefinitely, and if you relax them then the disease simply takes off again, in which case the effort expended on the lockdown was wasted (we only got such a large breathing space in Summer because the lockdown was relaxed gradually, and into the driest and warmest part of the year.) Presumably you're not in favour of doing nothing? That leaves shielding.
It's shit but it's less shit than precipitating complete societal collapse by impoverishing everyone. In which case the frail people saved by the lockdowns just die of poverty and neglect anyway.
Cases by specimen date -
It looks like MaxPB is right - the rate of increase is slowing quite a bit.
A very good question.
Labour smart politics is back my friends
They are 'falling' from a relatively high base, they are still at a risky level.
It is clear as day that beyond Brexit delivery, they haven't a clue. Labour just needs to keep looking competent and people will surely see in time this Government is just like every other Tory Government and it's now time for a change after 14 years.
"In Week 41, the number of deaths registered was 1.5% above the five-year average (143 deaths higher)."
The Tories are not welcome in London, we've played that game and we don't want them again.
https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/07/31/reality-check-trump-biden-enthusiasm-gap
But perhaps Biden is fair enough ahead that is doesn't actually matter.
Such a paradox.