Didn't watch the debate but, to echo others here, the mood music appears to be that Trump didn't create any major new gaffes and restrained himself. As others have said, that will probably be enough for more reluctant Republicans or even some independents to vote for him, especially given some of the issues at stake.
Funnily enough, the main thing that seemed to trend on social media was Joe Biden's reference to Hitler.
Frank Luntz's polling groups reflect him I think - out and out GOP hacks masquerading as "undecideds"
His focus groups always seem to come to the opposite conclusion to the pollsters. Not impossible but highly suspicious given his role as a GOP strategist. I'd bet that the 3 polls are giving a more accurate reflection, particularly as all 3 give a remarkably similar result.
Literally his entire career has been built on the idea of making the unpalatable sound palatable. Usually in the service of the Republican party.
Why anyone would view him as a pundit is beyond me.
It’s a bit out of date but there are lots of causes of death which could be prevented if we completely stopped doing stuff
If we banned all motor transport there would be a significant drop in vehicle related deaths. A significant number of people die of medical complications - perhaps we should ban all medical procedures. Some people are electrocuted - are you proposing that we go off grid? A small number of women die in childbirth - should we prevent all births? Oh wait we’ve already cancelled all medical procedures above.
Locking down the economy was supposed to be a temporary measure to allow NHS capacity to increase, and to allow time to assess the impact. Before the initial lockdown, and part of the delay was the advice that people only have a certain capacity for being locked down, and the scientists didn’t want to start it too soon
Depends what you mean by "lockdown". Driving is highly regulated. There's a huge list of rules, you have to get your car checked for roadworthiness each year, and you aren't allowed to go whatever speed you like. In fact, the speed you're allowed to go depends on not just where you are, but what conditions are like. Similarly safety regulations on medical procedures, retail and industrial electrical goods are there to minimise deaths. In all of the above cases, we find a balance. Nobody is proposing banning all economic activity, and nor is anybody with the slightest shred of decency advocating just letting it rip.
So now that we've established where we are, somewhere between those two end members, we need to find the right place. And like the speed limit, it's perfectly sensible to suggest that as conditions change, so should the rules. Now, are the kinds of lockdowns experienced and/or proposed by some people going too far one way? Is the loosening proposed by others going too far the other way? Perhaps, you can make your own mind up. In truth, I can see both sides of the argument and I'm not ready to commit. I'm glad I don't have to decide. But please don't go around pretending that temporary lockdowns are the same as "banning all motor transport". That's attacking a straw man and doesn't help convince persuadables like me.
The current Welsh option has to be up there as pretty close to banning all motor transport for a fortnight. Its likely to have a similar effect on the numbers - transmission will probably fall, but as the fundamental state of play won't have changed at the end of it, it won't be long before the numbers are back where they are now again - very much like banning driving for a fortnight would cut road deaths for a couple of weeks, but won't make a lot of difference in the long run.
The fundamental problem with lockdowns is the total absence of a coherent endgame. Unless there is some way out of this which doesn't involve everyone getting the disease, lockdowns are pointless but expensive can kicking (rather like the endless Brexit extensions - they only postponed exactly the same issues as everyone started with).
There isn't a silver bullet on the horizon. A vaccine isn't going to be enough (you can tell this from the way that governments are starting to talk about this going on all next year).
At some point lockdowns will stop working entirely, if that hasn't already happened. Based on what's happened in say Boulton over the summer, where various levels lockdown have made almost no difference to case numbers, it's quite possible that point has already pretty much been reached.
People have had enough (I'm honest, I'm one of them), and aren't taking a blind bit of notice of the rules if they even know what they are, so the only practical outworking of the restrictions is the ruination of the businesses forced to close (mind you what a time to own an off licence! It's an ill wind... ).
I read a post on Facebook today which linked to a petition for partners to be allowed to attend scans and all of labour for pregnant women (I think it covered Wales - I don't know the current English rules). Some of the stories in the comments below the post were truly heartbreaking; Women having miscarriages and stillbirths alone with their husbands sat waiting in the carpark. It's hard to explain how angry I felt after reading a few posts, and how outraged I was at the sheer barbarity of the current rules. My sister is currently heavily pregnant and under these rules in Ceredigion, which has a case rate of something like 22 per 100k. Its utterly mad, the more so given that presumably as most women live with their partners, if one has it, they probably both do anyway.
I think we should shield the vulnerable as best we can, then let it go, because the reality is that otherwise its going to go anyway sooner or later, but with the vulnerable unprotected.
As someone else has posted upthread, by January (it's bleak enough in a normal year) the public will be in open rebellion everywhere (lots of them aren't far off now), and nothing the politicians can do then will allow them to regain control. All that's occuring now is just adding extra pointless misery to that which will come from the ravages of the disease when the public mood breaks.
The devil is in the detail. You say we should "shield the vulnerable" but provide zero detail. Vulnerable people still need to eat, still need to access medical care. How do they get to the supermarket if the bus is full of people spewing out virus particles without catching it? How can they sit in a waiting room at the doctor's with coronavirus in the air, and not die from it? And even if some unspecified measures are put in place that will magically keep the vulnerable separate, how do you stop that becoming overwhelmed with people who just don't really want to get sick?
The "shield the vulnerable" mantra reminds me of communism... nice in theory but it doesn't work.
As a side note, I've noticed a LOT that people read something on Facebook or Twitter and get outraged. When I used to be on both platforms I was permanently of the opinion that the country was about to break out into insurrection because LOOK AT THIS CUTE CHILD HE DIED BECAUSE OF AUSTERITY/MUSLIMS/VACCINES/ISRAEL. The sad truth is, it's always a mix of the chronically angry, distillations of real things that happened that may or may not share the context you're talking about, liars, propagandists, and well-meaning idiots. And it's all wrapped up into a nice newsfeed that specifically designed to maximise your outrage, because that's what keeps you coming back for more. You see it in some of the people on here. They've become furious ideologues, certain of the righteousness of their cause and their cause alone. Then they find themselves on here, one of the many interfaces between their clan and another, and they go absolutely mad because "here are some filthy apostates who have been duped by the other clan, how can they be so stupidly partisan all the time?!"
Ok, so my side note ended up longer than my main point. Sorry about that. Just to tie it up, I'm not saying you're wrong about lockdowns, but nor am I saying you're right. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you think it's more clear cut than it really is, and one clue to that is this: you replied to a post recommending we take better care when wielding rhetorical devices, and by the sixth paragraph you were talking about dead babies. That kind of escalation doesn't happen in conversations unless at least one of them is furiously certain about something that is so very clearly uncertain enough that they need to have a conversation about it.
On your first paragraph my wife and I (81 & 77) have no problem shielding nor with the surgery
We have a weekly Asda delivery and our son or daughter pick up our medication from the chemist and leave it in our porch
Since March our surgery has moved to online triage and it has been a great success together with a ban on anyone calling direct at the surgery. When we have had to see either the doctor/nurse we wait in the car park in our car and the doctor/nurse calls us directly into their consulting room passing through the empty waiting areas
Here in Wales Drakeford has stopped supermarkets selling non essential food and terminal ill non covid elderly patients have to choose which child they want to nominate to be at their bedside in their final hours
This is morally bankrupt and of course banning the sale of non essenitial goods drives Amazon and online shopping demand at the further expense of local shopping
Drakeford insists closing down the whole of Wales is only for 17 days and is a one off event, but as we have been in the equivalent of tier 3 ourselves for the last month I expect Drakeford will return us to tier 3 again
He is experimenting with Wales and believe you me both here in Wales and the rest of the UK a moment is fast approaching when the cry will go out 'enough'
It is notable that Scotland has introduced tiering, notwithstanding 2 additional levels, confirming that even Sturgeon is not favour of a national shutdown
You didn't read Foxy's response to your comments last night then. (Forgive me Foxy if I have misinterpreted via my précis)
1.Non-essentials is a device to deter unnecessary shopping.
2. Your end of life visiting issues are an edict from the Westminster Government.
I can't say I am pleased at not working for two weeks, however if it allows me the opportunity to work unhindered for the following six weeks to eight weeks I will give it a shot.
On 1, isn't it a political move to assuage the discontent of smaller non-essential retailers closed down but watching the supermarkets open and selling the very same stuff?
The other thing that came to mind was how many different types of tins of shortbread, fudge, etc, would you have to sell to qualify as opening as a food retailer, who just happened to sell all this other stuff as well.
The reason the rule is absurd is because the whole situation is absurd, but if your choice is between absurdity and mass death, then you've clearly wasted the last seven months in failing to come up with a better alternative.
It’s a bit out of date but there are lots of causes of death which could be prevented if we completely stopped doing stuff
If we banned all motor transport there would be a significant drop in vehicle related deaths. A significant number of people die of medical complications - perhaps we should ban all medical procedures. Some people are electrocuted - are you proposing that we go off grid? A small number of women die in childbirth - should we prevent all births? Oh wait we’ve already cancelled all medical procedures above.
Locking down the economy was supposed to be a temporary measure to allow NHS capacity to increase, and to allow time to assess the impact. Before the initial lockdown, and part of the delay was the advice that people only have a certain capacity for being locked down, and the scientists didn’t want to start it too soon
Depends what you mean by "lockdown". Driving is highly regulated. There's a huge list of rules, you have to get your car checked for roadworthiness each year, and you aren't allowed to go whatever speed you like. In fact, the speed you're allowed to go depends on not just where you are, but what conditions are like. Similarly safety regulations on medical procedures, retail and industrial electrical goods are there to minimise deaths. In all of the above cases, we find a balance. Nobody is proposing banning all economic activity, and nor is anybody with the slightest shred of decency advocating just letting it rip.
So now that we've established where we are, somewhere between those two end members, we need to find the right place. And like the speed limit, it's perfectly sensible to suggest that as conditions change, so should the rules. Now, are the kinds of lockdowns experienced and/or proposed by some people going too far one way? Is the loosening proposed by others going too far the other way? Perhaps, you can make your own mind up. In truth, I can see both sides of the argument and I'm not ready to commit. I'm glad I don't have to decide. But please don't go around pretending that temporary lockdowns are the same as "banning all motor transport". That's attacking a straw man and doesn't help convince persuadables like me.
The current Welsh option has to be up there as pretty close to banning all motor transport for a fortnight. Its likely to have a similar effect on the numbers - transmission will probably fall, but as the fundamental state of play won't have changed at the end of it, it won't be long before the numbers are back where they are now again - very much like banning driving for a fortnight would cut road deaths for a couple of weeks, but won't make a lot of difference in the long run.
The fundamental problem with lockdowns is the total absence of a coherent endgame. Unless there is some way out of this which doesn't involve everyone getting the disease, lockdowns are pointless but expensive can kicking (rather like the endless Brexit extensions - they only postponed exactly the same issues as everyone started with).
There isn't a silver bullet on the horizon. A vaccine isn't going to be enough (you can tell this from the way that governments are starting to talk about this going on all next year).
At some point lockdowns will stop working entirely, if that hasn't already happened. Based on what's happened in say Boulton over the summer, where various levels lockdown have made almost no difference to case numbers, it's quite possible that point has already pretty much been reached.
People have had enough (I'm honest, I'm one of them), and aren't taking a blind bit of notice of the rules if they even know what they are, so the only practical outworking of the restrictions is the ruination of the businesses forced to close (mind you what a time to own an off licence! It's an ill wind... ).
I read a post on Facebook today which linked to a petition for partners to be allowed to attend scans and all of labour for pregnant women (I think it covered Wales - I don't know the current English rules). Some of the stories in the comments below the post were truly heartbreaking; Women having miscarriages and stillbirths alone with their husbands sat waiting in the carpark. It's hard to explain how angry I felt after reading a few posts, and how outraged I was at the sheer barbarity of the current rules. My sister is currently heavily pregnant and under these rules in Ceredigion, which has a case rate of something like 22 per 100k. Its utterly mad, the more so given that presumably as most women live with their partners, if one has it, they probably both do anyway.
I think we should shield the vulnerable as best we can, then let it go, because the reality is that otherwise its going to go anyway sooner or later, but with the vulnerable unprotected.
As someone else has posted upthread, by January (it's bleak enough in a normal year) the public will be in open rebellion everywhere (lots of them aren't far off now), and nothing the politicians can do then will allow them to regain control. All that's occuring now is just adding extra pointless misery to that which will come from the ravages of the disease when the public mood breaks.
The devil is in the detail. You say we should "shield the vulnerable" but provide zero detail. Vulnerable people still need to eat, still need to access medical care. How do they get to the supermarket if the bus is full of people spewing out virus particles without catching it? How can they sit in a waiting room at the doctor's with coronavirus in the air, and not die from it? And even if some unspecified measures are put in place that will magically keep the vulnerable separate, how do you stop that becoming overwhelmed with people who just don't really want to get sick?
The "shield the vulnerable" mantra reminds me of communism... nice in theory but it doesn't work.
As a side note, I've noticed a LOT that people read something on Facebook or Twitter and get outraged. When I used to be on both platforms I was permanently of the opinion that the country was about to break out into insurrection because LOOK AT THIS CUTE CHILD HE DIED BECAUSE OF AUSTERITY/MUSLIMS/VACCINES/ISRAEL. The sad truth is, it's always a mix of the chronically angry, distillations of real things that happened that may or may not share the context you're talking about, liars, propagandists, and well-meaning idiots. And it's all wrapped up into a nice newsfeed that specifically designed to maximise your outrage, because that's what keeps you coming back for more. You see it in some of the people on here. They've become furious ideologues, certain of the righteousness of their cause and their cause alone. Then they find themselves on here, one of the many interfaces between their clan and another, and they go absolutely mad because "here are some filthy apostates who have been duped by the other clan, how can they be so stupidly partisan all the time?!"
Ok, so my side note ended up longer than my main point. Sorry about that. Just to tie it up, I'm not saying you're wrong about lockdowns, but nor am I saying you're right. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you think it's more clear cut than it really is, and one clue to that is this: you replied to a post recommending we take better care when wielding rhetorical devices, and by the sixth paragraph you were talking about dead babies. That kind of escalation doesn't happen in conversations unless at least one of them is furiously certain about something that is so very clearly uncertain enough that they need to have a conversation about it.
On your first paragraph my wife and I (81 & 77) have no problem shielding nor with the surgery
We have a weekly Asda delivery and our son or daughter pick up our medication from the chemist and leave it in our porch
Since March our surgery has moved to online triage and it has been a great success together with a ban on anyone calling direct at the surgery. When we have had to see either the doctor/nurse we wait in the car park in our car and the doctor/nurse calls us directly into their consulting room passing through the empty waiting areas
Here in Wales Drakeford has stopped supermarkets selling non essential food and terminal ill non covid elderly patients have to choose which child they want to nominate to be at their bedside in their final hours
This is morally bankrupt and of course banning the sale of non essenitial goods drives Amazon and online shopping demand at the further expense of local shopping
Drakeford insists closing down the whole of Wales is only for 17 days and is a one off event, but as we have been in the equivalent of tier 3 ourselves for the last month I expect Drakeford will return us to tier 3 again
He is experimenting with Wales and believe you me both here in Wales and the rest of the UK a moment is fast approaching when the cry will go out 'enough'
It is notable that Scotland has introduced tiering, notwithstanding 2 additional levels, confirming that even Sturgeon is not favour of a national shutdown
You didn't read Foxy's response to your comments last night then. (Forgive me Foxy if I have misinterpreted via my précis)
1.Non-essentials is a device to deter unnecessary shopping.
2. Your end of life visiting issues are an edict from the Westminster Government.
I can't say I am pleased at not working for two weeks, however if it allows me the opportunity to work unhindered for the following six weeks to eight weeks I will give it a shot.
Yes, that is pretty much what I said.
People also need to realise that visitors are not just a hazard to their relative (which they may choose to accept) but also to everyone else's relatives and to staff. Who may then inadvertently create a much bigger outbreak in a vulnerable community.
So, you may trust your own birth partner, but do you equally trust the partners of all the others in the waiting room?
It’s a bit out of date but there are lots of causes of death which could be prevented if we completely stopped doing stuff
If we banned all motor transport there would be a significant drop in vehicle related deaths. A significant number of people die of medical complications - perhaps we should ban all medical procedures. Some people are electrocuted - are you proposing that we go off grid? A small number of women die in childbirth - should we prevent all births? Oh wait we’ve already cancelled all medical procedures above.
Locking down the economy was supposed to be a temporary measure to allow NHS capacity to increase, and to allow time to assess the impact. Before the initial lockdown, and part of the delay was the advice that people only have a certain capacity for being locked down, and the scientists didn’t want to start it too soon
Depends what you mean by "lockdown". Driving is highly regulated. There's a huge list of rules, you have to get your car checked for roadworthiness each year, and you aren't allowed to go whatever speed you like. In fact, the speed you're allowed to go depends on not just where you are, but what conditions are like. Similarly safety regulations on medical procedures, retail and industrial electrical goods are there to minimise deaths. In all of the above cases, we find a balance. Nobody is proposing banning all economic activity, and nor is anybody with the slightest shred of decency advocating just letting it rip.
So now that we've established where we are, somewhere between those two end members, we need to find the right place. And like the speed limit, it's perfectly sensible to suggest that as conditions change, so should the rules. Now, are the kinds of lockdowns experienced and/or proposed by some people going too far one way? Is the loosening proposed by others going too far the other way? Perhaps, you can make your own mind up. In truth, I can see both sides of the argument and I'm not ready to commit. I'm glad I don't have to decide. But please don't go around pretending that temporary lockdowns are the same as "banning all motor transport". That's attacking a straw man and doesn't help convince persuadables like me.
The current Welsh option has to be up there as pretty close to banning all motor transport for a fortnight. Its likely to have a similar effect on the numbers - transmission will probably fall, but as the fundamental state of play won't have changed at the end of it, it won't be long before the numbers are back where they are now again - very much like banning driving for a fortnight would cut road deaths for a couple of weeks, but won't make a lot of difference in the long run.
The fundamental problem with lockdowns is the total absence of a coherent endgame. Unless there is some way out of this which doesn't involve everyone getting the disease, lockdowns are pointless but expensive can kicking (rather like the endless Brexit extensions - they only postponed exactly the same issues as everyone started with).
There isn't a silver bullet on the horizon. A vaccine isn't going to be enough (you can tell this from the way that governments are starting to talk about this going on all next year).
At some point lockdowns will stop working entirely, if that hasn't already happened. Based on what's happened in say Boulton over the summer, where various levels lockdown have made almost no difference to case numbers, it's quite possible that point has already pretty much been reached.
People have had enough (I'm honest, I'm one of them), and aren't taking a blind bit of notice of the rules if they even know what they are, so the only practical outworking of the restrictions is the ruination of the businesses forced to close (mind you what a time to own an off licence! It's an ill wind... ).
I read a post on Facebook today which linked to a petition for partners to be allowed to attend scans and all of labour for pregnant women (I think it covered Wales - I don't know the current English rules). Some of the stories in the comments below the post were truly heartbreaking; Women having miscarriages and stillbirths alone with their husbands sat waiting in the carpark. It's hard to explain how angry I felt after reading a few posts, and how outraged I was at the sheer barbarity of the current rules. My sister is currently heavily pregnant and under these rules in Ceredigion, which has a case rate of something like 22 per 100k. Its utterly mad, the more so given that presumably as most women live with their partners, if one has it, they probably both do anyway.
I think we should shield the vulnerable as best we can, then let it go, because the reality is that otherwise its going to go anyway sooner or later, but with the vulnerable unprotected.
As someone else has posted upthread, by January (it's bleak enough in a normal year) the public will be in open rebellion everywhere (lots of them aren't far off now), and nothing the politicians can do then will allow them to regain control. All that's occuring now is just adding extra pointless misery to that which will come from the ravages of the disease when the public mood breaks.
The devil is in the detail. You say we should "shield the vulnerable" but provide zero detail. Vulnerable people still need to eat, still need to access medical care. How do they get to the supermarket if the bus is full of people spewing out virus particles without catching it? How can they sit in a waiting room at the doctor's with coronavirus in the air, and not die from it? And even if some unspecified measures are put in place that will magically keep the vulnerable separate, how do you stop that becoming overwhelmed with people who just don't really want to get sick?
The "shield the vulnerable" mantra reminds me of communism... nice in theory but it doesn't work.
As a side note, I've noticed a LOT that people read something on Facebook or Twitter and get outraged. When I used to be on both platforms I was permanently of the opinion that the country was about to break out into insurrection because LOOK AT THIS CUTE CHILD HE DIED BECAUSE OF AUSTERITY/MUSLIMS/VACCINES/ISRAEL. The sad truth is, it's always a mix of the chronically angry, distillations of real things that happened that may or may not share the context you're talking about, liars, propagandists, and well-meaning idiots. And it's all wrapped up into a nice newsfeed that specifically designed to maximise your outrage, because that's what keeps you coming back for more. You see it in some of the people on here. They've become furious ideologues, certain of the righteousness of their cause and their cause alone. Then they find themselves on here, one of the many interfaces between their clan and another, and they go absolutely mad because "here are some filthy apostates who have been duped by the other clan, how can they be so stupidly partisan all the time?!"
Ok, so my side note ended up longer than my main point. Sorry about that. Just to tie it up, I'm not saying you're wrong about lockdowns, but nor am I saying you're right. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you think it's more clear cut than it really is, and one clue to that is this: you replied to a post recommending we take better care when wielding rhetorical devices, and by the sixth paragraph you were talking about dead babies. That kind of escalation doesn't happen in conversations unless at least one of them is furiously certain about something that is so very clearly uncertain enough that they need to have a conversation about it.
On your first paragraph my wife and I (81 & 77) have no problem shielding nor with the surgery
We have a weekly Asda delivery and our son or daughter pick up our medication from the chemist and leave it in our porch
Since March our surgery has moved to online triage and it has been a great success together with a ban on anyone calling direct at the surgery. When we have had to see either the doctor/nurse we wait in the car park in our car and the doctor/nurse calls us directly into their consulting room passing through the empty waiting areas
Here in Wales Drakeford has stopped supermarkets selling non essential food and terminal ill non covid elderly patients have to choose which child they want to nominate to be at their bedside in their final hours
This is morally bankrupt and of course banning the sale of non essenitial goods drives Amazon and online shopping demand at the further expense of local shopping
Drakeford insists closing down the whole of Wales is only for 17 days and is a one off event, but as we have been in the equivalent of tier 3 ourselves for the last month I expect Drakeford will return us to tier 3 again
He is experimenting with Wales and believe you me both here in Wales and the rest of the UK a moment is fast approaching when the cry will go out 'enough'
It is notable that Scotland has introduced tiering, notwithstanding 2 additional levels, confirming that even Sturgeon is not favour of a national shutdown
You didn't read Foxy's response to your comments last night then. (Forgive me Foxy if I have misinterpreted via my précis)
1.Non-essentials is a device to deter unnecessary shopping.
2. Your end of life visiting issues are an edict from the Westminster Government.
I can't say I am pleased at not working for two weeks, however if it allows me the opportunity to work unhindered for the following six weeks to eight weeks I will give it a shot.
Yes, that is pretty much what I said.
People also need to realise that visitors are not just a hazard to their relative (which they may choose to accept) but also to everyone else's relatives and to staff. Who may then inadvertently create a much bigger outbreak in a vulnerable community.
So, you may trust your own birth partner, but do you equally trust the partners of all the others in the waiting room?
The lockdown is a necessary short-term step to get the virus back under control.
It’s a bit out of date but there are lots of causes of death which could be prevented if we completely stopped doing stuff
If we banned all motor transport there would be a significant drop in vehicle related deaths. A significant number of people die of medical complications - perhaps we should ban all medical procedures. Some people are electrocuted - are you proposing that we go off grid? A small number of women die in childbirth - should we prevent all births? Oh wait we’ve already cancelled all medical procedures above.
Locking down the economy was supposed to be a temporary measure to allow NHS capacity to increase, and to allow time to assess the impact. Before the initial lockdown, and part of the delay was the advice that people only have a certain capacity for being locked down, and the scientists didn’t want to start it too soon
Depends what you mean by "lockdown". Driving is highly regulated. There's a huge list of rules, you have to get your car checked for roadworthiness each year, and you aren't allowed to go whatever speed you like. In fact, the speed you're allowed to go depends on not just where you are, but what conditions are like. Similarly safety regulations on medical procedures, retail and industrial electrical goods are there to minimise deaths. In all of the above cases, we find a balance. Nobody is proposing banning all economic activity, and nor is anybody with the slightest shred of decency advocating just letting it rip.
So now that we've established where we are, somewhere between those two end members, we need to find the right place. And like the speed limit, it's perfectly sensible to suggest that as conditions change, so should the rules. Now, are the kinds of lockdowns experienced and/or proposed by some people going too far one way? Is the loosening proposed by others going too far the other way? Perhaps, you can make your own mind up. In truth, I can see both sides of the argument and I'm not ready to commit. I'm glad I don't have to decide. But please don't go around pretending that temporary lockdowns are the same as "banning all motor transport". That's attacking a straw man and doesn't help convince persuadables like me.
The current Welsh option has to be up there as pretty close to banning all motor transport for a fortnight. Its likely to have a similar effect on the numbers - transmission will probably fall, but as the fundamental state of play won't have changed at the end of it, it won't be long before the numbers are back where they are now again - very much like banning driving for a fortnight would cut road deaths for a couple of weeks, but won't make a lot of difference in the long run.
The fundamental problem with lockdowns is the total absence of a coherent endgame. Unless there is some way out of this which doesn't involve everyone getting the disease, lockdowns are pointless but expensive can kicking (rather like the endless Brexit extensions - they only postponed exactly the same issues as everyone started with).
There isn't a silver bullet on the horizon. A vaccine isn't going to be enough (you can tell this from the way that governments are starting to talk about this going on all next year).
At some point lockdowns will stop working entirely, if that hasn't already happened. Based on what's happened in say Boulton over the summer, where various levels lockdown have made almost no difference to case numbers, it's quite possible that point has already pretty much been reached.
People have had enough (I'm honest, I'm one of them), and aren't taking a blind bit of notice of the rules if they even know what they are, so the only practical outworking of the restrictions is the ruination of the businesses forced to close (mind you what a time to own an off licence! It's an ill wind... ).
I read a post on Facebook today which linked to a petition for partners to be allowed to attend scans and all of labour for pregnant women (I think it covered Wales - I don't know the current English rules). Some of the stories in the comments below the post were truly heartbreaking; Women having miscarriages and stillbirths alone with their husbands sat waiting in the carpark. It's hard to explain how angry I felt after reading a few posts, and how outraged I was at the sheer barbarity of the current rules. My sister is currently heavily pregnant and under these rules in Ceredigion, which has a case rate of something like 22 per 100k. Its utterly mad, the more so given that presumably as most women live with their partners, if one has it, they probably both do anyway.
I think we should shield the vulnerable as best we can, then let it go, because the reality is that otherwise its going to go anyway sooner or later, but with the vulnerable unprotected.
As someone else has posted upthread, by January (it's bleak enough in a normal year) the public will be in open rebellion everywhere (lots of them aren't far off now), and nothing the politicians can do then will allow them to regain control. All that's occuring now is just adding extra pointless misery to that which will come from the ravages of the disease when the public mood breaks.
The devil is in the detail. You say we should "shield the vulnerable" but provide zero detail. Vulnerable people still need to eat, still need to access medical care. How do they get to the supermarket if the bus is full of people spewing out virus particles without catching it? How can they sit in a waiting room at the doctor's with coronavirus in the air, and not die from it? And even if some unspecified measures are put in place that will magically keep the vulnerable separate, how do you stop that becoming overwhelmed with people who just don't really want to get sick?
The "shield the vulnerable" mantra reminds me of communism... nice in theory but it doesn't work.
As a side note, I've noticed a LOT that people read something on Facebook or Twitter and get outraged. When I used to be on both platforms I was permanently of the opinion that the country was about to break out into insurrection because LOOK AT THIS CUTE CHILD HE DIED BECAUSE OF AUSTERITY/MUSLIMS/VACCINES/ISRAEL. The sad truth is, it's always a mix of the chronically angry, distillations of real things that happened that may or may not share the context you're talking about, liars, propagandists, and well-meaning idiots. And it's all wrapped up into a nice newsfeed that specifically designed to maximise your outrage, because that's what keeps you coming back for more. You see it in some of the people on here. They've become furious ideologues, certain of the righteousness of their cause and their cause alone. Then they find themselves on here, one of the many interfaces between their clan and another, and they go absolutely mad because "here are some filthy apostates who have been duped by the other clan, how can they be so stupidly partisan all the time?!"
Ok, so my side note ended up longer than my main point. Sorry about that. Just to tie it up, I'm not saying you're wrong about lockdowns, but nor am I saying you're right. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you think it's more clear cut than it really is, and one clue to that is this: you replied to a post recommending we take better care when wielding rhetorical devices, and by the sixth paragraph you were talking about dead babies. That kind of escalation doesn't happen in conversations unless at least one of them is furiously certain about something that is so very clearly uncertain enough that they need to have a conversation about it.
On your first paragraph my wife and I (81 & 77) have no problem shielding nor with the surgery
We have a weekly Asda delivery and our son or daughter pick up our medication from the chemist and leave it in our porch
Since March our surgery has moved to online triage and it has been a great success together with a ban on anyone calling direct at the surgery. When we have had to see either the doctor/nurse we wait in the car park in our car and the doctor/nurse calls us directly into their consulting room passing through the empty waiting areas
Here in Wales Drakeford has stopped supermarkets selling non essential food and terminal ill non covid elderly patients have to choose which child they want to nominate to be at their bedside in their final hours
This is morally bankrupt and of course banning the sale of non essenitial goods drives Amazon and online shopping demand at the further expense of local shopping
Drakeford insists closing down the whole of Wales is only for 17 days and is a one off event, but as we have been in the equivalent of tier 3 ourselves for the last month I expect Drakeford will return us to tier 3 again
He is experimenting with Wales and believe you me both here in Wales and the rest of the UK a moment is fast approaching when the cry will go out 'enough'
It is notable that Scotland has introduced tiering, notwithstanding 2 additional levels, confirming that even Sturgeon is not favour of a national shutdown
You didn't read Foxy's response to your comments last night then. (Forgive me Foxy if I have misinterpreted via my précis)
1.Non-essentials is a device to deter unnecessary shopping.
2. Your end of life visiting issues are an edict from the Westminster Government.
I can't say I am pleased at not working for two weeks, however if it allows me the opportunity to work unhindered for the following six weeks to eight weeks I will give it a shot.
1) Does not work as it drives on line shopping
Buying clothes online does not spread Covid. Spending more time in a supermarket to look at clothes does have that risk.
It’s a bit out of date but there are lots of causes of death which could be prevented if we completely stopped doing stuff
If we banned all motor transport there would be a significant drop in vehicle related deaths. A significant number of people die of medical complications - perhaps we should ban all medical procedures. Some people are electrocuted - are you proposing that we go off grid? A small number of women die in childbirth - should we prevent all births? Oh wait we’ve already cancelled all medical procedures above.
Locking down the economy was supposed to be a temporary measure to allow NHS capacity to increase, and to allow time to assess the impact. Before the initial lockdown, and part of the delay was the advice that people only have a certain capacity for being locked down, and the scientists didn’t want to start it too soon
Depends what you mean by "lockdown". Driving is highly regulated. There's a huge list of rules, you have to get your car checked for roadworthiness each year, and you aren't allowed to go whatever speed you like. In fact, the speed you're allowed to go depends on not just where you are, but what conditions are like. Similarly safety regulations on medical procedures, retail and industrial electrical goods are there to minimise deaths. In all of the above cases, we find a balance. Nobody is proposing banning all economic activity, and nor is anybody with the slightest shred of decency advocating just letting it rip.
So now that we've established where we are, somewhere between those two end members, we need to find the right place. And like the speed limit, it's perfectly sensible to suggest that as conditions change, so should the rules. Now, are the kinds of lockdowns experienced and/or proposed by some people going too far one way? Is the loosening proposed by others going too far the other way? Perhaps, you can make your own mind up. In truth, I can see both sides of the argument and I'm not ready to commit. I'm glad I don't have to decide. But please don't go around pretending that temporary lockdowns are the same as "banning all motor transport". That's attacking a straw man and doesn't help convince persuadables like me.
The current Welsh option has to be up there as pretty close to banning all motor transport for a fortnight. Its likely to have a similar effect on the numbers - transmission will probably fall, but as the fundamental state of play won't have changed at the end of it, it won't be long before the numbers are back where they are now again - very much like banning driving for a fortnight would cut road deaths for a couple of weeks, but won't make a lot of difference in the long run.
The fundamental problem with lockdowns is the total absence of a coherent endgame. Unless there is some way out of this which doesn't involve everyone getting the disease, lockdowns are pointless but expensive can kicking (rather like the endless Brexit extensions - they only postponed exactly the same issues as everyone started with).
There isn't a silver bullet on the horizon. A vaccine isn't going to be enough (you can tell this from the way that governments are starting to talk about this going on all next year).
At some point lockdowns will stop working entirely, if that hasn't already happened. Based on what's happened in say Boulton over the summer, where various levels lockdown have made almost no difference to case numbers, it's quite possible that point has already pretty much been reached.
People have had enough (I'm honest, I'm one of them), and aren't taking a blind bit of notice of the rules if they even know what they are, so the only practical outworking of the restrictions is the ruination of the businesses forced to close (mind you what a time to own an off licence! It's an ill wind... ).
I read a post on Facebook today which linked to a petition for partners to be allowed to attend scans and all of labour for pregnant women (I think it covered Wales - I don't know the current English rules). Some of the stories in the comments below the post were truly heartbreaking; Women having miscarriages and stillbirths alone with their husbands sat waiting in the carpark. It's hard to explain how angry I felt after reading a few posts, and how outraged I was at the sheer barbarity of the current rules. My sister is currently heavily pregnant and under these rules in Ceredigion, which has a case rate of something like 22 per 100k. Its utterly mad, the more so given that presumably as most women live with their partners, if one has it, they probably both do anyway.
I think we should shield the vulnerable as best we can, then let it go, because the reality is that otherwise its going to go anyway sooner or later, but with the vulnerable unprotected.
As someone else has posted upthread, by January (it's bleak enough in a normal year) the public will be in open rebellion everywhere (lots of them aren't far off now), and nothing the politicians can do then will allow them to regain control. All that's occuring now is just adding extra pointless misery to that which will come from the ravages of the disease when the public mood breaks.
The devil is in the detail. You say we should "shield the vulnerable" but provide zero detail. Vulnerable people still need to eat, still need to access medical care. How do they get to the supermarket if the bus is full of people spewing out virus particles without catching it? How can they sit in a waiting room at the doctor's with coronavirus in the air, and not die from it? And even if some unspecified measures are put in place that will magically keep the vulnerable separate, how do you stop that becoming overwhelmed with people who just don't really want to get sick?
The "shield the vulnerable" mantra reminds me of communism... nice in theory but it doesn't work.
As a side note, I've noticed a LOT that people read something on Facebook or Twitter and get outraged. When I used to be on both platforms I was permanently of the opinion that the country was about to break out into insurrection because LOOK AT THIS CUTE CHILD HE DIED BECAUSE OF AUSTERITY/MUSLIMS/VACCINES/ISRAEL. The sad truth is, it's always a mix of the chronically angry, distillations of real things that happened that may or may not share the context you're talking about, liars, propagandists, and well-meaning idiots. And it's all wrapped up into a nice newsfeed that specifically designed to maximise your outrage, because that's what keeps you coming back for more. You see it in some of the people on here. They've become furious ideologues, certain of the righteousness of their cause and their cause alone. Then they find themselves on here, one of the many interfaces between their clan and another, and they go absolutely mad because "here are some filthy apostates who have been duped by the other clan, how can they be so stupidly partisan all the time?!"
Ok, so my side note ended up longer than my main point. Sorry about that. Just to tie it up, I'm not saying you're wrong about lockdowns, but nor am I saying you're right. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you think it's more clear cut than it really is, and one clue to that is this: you replied to a post recommending we take better care when wielding rhetorical devices, and by the sixth paragraph you were talking about dead babies. That kind of escalation doesn't happen in conversations unless at least one of them is furiously certain about something that is so very clearly uncertain enough that they need to have a conversation about it.
On your first paragraph my wife and I (81 & 77) have no problem shielding nor with the surgery
We have a weekly Asda delivery and our son or daughter pick up our medication from the chemist and leave it in our porch
Since March our surgery has moved to online triage and it has been a great success together with a ban on anyone calling direct at the surgery. When we have had to see either the doctor/nurse we wait in the car park in our car and the doctor/nurse calls us directly into their consulting room passing through the empty waiting areas
Here in Wales Drakeford has stopped supermarkets selling non essential food and terminal ill non covid elderly patients have to choose which child they want to nominate to be at their bedside in their final hours
This is morally bankrupt and of course banning the sale of non essenitial goods drives Amazon and online shopping demand at the further expense of local shopping
Drakeford insists closing down the whole of Wales is only for 17 days and is a one off event, but as we have been in the equivalent of tier 3 ourselves for the last month I expect Drakeford will return us to tier 3 again
He is experimenting with Wales and believe you me both here in Wales and the rest of the UK a moment is fast approaching when the cry will go out 'enough'
It is notable that Scotland has introduced tiering, notwithstanding 2 additional levels, confirming that even Sturgeon is not favour of a national shutdown
You didn't read Foxy's response to your comments last night then. (Forgive me Foxy if I have misinterpreted via my précis)
1.Non-essentials is a device to deter unnecessary shopping.
2. Your end of life visiting issues are an edict from the Westminster Government.
I can't say I am pleased at not working for two weeks, however if it allows me the opportunity to work unhindered for the following six weeks to eight weeks I will give it a shot.
1) Does not work as it drives on line shopping
2) Health and visiting is a Wales NHS decision
If you look at last night's threads 1. is corrected by the Sleeping Bard (no lover of Labour) who explained the non-essential shopping argument came about after the intervention of a Conservative AM to protect smaller shops.
2. Is corrected for you by Dr Fox who gives an example from his own family of a similar situation regarding his wife and her sister in the Isle of Wight.
Make your point by all means but check your facts first.
Can you do me a favour and remove the @CorrectHorseBattery from the massive thread you're all responding to, I get an email for every post as I am quoted in it.
If you respond to the quotes I've made, or just remove me from the new thread, I won't get notified. Thanks.
You didn't read Foxy's response to your comments last night then. (Forgive me Foxy if I have misinterpreted via my précis)
1.Non-essentials is a device to deter unnecessary shopping.
Actually, it has been a truly brilliant bit of Opposition smash-and-grab work by the Welsh Tories. The niftiest and smoothest operation for many, many years.
The measure was adopted following Tory pressure (Russell George AM). They wanted to protect small shopkeepers.
“In regards to which businesses are required to close, in the previous lockdown there were businesses such as clothing, hardware shops were required to close. Businesses such as Asda, Morrisons, Tesco, were selling those items of clothing and hardware, and it felt very wrong and disproportionate to the small businesses” (Russell George)
The Tories then backed off and left Drakeford to propose and carry the can for an unworkable policy.
The result is a big PR own goal for Drakeford with lots of negative policy (what is defined as essential, dictator Drakeford). And probably more shit is yet to come when the police actually try to enforce the policy.
SKS should be looking & learning. That is a textbook example of how an Opposition can stitch up a Government.
A job advert posted on recruitment sites stated that the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) was looking for a temporary “VP of operations” with experience “in running call centres of 18,000”...
It’s a bit out of date but there are lots of causes of death which could be prevented if we completely stopped doing stuff
If we banned all motor transport there would be a significant drop in vehicle related deaths. A significant number of people die of medical complications - perhaps we should ban all medical procedures. Some people are electrocuted - are you proposing that we go off grid? A small number of women die in childbirth - should we prevent all births? Oh wait we’ve already cancelled all medical procedures above.
Locking down the economy was supposed to be a temporary measure to allow NHS capacity to increase, and to allow time to assess the impact. Before the initial lockdown, and part of the delay was the advice that people only have a certain capacity for being locked down, and the scientists didn’t want to start it too soon
Depends what you mean by "lockdown". Driving is highly regulated. There's a huge list of rules, you have to get your car checked for roadworthiness each year, and you aren't allowed to go whatever speed you like. In fact, the speed you're allowed to go depends on not just where you are, but what conditions are like. Similarly safety regulations on medical procedures, retail and industrial electrical goods are there to minimise deaths. In all of the above cases, we find a balance. Nobody is proposing banning all economic activity, and nor is anybody with the slightest shred of decency advocating just letting it rip.
So now that we've established where we are, somewhere between those two end members, we need to find the right place. And like the speed limit, it's perfectly sensible to suggest that as conditions change, so should the rules. Now, are the kinds of lockdowns experienced and/or proposed by some people going too far one way? Is the loosening proposed by others going too far the other way? Perhaps, you can make your own mind up. In truth, I can see both sides of the argument and I'm not ready to commit. I'm glad I don't have to decide. But please don't go around pretending that temporary lockdowns are the same as "banning all motor transport". That's attacking a straw man and doesn't help convince persuadables like me.
The current Welsh option has to be up there as pretty close to banning all motor transport for a fortnight. Its likely to have a similar effect on the numbers - transmission will probably fall, but as the fundamental state of play won't have changed at the end of it, it won't be long before the numbers are back where they are now again - very much like banning driving for a fortnight would cut road deaths for a couple of weeks, but won't make a lot of difference in the long run.
The fundamental problem with lockdowns is the total absence of a coherent endgame. Unless there is some way out of this which doesn't involve everyone getting the disease, lockdowns are pointless but expensive can kicking (rather like the endless Brexit extensions - they only postponed exactly the same issues as everyone started with).
There isn't a silver bullet on the horizon. A vaccine isn't going to be enough (you can tell this from the way that governments are starting to talk about this going on all next year).
At some point lockdowns will stop working entirely, if that hasn't already happened. Based on what's happened in say Boulton over the summer, where various levels lockdown have made almost no difference to case numbers, it's quite possible that point has already pretty much been reached.
People have had enough (I'm honest, I'm one of them), and aren't taking a blind bit of notice of the rules if they even know what they are, so the only practical outworking of the restrictions is the ruination of the businesses forced to close (mind you what a time to own an off licence! It's an ill wind... ).
I read a post on Facebook today which linked to a petition for partners to be allowed to attend scans and all of labour for pregnant women (I think it covered Wales - I don't know the current English rules). Some of the stories in the comments below the post were truly heartbreaking; Women having miscarriages and stillbirths alone with their husbands sat waiting in the carpark. It's hard to explain how angry I felt after reading a few posts, and how outraged I was at the sheer barbarity of the current rules. My sister is currently heavily pregnant and under these rules in Ceredigion, which has a case rate of something like 22 per 100k. Its utterly mad, the more so given that presumably as most women live with their partners, if one has it, they probably both do anyway.
I think we should shield the vulnerable as best we can, then let it go, because the reality is that otherwise its going to go anyway sooner or later, but with the vulnerable unprotected.
As someone else has posted upthread, by January (it's bleak enough in a normal year) the public will be in open rebellion everywhere (lots of them aren't far off now), and nothing the politicians can do then will allow them to regain control. All that's occuring now is just adding extra pointless misery to that which will come from the ravages of the disease when the public mood breaks.
The devil is in the detail. You say we should "shield the vulnerable" but provide zero detail. Vulnerable people still need to eat, still need to access medical care. How do they get to the supermarket if the bus is full of people spewing out virus particles without catching it? How can they sit in a waiting room at the doctor's with coronavirus in the air, and not die from it? And even if some unspecified measures are put in place that will magically keep the vulnerable separate, how do you stop that becoming overwhelmed with people who just don't really want to get sick?
The "shield the vulnerable" mantra reminds me of communism... nice in theory but it doesn't work.
As a side note, I've noticed a LOT that people read something on Facebook or Twitter and get outraged. When I used to be on both platforms I was permanently of the opinion that the country was about to break out into insurrection because LOOK AT THIS CUTE CHILD HE DIED BECAUSE OF AUSTERITY/MUSLIMS/VACCINES/ISRAEL. The sad truth is, it's always a mix of the chronically angry, distillations of real things that happened that may or may not share the context you're talking about, liars, propagandists, and well-meaning idiots. And it's all wrapped up into a nice newsfeed that specifically designed to maximise your outrage, because that's what keeps you coming back for more. You see it in some of the people on here. They've become furious ideologues, certain of the righteousness of their cause and their cause alone. Then they find themselves on here, one of the many interfaces between their clan and another, and they go absolutely mad because "here are some filthy apostates who have been duped by the other clan, how can they be so stupidly partisan all the time?!"
Ok, so my side note ended up longer than my main point. Sorry about that. Just to tie it up, I'm not saying you're wrong about lockdowns, but nor am I saying you're right. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you think it's more clear cut than it really is, and one clue to that is this: you replied to a post recommending we take better care when wielding rhetorical devices, and by the sixth paragraph you were talking about dead babies. That kind of escalation doesn't happen in conversations unless at least one of them is furiously certain about something that is so very clearly uncertain enough that they need to have a conversation about it.
On your first paragraph my wife and I (81 & 77) have no problem shielding nor with the surgery
We have a weekly Asda delivery and our son or daughter pick up our medication from the chemist and leave it in our porch
Since March our surgery has moved to online triage and it has been a great success together with a ban on anyone calling direct at the surgery. When we have had to see either the doctor/nurse we wait in the car park in our car and the doctor/nurse calls us directly into their consulting room passing through the empty waiting areas
Here in Wales Drakeford has stopped supermarkets selling non essential food and terminal ill non covid elderly patients have to choose which child they want to nominate to be at their bedside in their final hours
This is morally bankrupt and of course banning the sale of non essenitial goods drives Amazon and online shopping demand at the further expense of local shopping
Drakeford insists closing down the whole of Wales is only for 17 days and is a one off event, but as we have been in the equivalent of tier 3 ourselves for the last month I expect Drakeford will return us to tier 3 again
He is experimenting with Wales and believe you me both here in Wales and the rest of the UK a moment is fast approaching when the cry will go out 'enough'
It is notable that Scotland has introduced tiering, notwithstanding 2 additional levels, confirming that even Sturgeon is not favour of a national shutdown
You didn't read Foxy's response to your comments last night then. (Forgive me Foxy if I have misinterpreted via my précis)
1.Non-essentials is a device to deter unnecessary shopping.
2. Your end of life visiting issues are an edict from the Westminster Government.
I can't say I am pleased at not working for two weeks, however if it allows me the opportunity to work unhindered for the following six weeks to eight weeks I will give it a shot.
On 1, isn't it a political move to assuage the discontent of smaller non-essential retailers closed down but watching the supermarkets open and selling the very same stuff?
If Drakeford has stopped Wiko’s selling mops ( is that “hardware” I ask?) or screws and paint, and I want to put a shelf up or paint a wall, I’m not going to sit here in lockdown patiently waiting for Dai Jones Hardware on Pontypandy high st to open up two weeks on Monday, I’m going to give the profit to one J Bezos of Palo Alto California, because apparently the idiots in Cardiff Bay are the only ones unaware of the internet.
@Roy_G_Biv and @theProle make valid points as did the poster last night on visiting restrictions in Hospices.
The problem is that "shielding the vulnerable" requires just those sort of measures. Cancer patients and pregnant women are in the vulnerable groups, and open visiting is the direct opposite of shielding.
Indeed even these visiting rules are too lax if the "herd immunity" enthusiasts of the Great Barrington Declaration get their way.
It also requires splitting up families where one or more members are vulnerable and others are not (or the non-vulnerable of those also shielding), removing anyone with vulnerability from the workforce (depending on how "vulnerable" is defined: over sixties, those with obesity, those with diabetes, those with asthma are all a lot more vulnerable and there are millions of these in the workforce), and those vulnerable to have someone do their shopping and any essential actions for them.
And somehow having segregated and isolated surgeries and hospitals (as the vulnerable inevitably use these more than anyone, anyway - should the non-vulnerable simply give up using hospitals or surgeries for the duration)?
Unscrambling the egg has defeated everyone so far, which is why no country has successfully managed to pull off shielding the vulnerable without also shielding everyone else.
If we ignore the problem in frustration and handwave a bit, maybe it will just go away.
I fear this virus has exposed how poor social and other media is when dealing with complex issues.
The odious Allison Pearson, Toby Young, and Julia Hartley-Brewer between them are responsible for whole swathes of misinformation, exemplifying the Dunning-Kruger effect but being relentlessly loud as they bray their knee-jerk beliefs of what they want to be true. Instantly and inevitably latching on to any possible wrong-headed interpretation of something (that says what they want to be true) and are unshakeable in it (because in their world, changing one's mind in the face of evidence is a sign of weakness).
And if you can draw up lines of "them and us," chant insults and name-call, you can get what you want. Unfortunately, covid tends not to hear them or read them.
It’s a bit out of date but there are lots of causes of death which could be prevented if we completely stopped doing stuff
If we banned all motor transport there would be a significant drop in vehicle related deaths. A significant number of people die of medical complications - perhaps we should ban all medical procedures. Some people are electrocuted - are you proposing that we go off grid? A small number of women die in childbirth - should we prevent all births? Oh wait we’ve already cancelled all medical procedures above.
Locking down the economy was supposed to be a temporary measure to allow NHS capacity to increase, and to allow time to assess the impact. Before the initial lockdown, and part of the delay was the advice that people only have a certain capacity for being locked down, and the scientists didn’t want to start it too soon
Depends what you mean by "lockdown". Driving is highly regulated. There's a huge list of rules, you have to get your car checked for roadworthiness each year, and you aren't allowed to go whatever speed you like. In fact, the speed you're allowed to go depends on not just where you are, but what conditions are like. Similarly safety regulations on medical procedures, retail and industrial electrical goods are there to minimise deaths. In all of the above cases, we find a balance. Nobody is proposing banning all economic activity, and nor is anybody with the slightest shred of decency advocating just letting it rip.
So now that we've established where we are, somewhere between those two end members, we need to find the right place. And like the speed limit, it's perfectly sensible to suggest that as conditions change, so should the rules. Now, are the kinds of lockdowns experienced and/or proposed by some people going too far one way? Is the loosening proposed by others going too far the other way? Perhaps, you can make your own mind up. In truth, I can see both sides of the argument and I'm not ready to commit. I'm glad I don't have to decide. But please don't go around pretending that temporary lockdowns are the same as "banning all motor transport". That's attacking a straw man and doesn't help convince persuadables like me.
The current Welsh option has to be up there as pretty close to banning all motor transport for a fortnight. Its likely to have a similar effect on the numbers - transmission will probably fall, but as the fundamental state of play won't have changed at the end of it, it won't be long before the numbers are back where they are now again - very much like banning driving for a fortnight would cut road deaths for a couple of weeks, but won't make a lot of difference in the long run.
The fundamental problem with lockdowns is the total absence of a coherent endgame. Unless there is some way out of this which doesn't involve everyone getting the disease, lockdowns are pointless but expensive can kicking (rather like the endless Brexit extensions - they only postponed exactly the same issues as everyone started with).
There isn't a silver bullet on the horizon. A vaccine isn't going to be enough (you can tell this from the way that governments are starting to talk about this going on all next year).
At some point lockdowns will stop working entirely, if that hasn't already happened. Based on what's happened in say Boulton over the summer, where various levels lockdown have made almost no difference to case numbers, it's quite possible that point has already pretty much been reached.
People have had enough (I'm honest, I'm one of them), and aren't taking a blind bit of notice of the rules if they even know what they are, so the only practical outworking of the restrictions is the ruination of the businesses forced to close (mind you what a time to own an off licence! It's an ill wind... ).
I read a post on Facebook today which linked to a petition for partners to be allowed to attend scans and all of labour for pregnant women (I think it covered Wales - I don't know the current English rules). Some of the stories in the comments below the post were truly heartbreaking; Women having miscarriages and stillbirths alone with their husbands sat waiting in the carpark. It's hard to explain how angry I felt after reading a few posts, and how outraged I was at the sheer barbarity of the current rules. My sister is currently heavily pregnant and under these rules in Ceredigion, which has a case rate of something like 22 per 100k. Its utterly mad, the more so given that presumably as most women live with their partners, if one has it, they probably both do anyway.
I think we should shield the vulnerable as best we can, then let it go, because the reality is that otherwise its going to go anyway sooner or later, but with the vulnerable unprotected.
As someone else has posted upthread, by January (it's bleak enough in a normal year) the public will be in open rebellion everywhere (lots of them aren't far off now), and nothing the politicians can do then will allow them to regain control. All that's occuring now is just adding extra pointless misery to that which will come from the ravages of the disease when the public mood breaks.
The devil is in the detail. You say we should "shield the vulnerable" but provide zero detail. Vulnerable people still need to eat, still need to access medical care. How do they get to the supermarket if the bus is full of people spewing out virus particles without catching it? How can they sit in a waiting room at the doctor's with coronavirus in the air, and not die from it? And even if some unspecified measures are put in place that will magically keep the vulnerable separate, how do you stop that becoming overwhelmed with people who just don't really want to get sick?
The "shield the vulnerable" mantra reminds me of communism... nice in theory but it doesn't work.
As a side note, I've noticed a LOT that people read something on Facebook or Twitter and get outraged. When I used to be on both platforms I was permanently of the opinion that the country was about to break out into insurrection because LOOK AT THIS CUTE CHILD HE DIED BECAUSE OF AUSTERITY/MUSLIMS/VACCINES/ISRAEL. The sad truth is, it's always a mix of the chronically angry, distillations of real things that happened that may or may not share the context you're talking about, liars, propagandists, and well-meaning idiots. And it's all wrapped up into a nice newsfeed that specifically designed to maximise your outrage, because that's what keeps you coming back for more. You see it in some of the people on here. They've become furious ideologues, certain of the righteousness of their cause and their cause alone. Then they find themselves on here, one of the many interfaces between their clan and another, and they go absolutely mad because "here are some filthy apostates who have been duped by the other clan, how can they be so stupidly partisan all the time?!"
Ok, so my side note ended up longer than my main point. Sorry about that. Just to tie it up, I'm not saying you're wrong about lockdowns, but nor am I saying you're right. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you think it's more clear cut than it really is, and one clue to that is this: you replied to a post recommending we take better care when wielding rhetorical devices, and by the sixth paragraph you were talking about dead babies. That kind of escalation doesn't happen in conversations unless at least one of them is furiously certain about something that is so very clearly uncertain enough that they need to have a conversation about it.
On your first paragraph my wife and I (81 & 77) have no problem shielding nor with the surgery
We have a weekly Asda delivery and our son or daughter pick up our medication from the chemist and leave it in our porch
Since March our surgery has moved to online triage and it has been a great success together with a ban on anyone calling direct at the surgery. When we have had to see either the doctor/nurse we wait in the car park in our car and the doctor/nurse calls us directly into their consulting room passing through the empty waiting areas
Here in Wales Drakeford has stopped supermarkets selling non essential food and terminal ill non covid elderly patients have to choose which child they want to nominate to be at their bedside in their final hours
This is morally bankrupt and of course banning the sale of non essenitial goods drives Amazon and online shopping demand at the further expense of local shopping
Drakeford insists closing down the whole of Wales is only for 17 days and is a one off event, but as we have been in the equivalent of tier 3 ourselves for the last month I expect Drakeford will return us to tier 3 again
He is experimenting with Wales and believe you me both here in Wales and the rest of the UK a moment is fast approaching when the cry will go out 'enough'
It is notable that Scotland has introduced tiering, notwithstanding 2 additional levels, confirming that even Sturgeon is not favour of a national shutdown
You didn't read Foxy's response to your comments last night then. (Forgive me Foxy if I have misinterpreted via my précis)
1.Non-essentials is a device to deter unnecessary shopping.
2. Your end of life visiting issues are an edict from the Westminster Government.
I can't say I am pleased at not working for two weeks, however if it allows me the opportunity to work unhindered for the following six weeks to eight weeks I will give it a shot.
On 1, isn't it a political move to assuage the discontent of smaller non-essential retailers closed down but watching the supermarkets open and selling the very same stuff?
So now they see Amazon win more shoppers?
For sure. It's likely to simply be "do something" politics. But I guess you could argue that online shoppers might return to physical shopping after the lockdown, but getting them in the habit of physically shopping somewhere else is worse for smaller retailers.
I don't think it's been shown that online shoppers go back to the shops. It's almost like a ratchet with product classes people are willing to buy online. After they've done it once they don't mind doing it again.
Certainly true in my case. Much as I dislike some of Amazon's corporate behaviour, the fact that you can type in almost anything, usually find what you need and buy within minutes and have it arrive to your door the next day is convenience beyond belief.
In the Wales case, I guess it's simply the politics of the small shopkeepers seeing - or being told by - their customers buying the same stuff down the road at Tesco.
This is very hard to watch. Not very illuminating. Jumbled sentences from both of them. I don't think it will change many votes. I don't think Trump will actually lose votes this time, but nor will he gain them. It is not the game changer that Trump needs.
If you believe Trafalgar or Rasmussen and IBID/TIPP he does not need a game changer, just not to lose any support tonight
If you believe the poll modellers like The Economist or Nate Silver, he most certainly does need a game changer.
If Nate Silver was right in 2016 Hillary Clinton would have won over 300 EC votes and now be President
How many times.....? Nate Silver's group was 28% right, which was more pro Trump than any of the other groups giving probability predictions for the 2016 election.
Or to put it another way, Biden is in a much better position in the polling than Clinton was 4 years ago and has been for months. If HYUFD really believes Trump should be favorite it's not based on any evidence.
Experience. Few predicted 2016 result.
Experience should teach you not to fall into the normalcy bias mistake. It happened with me in 2019 when I assumed Corbyn would repeat 2015.
The circumstances this time around are vastly, viscerally, different from 2016. The polls don't lie. They didn't in 2019 and they're not in 2020. But it's much more than that. The GOP have distanced themselves from their President. They know they've lost.
And lost big.
I'm going to use 538 and compare Trump's popular vote forecast lead with that of the Republican candidate in the closest Senate races. IA Trump +0.3 GOP -1.0 GA Trump 0.0 GOP +2.6 NC Trump -2.3 GOP -2.9 MT Trump +10.2 GOP +3.0 ME Trump -12.1 GOP -3.0 KS Trump +10.6 GOP +4.9 SC Trump +7.9 GOP +5.2 AZ Trump -2.9 GOP -6.0 AL Trump +19.2 GOP +6.2 AK Trump +7.4 GOP +6.3 MI Trump -7.9 GOP -6.4 CO Trump -11.7 GOP -7.7 TX Trump +2.1 GOP +8.1 MS Trump +13.2 GOP +9.1 MN Trump -7.7 GOP -12.0 KY Trump +19.1 GOP +13.4 ---- Mean Trump +2.8 GOP +1.2
I don't want this to be true, but Trump still looks like he is an electoral asset for the Republicans. I want American voters to judge him so badly that he drags the whole GOP down with him. But the numbers don't show that story.
Otherwise Republican Senate candidates should be outperforming Trump.
If he loses and other Republicans do worse, so much the better
I have met many US Republicans and they are good people with an cultural outlook that is very difficult for many if not most people this side of the pond to understand. Trump is, I believe, an aberration; a quite repulsive individual who, other than his claim to be business friendly, is not a traditional Republican. I hope that the American people wake up and realise that their experiment with populism is a really bad thing for their otherwise largely noble democratic system.
Our own version of dishonest populism, who while I accept is not as repulsive or as psychopathic, will also meet his Waterloo when people realise that having extreme narcissists and liars in positions of power is a really bad thing.
It’s a bit out of date but there are lots of causes of death which could be prevented if we completely stopped doing stuff
If we banned all motor transport there would be a significant drop in vehicle related deaths. A significant number of people die of medical complications - perhaps we should ban all medical procedures. Some people are electrocuted - are you proposing that we go off grid? A small number of women die in childbirth - should we prevent all births? Oh wait we’ve already cancelled all medical procedures above.
Locking down the economy was supposed to be a temporary measure to allow NHS capacity to increase, and to allow time to assess the impact. Before the initial lockdown, and part of the delay was the advice that people only have a certain capacity for being locked down, and the scientists didn’t want to start it too soon
Depends what you mean by "lockdown". Driving is highly regulated. There's a huge list of rules, you have to get your car checked for roadworthiness each year, and you aren't allowed to go whatever speed you like. In fact, the speed you're allowed to go depends on not just where you are, but what conditions are like. Similarly safety regulations on medical procedures, retail and industrial electrical goods are there to minimise deaths. In all of the above cases, we find a balance. Nobody is proposing banning all economic activity, and nor is anybody with the slightest shred of decency advocating just letting it rip.
So now that we've established where we are, somewhere between those two end members, we need to find the right place. And like the speed limit, it's perfectly sensible to suggest that as conditions change, so should the rules. Now, are the kinds of lockdowns experienced and/or proposed by some people going too far one way? Is the loosening proposed by others going too far the other way? Perhaps, you can make your own mind up. In truth, I can see both sides of the argument and I'm not ready to commit. I'm glad I don't have to decide. But please don't go around pretending that temporary lockdowns are the same as "banning all motor transport". That's attacking a straw man and doesn't help convince persuadables like me.
The current Welsh option has to be up there as pretty close to banning all motor transport for a fortnight. Its likely to have a similar effect on the numbers - transmission will probably fall, but as the fundamental state of play won't have changed at the end of it, it won't be long before the numbers are back where they are now again - very much like banning driving for a fortnight would cut road deaths for a couple of weeks, but won't make a lot of difference in the long run.
The fundamental problem with lockdowns is the total absence of a coherent endgame. Unless there is some way out of this which doesn't involve everyone getting the disease, lockdowns are pointless but expensive can kicking (rather like the endless Brexit extensions - they only postponed exactly the same issues as everyone started with).
There isn't a silver bullet on the horizon. A vaccine isn't going to be enough (you can tell this from the way that governments are starting to talk about this going on all next year).
At some point lockdowns will stop working entirely, if that hasn't already happened. Based on what's happened in say Boulton over the summer, where various levels lockdown have made almost no difference to case numbers, it's quite possible that point has already pretty much been reached.
People have had enough (I'm honest, I'm one of them), and aren't taking a blind bit of notice of the rules if they even know what they are, so the only practical outworking of the restrictions is the ruination of the businesses forced to close (mind you what a time to own an off licence! It's an ill wind... ).
I read a post on Facebook today which linked to a petition for partners to be allowed to attend scans and all of labour for pregnant women (I think it covered Wales - I don't know the current English rules). Some of the stories in the comments below the post were truly heartbreaking; Women having miscarriages and stillbirths alone with their husbands sat waiting in the carpark. It's hard to explain how angry I felt after reading a few posts, and how outraged I was at the sheer barbarity of the current rules. My sister is currently heavily pregnant and under these rules in Ceredigion, which has a case rate of something like 22 per 100k. Its utterly mad, the more so given that presumably as most women live with their partners, if one has it, they probably both do anyway.
I think we should shield the vulnerable as best we can, then let it go, because the reality is that otherwise its going to go anyway sooner or later, but with the vulnerable unprotected.
As someone else has posted upthread, by January (it's bleak enough in a normal year) the public will be in open rebellion everywhere (lots of them aren't far off now), and nothing the politicians can do then will allow them to regain control. All that's occuring now is just adding extra pointless misery to that which will come from the ravages of the disease when the public mood breaks.
The devil is in the detail. You say we should "shield the vulnerable" but provide zero detail. Vulnerable people still need to eat, still need to access medical care. How do they get to the supermarket if the bus is full of people spewing out virus particles without catching it? How can they sit in a waiting room at the doctor's with coronavirus in the air, and not die from it? And even if some unspecified measures are put in place that will magically keep the vulnerable separate, how do you stop that becoming overwhelmed with people who just don't really want to get sick?
The "shield the vulnerable" mantra reminds me of communism... nice in theory but it doesn't work.
As a side note, I've noticed a LOT that people read something on Facebook or Twitter and get outraged. When I used to be on both platforms I was permanently of the opinion that the country was about to break out into insurrection because LOOK AT THIS CUTE CHILD HE DIED BECAUSE OF AUSTERITY/MUSLIMS/VACCINES/ISRAEL. The sad truth is, it's always a mix of the chronically angry, distillations of real things that happened that may or may not share the context you're talking about, liars, propagandists, and well-meaning idiots. And it's all wrapped up into a nice newsfeed that specifically designed to maximise your outrage, because that's what keeps you coming back for more. You see it in some of the people on here. They've become furious ideologues, certain of the righteousness of their cause and their cause alone. Then they find themselves on here, one of the many interfaces between their clan and another, and they go absolutely mad because "here are some filthy apostates who have been duped by the other clan, how can they be so stupidly partisan all the time?!"
Ok, so my side note ended up longer than my main point. Sorry about that. Just to tie it up, I'm not saying you're wrong about lockdowns, but nor am I saying you're right. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you think it's more clear cut than it really is, and one clue to that is this: you replied to a post recommending we take better care when wielding rhetorical devices, and by the sixth paragraph you were talking about dead babies. That kind of escalation doesn't happen in conversations unless at least one of them is furiously certain about something that is so very clearly uncertain enough that they need to have a conversation about it.
On your first paragraph my wife and I (81 & 77) have no problem shielding nor with the surgery
We have a weekly Asda delivery and our son or daughter pick up our medication from the chemist and leave it in our porch
Since March our surgery has moved to online triage and it has been a great success together with a ban on anyone calling direct at the surgery. When we have had to see either the doctor/nurse we wait in the car park in our car and the doctor/nurse calls us directly into their consulting room passing through the empty waiting areas
Here in Wales Drakeford has stopped supermarkets selling non essential food and terminal ill non covid elderly patients have to choose which child they want to nominate to be at their bedside in their final hours
This is morally bankrupt and of course banning the sale of non essenitial goods drives Amazon and online shopping demand at the further expense of local shopping
Drakeford insists closing down the whole of Wales is only for 17 days and is a one off event, but as we have been in the equivalent of tier 3 ourselves for the last month I expect Drakeford will return us to tier 3 again
He is experimenting with Wales and believe you me both here in Wales and the rest of the UK a moment is fast approaching when the cry will go out 'enough'
It is notable that Scotland has introduced tiering, notwithstanding 2 additional levels, confirming that even Sturgeon is not favour of a national shutdown
You didn't read Foxy's response to your comments last night then. (Forgive me Foxy if I have misinterpreted via my précis)
1.Non-essentials is a device to deter unnecessary shopping.
2. Your end of life visiting issues are an edict from the Westminster Government.
I can't say I am pleased at not working for two weeks, however if it allows me the opportunity to work unhindered for the following six weeks to eight weeks I will give it a shot.
On 1, isn't it a political move to assuage the discontent of smaller non-essential retailers closed down but watching the supermarkets open and selling the very same stuff?
So now they see Amazon win more shoppers?
For sure. It's likely to simply be "do something" politics. But I guess you could argue that online shoppers might return to physical shopping after the lockdown, but getting them in the habit of physically shopping somewhere else is worse for smaller retailers.
I don't think it's been shown that online shoppers go back to the shops. It's almost like a ratchet with product classes people are willing to buy online. After they've done it once they don't mind doing it again.
Certainly true in my case. Much as I dislike some of Amazon's corporate behaviour, the fact that you can type in almost anything, usually find what you need and buy within minutes and have it arrive to your door the next day is convenience beyond belief.
It’s a bit out of date but there are lots of causes of death which could be prevented if we completely stopped doing stuff
If we banned all motor transport there would be a significant drop in vehicle related deaths. A significant number of people die of medical complications - perhaps we should ban all medical procedures. Some people are electrocuted - are you proposing that we go off grid? A small number of women die in childbirth - should we prevent all births? Oh wait we’ve already cancelled all medical procedures above.
Locking down the economy was supposed to be a temporary measure to allow NHS capacity to increase, and to allow time to assess the impact. Before the initial lockdown, and part of the delay was the advice that people only have a certain capacity for being locked down, and the scientists didn’t want to start it too soon
Depends what you mean by "lockdown". Driving is highly regulated. There's a huge list of rules, you have to get your car checked for roadworthiness each year, and you aren't allowed to go whatever speed you like. In fact, the speed you're allowed to go depends on not just where you are, but what conditions are like. Similarly safety regulations on medical procedures, retail and industrial electrical goods are there to minimise deaths. In all of the above cases, we find a balance. Nobody is proposing banning all economic activity, and nor is anybody with the slightest shred of decency advocating just letting it rip.
So now that we've established where we are, somewhere between those two end members, we need to find the right place. And like the speed limit, it's perfectly sensible to suggest that as conditions change, so should the rules. Now, are the kinds of lockdowns experienced and/or proposed by some people going too far one way? Is the loosening proposed by others going too far the other way? Perhaps, you can make your own mind up. In truth, I can see both sides of the argument and I'm not ready to commit. I'm glad I don't have to decide. But please don't go around pretending that temporary lockdowns are the same as "banning all motor transport". That's attacking a straw man and doesn't help convince persuadables like me.
The current Welsh option has to be up there as pretty close to banning all motor transport for a fortnight. Its likely to have a similar effect on the numbers - transmission will probably fall, but as the fundamental state of play won't have changed at the end of it, it won't be long before the numbers are back where they are now again - very much like banning driving for a fortnight would cut road deaths for a couple of weeks, but won't make a lot of difference in the long run.
The fundamental problem with lockdowns is the total absence of a coherent endgame. Unless there is some way out of this which doesn't involve everyone getting the disease, lockdowns are pointless but expensive can kicking (rather like the endless Brexit extensions - they only postponed exactly the same issues as everyone started with).
There isn't a silver bullet on the horizon. A vaccine isn't going to be enough (you can tell this from the way that governments are starting to talk about this going on all next year).
At some point lockdowns will stop working entirely, if that hasn't already happened. Based on what's happened in say Boulton over the summer, where various levels lockdown have made almost no difference to case numbers, it's quite possible that point has already pretty much been reached.
People have had enough (I'm honest, I'm one of them), and aren't taking a blind bit of notice of the rules if they even know what they are, so the only practical outworking of the restrictions is the ruination of the businesses forced to close (mind you what a time to own an off licence! It's an ill wind... ).
I read a post on Facebook today which linked to a petition for partners to be allowed to attend scans and all of labour for pregnant women (I think it covered Wales - I don't know the current English rules). Some of the stories in the comments below the post were truly heartbreaking; Women having miscarriages and stillbirths alone with their husbands sat waiting in the carpark. It's hard to explain how angry I felt after reading a few posts, and how outraged I was at the sheer barbarity of the current rules. My sister is currently heavily pregnant and under these rules in Ceredigion, which has a case rate of something like 22 per 100k. Its utterly mad, the more so given that presumably as most women live with their partners, if one has it, they probably both do anyway.
I think we should shield the vulnerable as best we can, then let it go, because the reality is that otherwise its going to go anyway sooner or later, but with the vulnerable unprotected.
As someone else has posted upthread, by January (it's bleak enough in a normal year) the public will be in open rebellion everywhere (lots of them aren't far off now), and nothing the politicians can do then will allow them to regain control. All that's occuring now is just adding extra pointless misery to that which will come from the ravages of the disease when the public mood breaks.
The devil is in the detail. You say we should "shield the vulnerable" but provide zero detail. Vulnerable people still need to eat, still need to access medical care. How do they get to the supermarket if the bus is full of people spewing out virus particles without catching it? How can they sit in a waiting room at the doctor's with coronavirus in the air, and not die from it? And even if some unspecified measures are put in place that will magically keep the vulnerable separate, how do you stop that becoming overwhelmed with people who just don't really want to get sick?
The "shield the vulnerable" mantra reminds me of communism... nice in theory but it doesn't work.
As a side note, I've noticed a LOT that people read something on Facebook or Twitter and get outraged. When I used to be on both platforms I was permanently of the opinion that the country was about to break out into insurrection because LOOK AT THIS CUTE CHILD HE DIED BECAUSE OF AUSTERITY/MUSLIMS/VACCINES/ISRAEL. The sad truth is, it's always a mix of the chronically angry, distillations of real things that happened that may or may not share the context you're talking about, liars, propagandists, and well-meaning idiots. And it's all wrapped up into a nice newsfeed that specifically designed to maximise your outrage, because that's what keeps you coming back for more. You see it in some of the people on here. They've become furious ideologues, certain of the righteousness of their cause and their cause alone. Then they find themselves on here, one of the many interfaces between their clan and another, and they go absolutely mad because "here are some filthy apostates who have been duped by the other clan, how can they be so stupidly partisan all the time?!"
Ok, so my side note ended up longer than my main point. Sorry about that. Just to tie it up, I'm not saying you're wrong about lockdowns, but nor am I saying you're right. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you think it's more clear cut than it really is, and one clue to that is this: you replied to a post recommending we take better care when wielding rhetorical devices, and by the sixth paragraph you were talking about dead babies. That kind of escalation doesn't happen in conversations unless at least one of them is furiously certain about something that is so very clearly uncertain enough that they need to have a conversation about it.
On your first paragraph my wife and I (81 & 77) have no problem shielding nor with the surgery
We have a weekly Asda delivery and our son or daughter pick up our medication from the chemist and leave it in our porch
Since March our surgery has moved to online triage and it has been a great success together with a ban on anyone calling direct at the surgery. When we have had to see either the doctor/nurse we wait in the car park in our car and the doctor/nurse calls us directly into their consulting room passing through the empty waiting areas
Here in Wales Drakeford has stopped supermarkets selling non essential food and terminal ill non covid elderly patients have to choose which child they want to nominate to be at their bedside in their final hours
This is morally bankrupt and of course banning the sale of non essenitial goods drives Amazon and online shopping demand at the further expense of local shopping
Drakeford insists closing down the whole of Wales is only for 17 days and is a one off event, but as we have been in the equivalent of tier 3 ourselves for the last month I expect Drakeford will return us to tier 3 again
He is experimenting with Wales and believe you me both here in Wales and the rest of the UK a moment is fast approaching when the cry will go out 'enough'
It is notable that Scotland has introduced tiering, notwithstanding 2 additional levels, confirming that even Sturgeon is not favour of a national shutdown
You didn't read Foxy's response to your comments last night then. (Forgive me Foxy if I have misinterpreted via my précis)
1.Non-essentials is a device to deter unnecessary shopping.
2. Your end of life visiting issues are an edict from the Westminster Government.
I can't say I am pleased at not working for two weeks, however if it allows me the opportunity to work unhindered for the following six weeks to eight weeks I will give it a shot.
On 1, isn't it a political move to assuage the discontent of smaller non-essential retailers closed down but watching the supermarkets open and selling the very same stuff?
The other thing that came to mind was how many different types of tins of shortbread, fudge, etc, would you have to sell to qualify as opening as a food retailer, who just happened to sell all this other stuff as well.
The reason the rule is absurd is because the whole situation is absurd, but if your choice is between absurdity and mass death, then you've clearly wasted the last seven months in failing to come up with a better alternative.
On 'essential' food supplies, I've posted this story before, but. Back in March Grandson One (an adult) went to Tesco for us.Among the items in his trolley was a bottle of gin. 'That's not essential' said the woman at the checkout. 'It's for my Grannie" "Oh, ok, then" and she carried on with the checkout! How is alcohol regarded in Wales? I have a picture of my Welsh grandmother, in her youth, in the uniform of the Band of Hope. That was 120 years ago, though!
@Roy_G_Biv and @theProle make valid points as did the poster last night on visiting restrictions in Hospices.
The problem is that "shielding the vulnerable" requires just those sort of measures. Cancer patients and pregnant women are in the vulnerable groups, and open visiting is the direct opposite of shielding.
Indeed even these visiting rules are too lax if the "herd immunity" enthusiasts of the Great Barrington Declaration get their way.
Surely scaling up rapid antigen testing is the answer here. The nanopore machines have bandwidth for hundreds of simultaneous tests and give results within 20 minutes. I don't understand why one hasn't been put in every single hospital in the country with staff, patients and visitors tested daily.
Have they got regulatory approval though? There are all kinds of manufacturers claiming 99% specificity and sensitivity on their tests but these claims often turn out not true...
Ultimately that's where we are going I think, although I think the govt wants a saliva test rather than swab...
Yes, the nanopore test has been approved and it is a saliva based test with no expertise needed for swab taking.
As I said, no one has yet explained why they haven't been rolled out to every hospital in the country so staff, patients and visitors can be tested daily.
Didn't watch the debate but, to echo others here, the mood music appears to be that Trump didn't create any major new gaffes and restrained himself. As others have said, that will probably be enough for more reluctant Republicans or even some independents to vote for him, especially given some of the issues at stake.
Funnily enough, the main thing that seemed to trend on social media was Joe Biden's reference to Hitler.
Frank Luntz's polling groups reflect him I think - out and out GOP hacks masquerading as "undecideds"
His focus groups always seem to come to the opposite conclusion to the pollsters. Not impossible but highly suspicious given his role as a GOP strategist. I'd bet that the 3 polls are giving a more accurate reflection, particularly as all 3 give a remarkably similar result.
If you don't think a CNN poll might be biased, I have a bridge to sell you
Why would you think a CNN poll would be biased assuming they are doing proper polling as I believe they do? Similarly Fox polling is also straight and not biased by their own bias.
@Roy_G_Biv and @theProle make valid points as did the poster last night on visiting restrictions in Hospices.
The problem is that "shielding the vulnerable" requires just those sort of measures. Cancer patients and pregnant women are in the vulnerable groups, and open visiting is the direct opposite of shielding.
Indeed even these visiting rules are too lax if the "herd immunity" enthusiasts of the Great Barrington Declaration get their way.
Surely scaling up rapid antigen testing is the answer here. The nanopore machines have bandwidth for hundreds of simultaneous tests and give results within 20 minutes. I don't understand why one hasn't been put in every single hospital in the country with staff, patients and visitors tested daily.
Out T and T can only get 1/7 of results back in 24 hours.
Small steps are needed before a Moonshot.
With sufficient rapid testing you get around the need for track and trace.
Can you do me a favour and remove the @CorrectHorseBattery from the massive thread you're all responding to, I get an email for every post as I am quoted in it.
If you respond to the quotes I've made, or just remove me from the new thread, I won't get notified. Thanks.
It’s a bit out of date but there are lots of causes of death which could be prevented if we completely stopped doing stuff
If we banned all motor transport there would be a significant drop in vehicle related deaths. A significant number of people die of medical complications - perhaps we should ban all medical procedures. Some people are electrocuted - are you proposing that we go off grid? A small number of women die in childbirth - should we prevent all births? Oh wait we’ve already cancelled all medical procedures above.
Locking down the economy was supposed to be a temporary measure to allow NHS capacity to increase, and to allow time to assess the impact. Before the initial lockdown, and part of the delay was the advice that people only have a certain capacity for being locked down, and the scientists didn’t want to start it too soon
Depends what you mean by "lockdown". Driving is highly regulated. There's a huge list of rules, you have to get your car checked for roadworthiness each year, and you aren't allowed to go whatever speed you like. In fact, the speed you're allowed to go depends on not just where you are, but what conditions are like. Similarly safety regulations on medical procedures, retail and industrial electrical goods are there to minimise deaths. In all of the above cases, we find a balance. Nobody is proposing banning all economic activity, and nor is anybody with the slightest shred of decency advocating just letting it rip.
So now that we've established where we are, somewhere between those two end members, we need to find the right place. And like the speed limit, it's perfectly sensible to suggest that as conditions change, so should the rules. Now, are the kinds of lockdowns experienced and/or proposed by some people going too far one way? Is the loosening proposed by others going too far the other way? Perhaps, you can make your own mind up. In truth, I can see both sides of the argument and I'm not ready to commit. I'm glad I don't have to decide. But please don't go around pretending that temporary lockdowns are the same as "banning all motor transport". That's attacking a straw man and doesn't help convince persuadables like me.
The current Welsh option has to be up there as pretty close to banning all motor transport for a fortnight. Its likely to have a similar effect on the numbers - transmission will probably fall, but as the fundamental state of play won't have changed at the end of it, it won't be long before the numbers are back where they are now again - very much like banning driving for a fortnight would cut road deaths for a couple of weeks, but won't make a lot of difference in the long run.
The fundamental problem with lockdowns is the total absence of a coherent endgame. Unless there is some way out of this which doesn't involve everyone getting the disease, lockdowns are pointless but expensive can kicking (rather like the endless Brexit extensions - they only postponed exactly the same issues as everyone started with).
There isn't a silver bullet on the horizon. A vaccine isn't going to be enough (you can tell this from the way that governments are starting to talk about this going on all next year).
At some point lockdowns will stop working entirely, if that hasn't already happened. Based on what's happened in say Boulton over the summer, where various levels lockdown have made almost no difference to case numbers, it's quite possible that point has already pretty much been reached.
People have had enough (I'm honest, I'm one of them), and aren't taking a blind bit of notice of the rules if they even know what they are, so the only practical outworking of the restrictions is the ruination of the businesses forced to close (mind you what a time to own an off licence! It's an ill wind... ).
I read a post on Facebook today which linked to a petition for partners to be allowed to attend scans and all of labour for pregnant women (I think it covered Wales - I don't know the current English rules). Some of the stories in the comments below the post were truly heartbreaking; Women having miscarriages and stillbirths alone with their husbands sat waiting in the carpark. It's hard to explain how angry I felt after reading a few posts, and how outraged I was at the sheer barbarity of the current rules. My sister is currently heavily pregnant and under these rules in Ceredigion, which has a case rate of something like 22 per 100k. Its utterly mad, the more so given that presumably as most women live with their partners, if one has it, they probably both do anyway.
I think we should shield the vulnerable as best we can, then let it go, because the reality is that otherwise its going to go anyway sooner or later, but with the vulnerable unprotected.
As someone else has posted upthread, by January (it's bleak enough in a normal year) the public will be in open rebellion everywhere (lots of them aren't far off now), and nothing the politicians can do then will allow them to regain control. All that's occuring now is just adding extra pointless misery to that which will come from the ravages of the disease when the public mood breaks.
The devil is in the detail. You say we should "shield the vulnerable" but provide zero detail. Vulnerable people still need to eat, still need to access medical care. How do they get to the supermarket if the bus is full of people spewing out virus particles without catching it? How can they sit in a waiting room at the doctor's with coronavirus in the air, and not die from it? And even if some unspecified measures are put in place that will magically keep the vulnerable separate, how do you stop that becoming overwhelmed with people who just don't really want to get sick?
The "shield the vulnerable" mantra reminds me of communism... nice in theory but it doesn't work.
As a side note, I've noticed a LOT that people read something on Facebook or Twitter and get outraged. When I used to be on both platforms I was permanently of the opinion that the country was about to break out into insurrection because LOOK AT THIS CUTE CHILD HE DIED BECAUSE OF AUSTERITY/MUSLIMS/VACCINES/ISRAEL. The sad truth is, it's always a mix of the chronically angry, distillations of real things that happened that may or may not share the context you're talking about, liars, propagandists, and well-meaning idiots. And it's all wrapped up into a nice newsfeed that specifically designed to maximise your outrage, because that's what keeps you coming back for more. You see it in some of the people on here. They've become furious ideologues, certain of the righteousness of their cause and their cause alone. Then they find themselves on here, one of the many interfaces between their clan and another, and they go absolutely mad because "here are some filthy apostates who have been duped by the other clan, how can they be so stupidly partisan all the time?!"
Ok, so my side note ended up longer than my main point. Sorry about that. Just to tie it up, I'm not saying you're wrong about lockdowns, but nor am I saying you're right. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you think it's more clear cut than it really is, and one clue to that is this: you replied to a post recommending we take better care when wielding rhetorical devices, and by the sixth paragraph you were talking about dead babies. That kind of escalation doesn't happen in conversations unless at least one of them is furiously certain about something that is so very clearly uncertain enough that they need to have a conversation about it.
On your first paragraph my wife and I (81 & 77) have no problem shielding nor with the surgery
We have a weekly Asda delivery and our son or daughter pick up our medication from the chemist and leave it in our porch
Since March our surgery has moved to online triage and it has been a great success together with a ban on anyone calling direct at the surgery. When we have had to see either the doctor/nurse we wait in the car park in our car and the doctor/nurse calls us directly into their consulting room passing through the empty waiting areas
Here in Wales Drakeford has stopped supermarkets selling non essential food and terminal ill non covid elderly patients have to choose which child they want to nominate to be at their bedside in their final hours
This is morally bankrupt and of course banning the sale of non essenitial goods drives Amazon and online shopping demand at the further expense of local shopping
Drakeford insists closing down the whole of Wales is only for 17 days and is a one off event, but as we have been in the equivalent of tier 3 ourselves for the last month I expect Drakeford will return us to tier 3 again
He is experimenting with Wales and believe you me both here in Wales and the rest of the UK a moment is fast approaching when the cry will go out 'enough'
It is notable that Scotland has introduced tiering, notwithstanding 2 additional levels, confirming that even Sturgeon is not favour of a national shutdown
You didn't read Foxy's response to your comments last night then. (Forgive me Foxy if I have misinterpreted via my précis)
1.Non-essentials is a device to deter unnecessary shopping.
2. Your end of life visiting issues are an edict from the Westminster Government.
I can't say I am pleased at not working for two weeks, however if it allows me the opportunity to work unhindered for the following six weeks to eight weeks I will give it a shot.
On 1, isn't it a political move to assuage the discontent of smaller non-essential retailers closed down but watching the supermarkets open and selling the very same stuff?
A job advert posted on recruitment sites stated that the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) was looking for a temporary “VP of operations” with experience “in running call centres of 18,000”...
We are at the level of daily infections that it is surely infeasible for the trace system to now work.
23,000 cases on the 19th. How many contact would that translate to to track down?
It’s a bit out of date but there are lots of causes of death which could be prevented if we completely stopped doing stuff
If we banned all motor transport there would be a significant drop in vehicle related deaths. A significant number of people die of medical complications - perhaps we should ban all medical procedures. Some people are electrocuted - are you proposing that we go off grid? A small number of women die in childbirth - should we prevent all births? Oh wait we’ve already cancelled all medical procedures above.
Locking down the economy was supposed to be a temporary measure to allow NHS capacity to increase, and to allow time to assess the impact. Before the initial lockdown, and part of the delay was the advice that people only have a certain capacity for being locked down, and the scientists didn’t want to start it too soon
Depends what you mean by "lockdown". Driving is highly regulated. There's a huge list of rules, you have to get your car checked for roadworthiness each year, and you aren't allowed to go whatever speed you like. In fact, the speed you're allowed to go depends on not just where you are, but what conditions are like. Similarly safety regulations on medical procedures, retail and industrial electrical goods are there to minimise deaths. In all of the above cases, we find a balance. Nobody is proposing banning all economic activity, and nor is anybody with the slightest shred of decency advocating just letting it rip.
So now that we've established where we are, somewhere between those two end members, we need to find the right place. And like the speed limit, it's perfectly sensible to suggest that as conditions change, so should the rules. Now, are the kinds of lockdowns experienced and/or proposed by some people going too far one way? Is the loosening proposed by others going too far the other way? Perhaps, you can make your own mind up. In truth, I can see both sides of the argument and I'm not ready to commit. I'm glad I don't have to decide. But please don't go around pretending that temporary lockdowns are the same as "banning all motor transport". That's attacking a straw man and doesn't help convince persuadables like me.
The current Welsh option has to be up there as pretty close to banning all motor transport for a fortnight. Its likely to have a similar effect on the numbers - transmission will probably fall, but as the fundamental state of play won't have changed at the end of it, it won't be long before the numbers are back where they are now again - very much like banning driving for a fortnight would cut road deaths for a couple of weeks, but won't make a lot of difference in the long run.
The fundamental problem with lockdowns is the total absence of a coherent endgame. Unless there is some way out of this which doesn't involve everyone getting the disease, lockdowns are pointless but expensive can kicking (rather like the endless Brexit extensions - they only postponed exactly the same issues as everyone started with).
There isn't a silver bullet on the horizon. A vaccine isn't going to be enough (you can tell this from the way that governments are starting to talk about this going on all next year).
At some point lockdowns will stop working entirely, if that hasn't already happened. Based on what's happened in say Boulton over the summer, where various levels lockdown have made almost no difference to case numbers, it's quite possible that point has already pretty much been reached.
People have had enough (I'm honest, I'm one of them), and aren't taking a blind bit of notice of the rules if they even know what they are, so the only practical outworking of the restrictions is the ruination of the businesses forced to close (mind you what a time to own an off licence! It's an ill wind... ).
I read a post on Facebook today which linked to a petition for partners to be allowed to attend scans and all of labour for pregnant women (I think it covered Wales - I don't know the current English rules). Some of the stories in the comments below the post were truly heartbreaking; Women having miscarriages and stillbirths alone with their husbands sat waiting in the carpark. It's hard to explain how angry I felt after reading a few posts, and how outraged I was at the sheer barbarity of the current rules. My sister is currently heavily pregnant and under these rules in Ceredigion, which has a case rate of something like 22 per 100k. Its utterly mad, the more so given that presumably as most women live with their partners, if one has it, they probably both do anyway.
I think we should shield the vulnerable as best we can, then let it go, because the reality is that otherwise its going to go anyway sooner or later, but with the vulnerable unprotected.
As someone else has posted upthread, by January (it's bleak enough in a normal year) the public will be in open rebellion everywhere (lots of them aren't far off now), and nothing the politicians can do then will allow them to regain control. All that's occuring now is just adding extra pointless misery to that which will come from the ravages of the disease when the public mood breaks.
The devil is in the detail. You say we should "shield the vulnerable" but provide zero detail. Vulnerable people still need to eat, still need to access medical care. How do they get to the supermarket if the bus is full of people spewing out virus particles without catching it? How can they sit in a waiting room at the doctor's with coronavirus in the air, and not die from it? And even if some unspecified measures are put in place that will magically keep the vulnerable separate, how do you stop that becoming overwhelmed with people who just don't really want to get sick?
The "shield the vulnerable" mantra reminds me of communism... nice in theory but it doesn't work.
As a side note, I've noticed a LOT that people read something on Facebook or Twitter and get outraged. When I used to be on both platforms I was permanently of the opinion that the country was about to break out into insurrection because LOOK AT THIS CUTE CHILD HE DIED BECAUSE OF AUSTERITY/MUSLIMS/VACCINES/ISRAEL. The sad truth is, it's always a mix of the chronically angry, distillations of real things that happened that may or may not share the context you're talking about, liars, propagandists, and well-meaning idiots. And it's all wrapped up into a nice newsfeed that specifically designed to maximise your outrage, because that's what keeps you coming back for more. You see it in some of the people on here. They've become furious ideologues, certain of the righteousness of their cause and their cause alone. Then they find themselves on here, one of the many interfaces between their clan and another, and they go absolutely mad because "here are some filthy apostates who have been duped by the other clan, how can they be so stupidly partisan all the time?!"
Ok, so my side note ended up longer than my main point. Sorry about that. Just to tie it up, I'm not saying you're wrong about lockdowns, but nor am I saying you're right. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you think it's more clear cut than it really is, and one clue to that is this: you replied to a post recommending we take better care when wielding rhetorical devices, and by the sixth paragraph you were talking about dead babies. That kind of escalation doesn't happen in conversations unless at least one of them is furiously certain about something that is so very clearly uncertain enough that they need to have a conversation about it.
On your first paragraph my wife and I (81 & 77) have no problem shielding nor with the surgery
We have a weekly Asda delivery and our son or daughter pick up our medication from the chemist and leave it in our porch
Since March our surgery has moved to online triage and it has been a great success together with a ban on anyone calling direct at the surgery. When we have had to see either the doctor/nurse we wait in the car park in our car and the doctor/nurse calls us directly into their consulting room passing through the empty waiting areas
Here in Wales Drakeford has stopped supermarkets selling non essential food and terminal ill non covid elderly patients have to choose which child they want to nominate to be at their bedside in their final hours
This is morally bankrupt and of course banning the sale of non essenitial goods drives Amazon and online shopping demand at the further expense of local shopping
Drakeford insists closing down the whole of Wales is only for 17 days and is a one off event, but as we have been in the equivalent of tier 3 ourselves for the last month I expect Drakeford will return us to tier 3 again
He is experimenting with Wales and believe you me both here in Wales and the rest of the UK a moment is fast approaching when the cry will go out 'enough'
It is notable that Scotland has introduced tiering, notwithstanding 2 additional levels, confirming that even Sturgeon is not favour of a national shutdown
You didn't read Foxy's response to your comments last night then. (Forgive me Foxy if I have misinterpreted via my précis)
1.Non-essentials is a device to deter unnecessary shopping.
2. Your end of life visiting issues are an edict from the Westminster Government.
I can't say I am pleased at not working for two weeks, however if it allows me the opportunity to work unhindered for the following six weeks to eight weeks I will give it a shot.
On 1, isn't it a political move to assuage the discontent of smaller non-essential retailers closed down but watching the supermarkets open and selling the very same stuff?
The other thing that came to mind was how many different types of tins of shortbread, fudge, etc, would you have to sell to qualify as opening as a food retailer, who just happened to sell all this other stuff as well.
The reason the rule is absurd is because the whole situation is absurd, but if your choice is between absurdity and mass death, then you've clearly wasted the last seven months in failing to come up with a better alternative.
The rule is fine.
Oh come on.
We live in a free society and yet the leader of Wales is forbidding people from buying socks with their cornflakes.
It might well be necessary, and logically consistent, but it is absurd.
I would really appreciate it if you'd just take two seconds to remove my tag from the massive thread for the next person to respond to it, it will take literally two seconds to do it.
A job advert posted on recruitment sites stated that the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) was looking for a temporary “VP of operations” with experience “in running call centres of 18,000”...
It’s a bit out of date but there are lots of causes of death which could be prevented if we completely stopped doing stuff
If we banned all motor transport there would be a significant drop in vehicle related deaths. A significant number of people die of medical complications - perhaps we should ban all medical procedures. Some people are electrocuted - are you proposing that we go off grid? A small number of women die in childbirth - should we prevent all births? Oh wait we’ve already cancelled all medical procedures above.
Locking down the economy was supposed to be a temporary measure to allow NHS capacity to increase, and to allow time to assess the impact. Before the initial lockdown, and part of the delay was the advice that people only have a certain capacity for being locked down, and the scientists didn’t want to start it too soon
Depends what you mean by "lockdown". Driving is highly regulated. There's a huge list of rules, you have to get your car checked for roadworthiness each year, and you aren't allowed to go whatever speed you like. In fact, the speed you're allowed to go depends on not just where you are, but what conditions are like. Similarly safety regulations on medical procedures, retail and industrial electrical goods are there to minimise deaths. In all of the above cases, we find a balance. Nobody is proposing banning all economic activity, and nor is anybody with the slightest shred of decency advocating just letting it rip.
So now that we've established where we are, somewhere between those two end members, we need to find the right place. And like the speed limit, it's perfectly sensible to suggest that as conditions change, so should the rules. Now, are the kinds of lockdowns experienced and/or proposed by some people going too far one way? Is the loosening proposed by others going too far the other way? Perhaps, you can make your own mind up. In truth, I can see both sides of the argument and I'm not ready to commit. I'm glad I don't have to decide. But please don't go around pretending that temporary lockdowns are the same as "banning all motor transport". That's attacking a straw man and doesn't help convince persuadables like me.
The current Welsh option has to be up there as pretty close to banning all motor transport for a fortnight. Its likely to have a similar effect on the numbers - transmission will probably fall, but as the fundamental state of play won't have changed at the end of it, it won't be long before the numbers are back where they are now again - very much like banning driving for a fortnight would cut road deaths for a couple of weeks, but won't make a lot of difference in the long run.
The fundamental problem with lockdowns is the total absence of a coherent endgame. Unless there is some way out of this which doesn't involve everyone getting the disease, lockdowns are pointless but expensive can kicking (rather like the endless Brexit extensions - they only postponed exactly the same issues as everyone started with).
There isn't a silver bullet on the horizon. A vaccine isn't going to be enough (you can tell this from the way that governments are starting to talk about this going on all next year).
At some point lockdowns will stop working entirely, if that hasn't already happened. Based on what's happened in say Boulton over the summer, where various levels lockdown have made almost no difference to case numbers, it's quite possible that point has already pretty much been reached.
People have had enough (I'm honest, I'm one of them), and aren't taking a blind bit of notice of the rules if they even know what they are, so the only practical outworking of the restrictions is the ruination of the businesses forced to close (mind you what a time to own an off licence! It's an ill wind... ).
I read a post on Facebook today which linked to a petition for partners to be allowed to attend scans and all of labour for pregnant women (I think it covered Wales - I don't know the current English rules). Some of the stories in the comments below the post were truly heartbreaking; Women having miscarriages and stillbirths alone with their husbands sat waiting in the carpark. It's hard to explain how angry I felt after reading a few posts, and how outraged I was at the sheer barbarity of the current rules. My sister is currently heavily pregnant and under these rules in Ceredigion, which has a case rate of something like 22 per 100k. Its utterly mad, the more so given that presumably as most women live with their partners, if one has it, they probably both do anyway.
I think we should shield the vulnerable as best we can, then let it go, because the reality is that otherwise its going to go anyway sooner or later, but with the vulnerable unprotected.
As someone else has posted upthread, by January (it's bleak enough in a normal year) the public will be in open rebellion everywhere (lots of them aren't far off now), and nothing the politicians can do then will allow them to regain control. All that's occuring now is just adding extra pointless misery to that which will come from the ravages of the disease when the public mood breaks.
The devil is in the detail. You say we should "shield the vulnerable" but provide zero detail. Vulnerable people still need to eat, still need to access medical care. How do they get to the supermarket if the bus is full of people spewing out virus particles without catching it? How can they sit in a waiting room at the doctor's with coronavirus in the air, and not die from it? And even if some unspecified measures are put in place that will magically keep the vulnerable separate, how do you stop that becoming overwhelmed with people who just don't really want to get sick?
The "shield the vulnerable" mantra reminds me of communism... nice in theory but it doesn't work.
As a side note, I've noticed a LOT that people read something on Facebook or Twitter and get outraged. When I used to be on both platforms I was permanently of the opinion that the country was about to break out into insurrection because LOOK AT THIS CUTE CHILD HE DIED BECAUSE OF AUSTERITY/MUSLIMS/VACCINES/ISRAEL. The sad truth is, it's always a mix of the chronically angry, distillations of real things that happened that may or may not share the context you're talking about, liars, propagandists, and well-meaning idiots. And it's all wrapped up into a nice newsfeed that specifically designed to maximise your outrage, because that's what keeps you coming back for more. You see it in some of the people on here. They've become furious ideologues, certain of the righteousness of their cause and their cause alone. Then they find themselves on here, one of the many interfaces between their clan and another, and they go absolutely mad because "here are some filthy apostates who have been duped by the other clan, how can they be so stupidly partisan all the time?!"
Ok, so my side note ended up longer than my main point. Sorry about that. Just to tie it up, I'm not saying you're wrong about lockdowns, but nor am I saying you're right. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you think it's more clear cut than it really is, and one clue to that is this: you replied to a post recommending we take better care when wielding rhetorical devices, and by the sixth paragraph you were talking about dead babies. That kind of escalation doesn't happen in conversations unless at least one of them is furiously certain about something that is so very clearly uncertain enough that they need to have a conversation about it.
On your first paragraph my wife and I (81 & 77) have no problem shielding nor with the surgery
We have a weekly Asda delivery and our son or daughter pick up our medication from the chemist and leave it in our porch
Since March our surgery has moved to online triage and it has been a great success together with a ban on anyone calling direct at the surgery. When we have had to see either the doctor/nurse we wait in the car park in our car and the doctor/nurse calls us directly into their consulting room passing through the empty waiting areas
Here in Wales Drakeford has stopped supermarkets selling non essential food and terminal ill non covid elderly patients have to choose which child they want to nominate to be at their bedside in their final hours
This is morally bankrupt and of course banning the sale of non essenitial goods drives Amazon and online shopping demand at the further expense of local shopping
Drakeford insists closing down the whole of Wales is only for 17 days and is a one off event, but as we have been in the equivalent of tier 3 ourselves for the last month I expect Drakeford will return us to tier 3 again
He is experimenting with Wales and believe you me both here in Wales and the rest of the UK a moment is fast approaching when the cry will go out 'enough'
It is notable that Scotland has introduced tiering, notwithstanding 2 additional levels, confirming that even Sturgeon is not favour of a national shutdown
You didn't read Foxy's response to your comments last night then. (Forgive me Foxy if I have misinterpreted via my précis)
1.Non-essentials is a device to deter unnecessary shopping.
2. Your end of life visiting issues are an edict from the Westminster Government.
I can't say I am pleased at not working for two weeks, however if it allows me the opportunity to work unhindered for the following six weeks to eight weeks I will give it a shot.
On 1, isn't it a political move to assuage the discontent of smaller non-essential retailers closed down but watching the supermarkets open and selling the very same stuff?
Just quote this thread and I won't be notified, thanks a lot!
It’s a bit out of date but there are lots of causes of death which could be prevented if we completely stopped doing stuff
If we banned all motor transport there would be a significant drop in vehicle related deaths. A significant number of people die of medical complications - perhaps we should ban all medical procedures. Some people are electrocuted - are you proposing that we go off grid? A small number of women die in childbirth - should we prevent all births? Oh wait we’ve already cancelled all medical procedures above.
Locking down the economy was supposed to be a temporary measure to allow NHS capacity to increase, and to allow time to assess the impact. Before the initial lockdown, and part of the delay was the advice that people only have a certain capacity for being locked down, and the scientists didn’t want to start it too soon
Depends what you mean by "lockdown". Driving is highly regulated. There's a huge list of rules, you have to get your car checked for roadworthiness each year, and you aren't allowed to go whatever speed you like. In fact, the speed you're allowed to go depends on not just where you are, but what conditions are like. Similarly safety regulations on medical procedures, retail and industrial electrical goods are there to minimise deaths. In all of the above cases, we find a balance. Nobody is proposing banning all economic activity, and nor is anybody with the slightest shred of decency advocating just letting it rip.
So now that we've established where we are, somewhere between those two end members, we need to find the right place. And like the speed limit, it's perfectly sensible to suggest that as conditions change, so should the rules. Now, are the kinds of lockdowns experienced and/or proposed by some people going too far one way? Is the loosening proposed by others going too far the other way? Perhaps, you can make your own mind up. In truth, I can see both sides of the argument and I'm not ready to commit. I'm glad I don't have to decide. But please don't go around pretending that temporary lockdowns are the same as "banning all motor transport". That's attacking a straw man and doesn't help convince persuadables like me.
The current Welsh option has to be up there as pretty close to banning all motor transport for a fortnight. Its likely to have a similar effect on the numbers - transmission will probably fall, but as the fundamental state of play won't have changed at the end of it, it won't be long before the numbers are back where they are now again - very much like banning driving for a fortnight would cut road deaths for a couple of weeks, but won't make a lot of difference in the long run.
The fundamental problem with lockdowns is the total absence of a coherent endgame. Unless there is some way out of this which doesn't involve everyone getting the disease, lockdowns are pointless but expensive can kicking (rather like the endless Brexit extensions - they only postponed exactly the same issues as everyone started with).
There isn't a silver bullet on the horizon. A vaccine isn't going to be enough (you can tell this from the way that governments are starting to talk about this going on all next year).
At some point lockdowns will stop working entirely, if that hasn't already happened. Based on what's happened in say Boulton over the summer, where various levels lockdown have made almost no difference to case numbers, it's quite possible that point has already pretty much been reached.
People have had enough (I'm honest, I'm one of them), and aren't taking a blind bit of notice of the rules if they even know what they are, so the only practical outworking of the restrictions is the ruination of the businesses forced to close (mind you what a time to own an off licence! It's an ill wind... ).
I read a post on Facebook today which linked to a petition for partners to be allowed to attend scans and all of labour for pregnant women (I think it covered Wales - I don't know the current English rules). Some of the stories in the comments below the post were truly heartbreaking; Women having miscarriages and stillbirths alone with their husbands sat waiting in the carpark. It's hard to explain how angry I felt after reading a few posts, and how outraged I was at the sheer barbarity of the current rules. My sister is currently heavily pregnant and under these rules in Ceredigion, which has a case rate of something like 22 per 100k. Its utterly mad, the more so given that presumably as most women live with their partners, if one has it, they probably both do anyway.
I think we should shield the vulnerable as best we can, then let it go, because the reality is that otherwise its going to go anyway sooner or later, but with the vulnerable unprotected.
As someone else has posted upthread, by January (it's bleak enough in a normal year) the public will be in open rebellion everywhere (lots of them aren't far off now), and nothing the politicians can do then will allow them to regain control. All that's occuring now is just adding extra pointless misery to that which will come from the ravages of the disease when the public mood breaks.
The devil is in the detail. You say we should "shield the vulnerable" but provide zero detail. Vulnerable people still need to eat, still need to access medical care. How do they get to the supermarket if the bus is full of people spewing out virus particles without catching it? How can they sit in a waiting room at the doctor's with coronavirus in the air, and not die from it? And even if some unspecified measures are put in place that will magically keep the vulnerable separate, how do you stop that becoming overwhelmed with people who just don't really want to get sick?
The "shield the vulnerable" mantra reminds me of communism... nice in theory but it doesn't work.
As a side note, I've noticed a LOT that people read something on Facebook or Twitter and get outraged. When I used to be on both platforms I was permanently of the opinion that the country was about to break out into insurrection because LOOK AT THIS CUTE CHILD HE DIED BECAUSE OF AUSTERITY/MUSLIMS/VACCINES/ISRAEL. The sad truth is, it's always a mix of the chronically angry, distillations of real things that happened that may or may not share the context you're talking about, liars, propagandists, and well-meaning idiots. And it's all wrapped up into a nice newsfeed that specifically designed to maximise your outrage, because that's what keeps you coming back for more. You see it in some of the people on here. They've become furious ideologues, certain of the righteousness of their cause and their cause alone. Then they find themselves on here, one of the many interfaces between their clan and another, and they go absolutely mad because "here are some filthy apostates who have been duped by the other clan, how can they be so stupidly partisan all the time?!"
Ok, so my side note ended up longer than my main point. Sorry about that. Just to tie it up, I'm not saying you're wrong about lockdowns, but nor am I saying you're right. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you think it's more clear cut than it really is, and one clue to that is this: you replied to a post recommending we take better care when wielding rhetorical devices, and by the sixth paragraph you were talking about dead babies. That kind of escalation doesn't happen in conversations unless at least one of them is furiously certain about something that is so very clearly uncertain enough that they need to have a conversation about it.
On your first paragraph my wife and I (81 & 77) have no problem shielding nor with the surgery
We have a weekly Asda delivery and our son or daughter pick up our medication from the chemist and leave it in our porch
Since March our surgery has moved to online triage and it has been a great success together with a ban on anyone calling direct at the surgery. When we have had to see either the doctor/nurse we wait in the car park in our car and the doctor/nurse calls us directly into their consulting room passing through the empty waiting areas
Here in Wales Drakeford has stopped supermarkets selling non essential food and terminal ill non covid elderly patients have to choose which child they want to nominate to be at their bedside in their final hours
This is morally bankrupt and of course banning the sale of non essenitial goods drives Amazon and online shopping demand at the further expense of local shopping
Drakeford insists closing down the whole of Wales is only for 17 days and is a one off event, but as we have been in the equivalent of tier 3 ourselves for the last month I expect Drakeford will return us to tier 3 again
He is experimenting with Wales and believe you me both here in Wales and the rest of the UK a moment is fast approaching when the cry will go out 'enough'
It is notable that Scotland has introduced tiering, notwithstanding 2 additional levels, confirming that even Sturgeon is not favour of a national shutdown
You didn't read Foxy's response to your comments last night then. (Forgive me Foxy if I have misinterpreted via my précis)
1.Non-essentials is a device to deter unnecessary shopping.
2. Your end of life visiting issues are an edict from the Westminster Government.
I can't say I am pleased at not working for two weeks, however if it allows me the opportunity to work unhindered for the following six weeks to eight weeks I will give it a shot.
On 1, isn't it a political move to assuage the discontent of smaller non-essential retailers closed down but watching the supermarkets open and selling the very same stuff?
If Drakeford has stopped Wiko’s selling mops ( is that “hardware” I ask?) or screws and paint, and I want to put a shelf up or paint a wall, I’m not going to sit here in lockdown patiently waiting for Dai Jones Hardware on Pontypandy high st to open up two weeks on Monday, I’m going to give the profit to one J Bezos of Palo Alto California, because apparently the idiots in Cardiff Bay are the only ones unaware of the internet.
Dai Jones Hardware on Pontypandy high st is quite likely to be selling via ebay/Amazon marketplace, or ought to be.
It’s a bit out of date but there are lots of causes of death which could be prevented if we completely stopped doing stuff
If we banned all motor transport there would be a significant drop in vehicle related deaths. A significant number of people die of medical complications - perhaps we should ban all medical procedures. Some people are electrocuted - are you proposing that we go off grid? A small number of women die in childbirth - should we prevent all births? Oh wait we’ve already cancelled all medical procedures above.
Locking down the economy was supposed to be a temporary measure to allow NHS capacity to increase, and to allow time to assess the impact. Before the initial lockdown, and part of the delay was the advice that people only have a certain capacity for being locked down, and the scientists didn’t want to start it too soon
Depends what you mean by "lockdown". Driving is highly regulated. There's a huge list of rules, you have to get your car checked for roadworthiness each year, and you aren't allowed to go whatever speed you like. In fact, the speed you're allowed to go depends on not just where you are, but what conditions are like. Similarly safety regulations on medical procedures, retail and industrial electrical goods are there to minimise deaths. In all of the above cases, we find a balance. Nobody is proposing banning all economic activity, and nor is anybody with the slightest shred of decency advocating just letting it rip.
So now that we've established where we are, somewhere between those two end members, we need to find the right place. And like the speed limit, it's perfectly sensible to suggest that as conditions change, so should the rules. Now, are the kinds of lockdowns experienced and/or proposed by some people going too far one way? Is the loosening proposed by others going too far the other way? Perhaps, you can make your own mind up. In truth, I can see both sides of the argument and I'm not ready to commit. I'm glad I don't have to decide. But please don't go around pretending that temporary lockdowns are the same as "banning all motor transport". That's attacking a straw man and doesn't help convince persuadables like me.
The current Welsh option has to be up there as pretty close to banning all motor transport for a fortnight. Its likely to have a similar effect on the numbers - transmission will probably fall, but as the fundamental state of play won't have changed at the end of it, it won't be long before the numbers are back where they are now again - very much like banning driving for a fortnight would cut road deaths for a couple of weeks, but won't make a lot of difference in the long run.
The fundamental problem with lockdowns is the total absence of a coherent endgame. Unless there is some way out of this which doesn't involve everyone getting the disease, lockdowns are pointless but expensive can kicking (rather like the endless Brexit extensions - they only postponed exactly the same issues as everyone started with).
There isn't a silver bullet on the horizon. A vaccine isn't going to be enough (you can tell this from the way that governments are starting to talk about this going on all next year).
At some point lockdowns will stop working entirely, if that hasn't already happened. Based on what's happened in say Boulton over the summer, where various levels lockdown have made almost no difference to case numbers, it's quite possible that point has already pretty much been reached.
People have had enough (I'm honest, I'm one of them), and aren't taking a blind bit of notice of the rules if they even know what they are, so the only practical outworking of the restrictions is the ruination of the businesses forced to close (mind you what a time to own an off licence! It's an ill wind... ).
I read a post on Facebook today which linked to a petition for partners to be allowed to attend scans and all of labour for pregnant women (I think it covered Wales - I don't know the current English rules). Some of the stories in the comments below the post were truly heartbreaking; Women having miscarriages and stillbirths alone with their husbands sat waiting in the carpark. It's hard to explain how angry I felt after reading a few posts, and how outraged I was at the sheer barbarity of the current rules. My sister is currently heavily pregnant and under these rules in Ceredigion, which has a case rate of something like 22 per 100k. Its utterly mad, the more so given that presumably as most women live with their partners, if one has it, they probably both do anyway.
I think we should shield the vulnerable as best we can, then let it go, because the reality is that otherwise its going to go anyway sooner or later, but with the vulnerable unprotected.
As someone else has posted upthread, by January (it's bleak enough in a normal year) the public will be in open rebellion everywhere (lots of them aren't far off now), and nothing the politicians can do then will allow them to regain control. All that's occuring now is just adding extra pointless misery to that which will come from the ravages of the disease when the public mood breaks.
The devil is in the detail. You say we should "shield the vulnerable" but provide zero detail. Vulnerable people still need to eat, still need to access medical care. How do they get to the supermarket if the bus is full of people spewing out virus particles without catching it? How can they sit in a waiting room at the doctor's with coronavirus in the air, and not die from it? And even if some unspecified measures are put in place that will magically keep the vulnerable separate, how do you stop that becoming overwhelmed with people who just don't really want to get sick?
The "shield the vulnerable" mantra reminds me of communism... nice in theory but it doesn't work.
As a side note, I've noticed a LOT that people read something on Facebook or Twitter and get outraged. When I used to be on both platforms I was permanently of the opinion that the country was about to break out into insurrection because LOOK AT THIS CUTE CHILD HE DIED BECAUSE OF AUSTERITY/MUSLIMS/VACCINES/ISRAEL. The sad truth is, it's always a mix of the chronically angry, distillations of real things that happened that may or may not share the context you're talking about, liars, propagandists, and well-meaning idiots. And it's all wrapped up into a nice newsfeed that specifically designed to maximise your outrage, because that's what keeps you coming back for more. You see it in some of the people on here. They've become furious ideologues, certain of the righteousness of their cause and their cause alone. Then they find themselves on here, one of the many interfaces between their clan and another, and they go absolutely mad because "here are some filthy apostates who have been duped by the other clan, how can they be so stupidly partisan all the time?!"
Ok, so my side note ended up longer than my main point. Sorry about that. Just to tie it up, I'm not saying you're wrong about lockdowns, but nor am I saying you're right. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you think it's more clear cut than it really is, and one clue to that is this: you replied to a post recommending we take better care when wielding rhetorical devices, and by the sixth paragraph you were talking about dead babies. That kind of escalation doesn't happen in conversations unless at least one of them is furiously certain about something that is so very clearly uncertain enough that they need to have a conversation about it.
On your first paragraph my wife and I (81 & 77) have no problem shielding nor with the surgery
We have a weekly Asda delivery and our son or daughter pick up our medication from the chemist and leave it in our porch
Since March our surgery has moved to online triage and it has been a great success together with a ban on anyone calling direct at the surgery. When we have had to see either the doctor/nurse we wait in the car park in our car and the doctor/nurse calls us directly into their consulting room passing through the empty waiting areas
Here in Wales Drakeford has stopped supermarkets selling non essential food and terminal ill non covid elderly patients have to choose which child they want to nominate to be at their bedside in their final hours
This is morally bankrupt and of course banning the sale of non essenitial goods drives Amazon and online shopping demand at the further expense of local shopping
Drakeford insists closing down the whole of Wales is only for 17 days and is a one off event, but as we have been in the equivalent of tier 3 ourselves for the last month I expect Drakeford will return us to tier 3 again
He is experimenting with Wales and believe you me both here in Wales and the rest of the UK a moment is fast approaching when the cry will go out 'enough'
It is notable that Scotland has introduced tiering, notwithstanding 2 additional levels, confirming that even Sturgeon is not favour of a national shutdown
You didn't read Foxy's response to your comments last night then. (Forgive me Foxy if I have misinterpreted via my précis)
1.Non-essentials is a device to deter unnecessary shopping.
2. Your end of life visiting issues are an edict from the Westminster Government.
I can't say I am pleased at not working for two weeks, however if it allows me the opportunity to work unhindered for the following six weeks to eight weeks I will give it a shot.
Yes, that is pretty much what I said.
People also need to realise that visitors are not just a hazard to their relative (which they may choose to accept) but also to everyone else's relatives and to staff. Who may then inadvertently create a much bigger outbreak in a vulnerable community.
So, you may trust your own birth partner, but do you equally trust the partners of all the others in the waiting room?
The lockdown is a necessary short-term step to get the virus back under control.
And just how does a 17 day lockdown get the virus under control and how do you exit
Also why does England and Scotland reject national lockdowns
Answer they both know the economic wasteland that follows
Didn't watch the debate but, to echo others here, the mood music appears to be that Trump didn't create any major new gaffes and restrained himself. As others have said, that will probably be enough for more reluctant Republicans or even some independents to vote for him, especially given some of the issues at stake.
Funnily enough, the main thing that seemed to trend on social media was Joe Biden's reference to Hitler.
Frank Luntz's polling groups reflect him I think - out and out GOP hacks masquerading as "undecideds"
His focus groups always seem to come to the opposite conclusion to the pollsters. Not impossible but highly suspicious given his role as a GOP strategist. I'd bet that the 3 polls are giving a more accurate reflection, particularly as all 3 give a remarkably similar result.
If you don't think a CNN poll might be biased, I have a bridge to sell you
If Drakeford has stopped Wiko’s selling mops ( is that “hardware” I ask?) or screws and paint, and I want to put a shelf up or paint a wall, I’m not going to sit here in lockdown patiently waiting for Dai Jones Hardware on Pontypandy high st to open up two weeks on Monday, I’m going to give the profit to one J Bezos of Palo Alto California, because apparently the idiots in Cardiff Bay are the only ones unaware of the internet.
We have all been worried about the obstacles you face purchasing George linen blend shirts from ASDA. 😁
Somehow, maybe wrongly, I had imagined you were clothed quite differently.
It’s a bit out of date but there are lots of causes of death which could be prevented if we completely stopped doing stuff
If we banned all motor transport there would be a significant drop in vehicle related deaths. A significant number of people die of medical complications - perhaps we should ban all medical procedures. Some people are electrocuted - are you proposing that we go off grid? A small number of women die in childbirth - should we prevent all births? Oh wait we’ve already cancelled all medical procedures above.
Locking down the economy was supposed to be a temporary measure to allow NHS capacity to increase, and to allow time to assess the impact. Before the initial lockdown, and part of the delay was the advice that people only have a certain capacity for being locked down, and the scientists didn’t want to start it too soon
Depends what you mean by "lockdown". Driving is highly regulated. There's a huge list of rules, you have to get your car checked for roadworthiness each year, and you aren't allowed to go whatever speed you like. In fact, the speed you're allowed to go depends on not just where you are, but what conditions are like. Similarly safety regulations on medical procedures, retail and industrial electrical goods are there to minimise deaths. In all of the above cases, we find a balance. Nobody is proposing banning all economic activity, and nor is anybody with the slightest shred of decency advocating just letting it rip.
So now that we've established where we are, somewhere between those two end members, we need to find the right place. And like the speed limit, it's perfectly sensible to suggest that as conditions change, so should the rules. Now, are the kinds of lockdowns experienced and/or proposed by some people going too far one way? Is the loosening proposed by others going too far the other way? Perhaps, you can make your own mind up. In truth, I can see both sides of the argument and I'm not ready to commit. I'm glad I don't have to decide. But please don't go around pretending that temporary lockdowns are the same as "banning all motor transport". That's attacking a straw man and doesn't help convince persuadables like me.
The current Welsh option has to be up there as pretty close to banning all motor transport for a fortnight. Its likely to have a similar effect on the numbers - transmission will probably fall, but as the fundamental state of play won't have changed at the end of it, it won't be long before the numbers are back where they are now again - very much like banning driving for a fortnight would cut road deaths for a couple of weeks, but won't make a lot of difference in the long run.
The fundamental problem with lockdowns is the total absence of a coherent endgame. Unless there is some way out of this which doesn't involve everyone getting the disease, lockdowns are pointless but expensive can kicking (rather like the endless Brexit extensions - they only postponed exactly the same issues as everyone started with).
There isn't a silver bullet on the horizon. A vaccine isn't going to be enough (you can tell this from the way that governments are starting to talk about this going on all next year).
At some point lockdowns will stop working entirely, if that hasn't already happened. Based on what's happened in say Boulton over the summer, where various levels lockdown have made almost no difference to case numbers, it's quite possible that point has already pretty much been reached.
People have had enough (I'm honest, I'm one of them), and aren't taking a blind bit of notice of the rules if they even know what they are, so the only practical outworking of the restrictions is the ruination of the businesses forced to close (mind you what a time to own an off licence! It's an ill wind... ).
I read a post on Facebook today which linked to a petition for partners to be allowed to attend scans and all of labour for pregnant women (I think it covered Wales - I don't know the current English rules). Some of the stories in the comments below the post were truly heartbreaking; Women having miscarriages and stillbirths alone with their husbands sat waiting in the carpark. It's hard to explain how angry I felt after reading a few posts, and how outraged I was at the sheer barbarity of the current rules. My sister is currently heavily pregnant and under these rules in Ceredigion, which has a case rate of something like 22 per 100k. Its utterly mad, the more so given that presumably as most women live with their partners, if one has it, they probably both do anyway.
I think we should shield the vulnerable as best we can, then let it go, because the reality is that otherwise its going to go anyway sooner or later, but with the vulnerable unprotected.
As someone else has posted upthread, by January (it's bleak enough in a normal year) the public will be in open rebellion everywhere (lots of them aren't far off now), and nothing the politicians can do then will allow them to regain control. All that's occuring now is just adding extra pointless misery to that which will come from the ravages of the disease when the public mood breaks.
The devil is in the detail. You say we should "shield the vulnerable" but provide zero detail. Vulnerable people still need to eat, still need to access medical care. How do they get to the supermarket if the bus is full of people spewing out virus particles without catching it? How can they sit in a waiting room at the doctor's with coronavirus in the air, and not die from it? And even if some unspecified measures are put in place that will magically keep the vulnerable separate, how do you stop that becoming overwhelmed with people who just don't really want to get sick?
The "shield the vulnerable" mantra reminds me of communism... nice in theory but it doesn't work.
As a side note, I've noticed a LOT that people read something on Facebook or Twitter and get outraged. When I used to be on both platforms I was permanently of the opinion that the country was about to break out into insurrection because LOOK AT THIS CUTE CHILD HE DIED BECAUSE OF AUSTERITY/MUSLIMS/VACCINES/ISRAEL. The sad truth is, it's always a mix of the chronically angry, distillations of real things that happened that may or may not share the context you're talking about, liars, propagandists, and well-meaning idiots. And it's all wrapped up into a nice newsfeed that specifically designed to maximise your outrage, because that's what keeps you coming back for more. You see it in some of the people on here. They've become furious ideologues, certain of the righteousness of their cause and their cause alone. Then they find themselves on here, one of the many interfaces between their clan and another, and they go absolutely mad because "here are some filthy apostates who have been duped by the other clan, how can they be so stupidly partisan all the time?!"
Ok, so my side note ended up longer than my main point. Sorry about that. Just to tie it up, I'm not saying you're wrong about lockdowns, but nor am I saying you're right. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you think it's more clear cut than it really is, and one clue to that is this: you replied to a post recommending we take better care when wielding rhetorical devices, and by the sixth paragraph you were talking about dead babies. That kind of escalation doesn't happen in conversations unless at least one of them is furiously certain about something that is so very clearly uncertain enough that they need to have a conversation about it.
On your first paragraph my wife and I (81 & 77) have no problem shielding nor with the surgery
We have a weekly Asda delivery and our son or daughter pick up our medication from the chemist and leave it in our porch
Since March our surgery has moved to online triage and it has been a great success together with a ban on anyone calling direct at the surgery. When we have had to see either the doctor/nurse we wait in the car park in our car and the doctor/nurse calls us directly into their consulting room passing through the empty waiting areas
Here in Wales Drakeford has stopped supermarkets selling non essential food and terminal ill non covid elderly patients have to choose which child they want to nominate to be at their bedside in their final hours
This is morally bankrupt and of course banning the sale of non essenitial goods drives Amazon and online shopping demand at the further expense of local shopping
Drakeford insists closing down the whole of Wales is only for 17 days and is a one off event, but as we have been in the equivalent of tier 3 ourselves for the last month I expect Drakeford will return us to tier 3 again
He is experimenting with Wales and believe you me both here in Wales and the rest of the UK a moment is fast approaching when the cry will go out 'enough'
It is notable that Scotland has introduced tiering, notwithstanding 2 additional levels, confirming that even Sturgeon is not favour of a national shutdown
You didn't read Foxy's response to your comments last night then. (Forgive me Foxy if I have misinterpreted via my précis)
1.Non-essentials is a device to deter unnecessary shopping.
2. Your end of life visiting issues are an edict from the Westminster Government.
I can't say I am pleased at not working for two weeks, however if it allows me the opportunity to work unhindered for the following six weeks to eight weeks I will give it a shot.
1) Does not work as it drives on line shopping
Since when did politicians only do things because they work?
It’s a bit out of date but there are lots of causes of death which could be prevented if we completely stopped doing stuff
If we banned all motor transport there would be a significant drop in vehicle related deaths. A significant number of people die of medical complications - perhaps we should ban all medical procedures. Some people are electrocuted - are you proposing that we go off grid? A small number of women die in childbirth - should we prevent all births? Oh wait we’ve already cancelled all medical procedures above.
Locking down the economy was supposed to be a temporary measure to allow NHS capacity to increase, and to allow time to assess the impact. Before the initial lockdown, and part of the delay was the advice that people only have a certain capacity for being locked down, and the scientists didn’t want to start it too soon
Depends what you mean by "lockdown". Driving is highly regulated. There's a huge list of rules, you have to get your car checked for roadworthiness each year, and you aren't allowed to go whatever speed you like. In fact, the speed you're allowed to go depends on not just where you are, but what conditions are like. Similarly safety regulations on medical procedures, retail and industrial electrical goods are there to minimise deaths. In all of the above cases, we find a balance. Nobody is proposing banning all economic activity, and nor is anybody with the slightest shred of decency advocating just letting it rip.
So now that we've established where we are, somewhere between those two end members, we need to find the right place. And like the speed limit, it's perfectly sensible to suggest that as conditions change, so should the rules. Now, are the kinds of lockdowns experienced and/or proposed by some people going too far one way? Is the loosening proposed by others going too far the other way? Perhaps, you can make your own mind up. In truth, I can see both sides of the argument and I'm not ready to commit. I'm glad I don't have to decide. But please don't go around pretending that temporary lockdowns are the same as "banning all motor transport". That's attacking a straw man and doesn't help convince persuadables like me.
The current Welsh option has to be up there as pretty close to banning all motor transport for a fortnight. Its likely to have a similar effect on the numbers - transmission will probably fall, but as the fundamental state of play won't have changed at the end of it, it won't be long before the numbers are back where they are now again - very much like banning driving for a fortnight would cut road deaths for a couple of weeks, but won't make a lot of difference in the long run.
The fundamental problem with lockdowns is the total absence of a coherent endgame. Unless there is some way out of this which doesn't involve everyone getting the disease, lockdowns are pointless but expensive can kicking (rather like the endless Brexit extensions - they only postponed exactly the same issues as everyone started with).
There isn't a silver bullet on the horizon. A vaccine isn't going to be enough (you can tell this from the way that governments are starting to talk about this going on all next year).
At some point lockdowns will stop working entirely, if that hasn't already happened. Based on what's happened in say Boulton over the summer, where various levels lockdown have made almost no difference to case numbers, it's quite possible that point has already pretty much been reached.
People have had enough (I'm honest, I'm one of them), and aren't taking a blind bit of notice of the rules if they even know what they are, so the only practical outworking of the restrictions is the ruination of the businesses forced to close (mind you what a time to own an off licence! It's an ill wind... ).
I read a post on Facebook today which linked to a petition for partners to be allowed to attend scans and all of labour for pregnant women (I think it covered Wales - I don't know the current English rules). Some of the stories in the comments below the post were truly heartbreaking; Women having miscarriages and stillbirths alone with their husbands sat waiting in the carpark. It's hard to explain how angry I felt after reading a few posts, and how outraged I was at the sheer barbarity of the current rules. My sister is currently heavily pregnant and under these rules in Ceredigion, which has a case rate of something like 22 per 100k. Its utterly mad, the more so given that presumably as most women live with their partners, if one has it, they probably both do anyway.
I think we should shield the vulnerable as best we can, then let it go, because the reality is that otherwise its going to go anyway sooner or later, but with the vulnerable unprotected.
As someone else has posted upthread, by January (it's bleak enough in a normal year) the public will be in open rebellion everywhere (lots of them aren't far off now), and nothing the politicians can do then will allow them to regain control. All that's occuring now is just adding extra pointless misery to that which will come from the ravages of the disease when the public mood breaks.
The devil is in the detail. You say we should "shield the vulnerable" but provide zero detail. Vulnerable people still need to eat, still need to access medical care. How do they get to the supermarket if the bus is full of people spewing out virus particles without catching it? How can they sit in a waiting room at the doctor's with coronavirus in the air, and not die from it? And even if some unspecified measures are put in place that will magically keep the vulnerable separate, how do you stop that becoming overwhelmed with people who just don't really want to get sick?
The "shield the vulnerable" mantra reminds me of communism... nice in theory but it doesn't work.
As a side note, I've noticed a LOT that people read something on Facebook or Twitter and get outraged. When I used to be on both platforms I was permanently of the opinion that the country was about to break out into insurrection because LOOK AT THIS CUTE CHILD HE DIED BECAUSE OF AUSTERITY/MUSLIMS/VACCINES/ISRAEL. The sad truth is, it's always a mix of the chronically angry, distillations of real things that happened that may or may not share the context you're talking about, liars, propagandists, and well-meaning idiots. And it's all wrapped up into a nice newsfeed that specifically designed to maximise your outrage, because that's what keeps you coming back for more. You see it in some of the people on here. They've become furious ideologues, certain of the righteousness of their cause and their cause alone. Then they find themselves on here, one of the many interfaces between their clan and another, and they go absolutely mad because "here are some filthy apostates who have been duped by the other clan, how can they be so stupidly partisan all the time?!"
Ok, so my side note ended up longer than my main point. Sorry about that. Just to tie it up, I'm not saying you're wrong about lockdowns, but nor am I saying you're right. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you think it's more clear cut than it really is, and one clue to that is this: you replied to a post recommending we take better care when wielding rhetorical devices, and by the sixth paragraph you were talking about dead babies. That kind of escalation doesn't happen in conversations unless at least one of them is furiously certain about something that is so very clearly uncertain enough that they need to have a conversation about it.
On your first paragraph my wife and I (81 & 77) have no problem shielding nor with the surgery
We have a weekly Asda delivery and our son or daughter pick up our medication from the chemist and leave it in our porch
Since March our surgery has moved to online triage and it has been a great success together with a ban on anyone calling direct at the surgery. When we have had to see either the doctor/nurse we wait in the car park in our car and the doctor/nurse calls us directly into their consulting room passing through the empty waiting areas
Here in Wales Drakeford has stopped supermarkets selling non essential food and terminal ill non covid elderly patients have to choose which child they want to nominate to be at their bedside in their final hours
This is morally bankrupt and of course banning the sale of non essenitial goods drives Amazon and online shopping demand at the further expense of local shopping
Drakeford insists closing down the whole of Wales is only for 17 days and is a one off event, but as we have been in the equivalent of tier 3 ourselves for the last month I expect Drakeford will return us to tier 3 again
He is experimenting with Wales and believe you me both here in Wales and the rest of the UK a moment is fast approaching when the cry will go out 'enough'
It is notable that Scotland has introduced tiering, notwithstanding 2 additional levels, confirming that even Sturgeon is not favour of a national shutdown
You didn't read Foxy's response to your comments last night then. (Forgive me Foxy if I have misinterpreted via my précis)
1.Non-essentials is a device to deter unnecessary shopping.
2. Your end of life visiting issues are an edict from the Westminster Government.
I can't say I am pleased at not working for two weeks, however if it allows me the opportunity to work unhindered for the following six weeks to eight weeks I will give it a shot.
On 1, isn't it a political move to assuage the discontent of smaller non-essential retailers closed down but watching the supermarkets open and selling the very same stuff?
The other thing that came to mind was how many different types of tins of shortbread, fudge, etc, would you have to sell to qualify as opening as a food retailer, who just happened to sell all this other stuff as well.
The reason the rule is absurd is because the whole situation is absurd, but if your choice is between absurdity and mass death, then you've clearly wasted the last seven months in failing to come up with a better alternative.
The rule is fine.
You haven't a clue
I am disappointed in you BigG. You have been incredibly rude to Horse over the last 24 hours. I didn't expect that from you.
It’s a bit out of date but there are lots of causes of death which could be prevented if we completely stopped doing stuff
If we banned all motor transport there would be a significant drop in vehicle related deaths. A significant number of people die of medical complications - perhaps we should ban all medical procedures. Some people are electrocuted - are you proposing that we go off grid? A small number of women die in childbirth - should we prevent all births? Oh wait we’ve already cancelled all medical procedures above.
Locking down the economy was supposed to be a temporary measure to allow NHS capacity to increase, and to allow time to assess the impact. Before the initial lockdown, and part of the delay was the advice that people only have a certain capacity for being locked down, and the scientists didn’t want to start it too soon
Depends what you mean by "lockdown". Driving is highly regulated. There's a huge list of rules, you have to get your car checked for roadworthiness each year, and you aren't allowed to go whatever speed you like. In fact, the speed you're allowed to go depends on not just where you are, but what conditions are like. Similarly safety regulations on medical procedures, retail and industrial electrical goods are there to minimise deaths. In all of the above cases, we find a balance. Nobody is proposing banning all economic activity, and nor is anybody with the slightest shred of decency advocating just letting it rip.
So now that we've established where we are, somewhere between those two end members, we need to find the right place. And like the speed limit, it's perfectly sensible to suggest that as conditions change, so should the rules. Now, are the kinds of lockdowns experienced and/or proposed by some people going too far one way? Is the loosening proposed by others going too far the other way? Perhaps, you can make your own mind up. In truth, I can see both sides of the argument and I'm not ready to commit. I'm glad I don't have to decide. But please don't go around pretending that temporary lockdowns are the same as "banning all motor transport". That's attacking a straw man and doesn't help convince persuadables like me.
The current Welsh option has to be up there as pretty close to banning all motor transport for a fortnight. Its likely to have a similar effect on the numbers - transmission will probably fall, but as the fundamental state of play won't have changed at the end of it, it won't be long before the numbers are back where they are now again - very much like banning driving for a fortnight would cut road deaths for a couple of weeks, but won't make a lot of difference in the long run.
The fundamental problem with lockdowns is the total absence of a coherent endgame. Unless there is some way out of this which doesn't involve everyone getting the disease, lockdowns are pointless but expensive can kicking (rather like the endless Brexit extensions - they only postponed exactly the same issues as everyone started with).
There isn't a silver bullet on the horizon. A vaccine isn't going to be enough (you can tell this from the way that governments are starting to talk about this going on all next year).
At some point lockdowns will stop working entirely, if that hasn't already happened. Based on what's happened in say Boulton over the summer, where various levels lockdown have made almost no difference to case numbers, it's quite possible that point has already pretty much been reached.
People have had enough (I'm honest, I'm one of them), and aren't taking a blind bit of notice of the rules if they even know what they are, so the only practical outworking of the restrictions is the ruination of the businesses forced to close (mind you what a time to own an off licence! It's an ill wind... ).
I read a post on Facebook today which linked to a petition for partners to be allowed to attend scans and all of labour for pregnant women (I think it covered Wales - I don't know the current English rules). Some of the stories in the comments below the post were truly heartbreaking; Women having miscarriages and stillbirths alone with their husbands sat waiting in the carpark. It's hard to explain how angry I felt after reading a few posts, and how outraged I was at the sheer barbarity of the current rules. My sister is currently heavily pregnant and under these rules in Ceredigion, which has a case rate of something like 22 per 100k. Its utterly mad, the more so given that presumably as most women live with their partners, if one has it, they probably both do anyway.
I think we should shield the vulnerable as best we can, then let it go, because the reality is that otherwise its going to go anyway sooner or later, but with the vulnerable unprotected.
As someone else has posted upthread, by January (it's bleak enough in a normal year) the public will be in open rebellion everywhere (lots of them aren't far off now), and nothing the politicians can do then will allow them to regain control. All that's occuring now is just adding extra pointless misery to that which will come from the ravages of the disease when the public mood breaks.
The devil is in the detail. You say we should "shield the vulnerable" but provide zero detail. Vulnerable people still need to eat, still need to access medical care. How do they get to the supermarket if the bus is full of people spewing out virus particles without catching it? How can they sit in a waiting room at the doctor's with coronavirus in the air, and not die from it? And even if some unspecified measures are put in place that will magically keep the vulnerable separate, how do you stop that becoming overwhelmed with people who just don't really want to get sick?
The "shield the vulnerable" mantra reminds me of communism... nice in theory but it doesn't work.
As a side note, I've noticed a LOT that people read something on Facebook or Twitter and get outraged. When I used to be on both platforms I was permanently of the opinion that the country was about to break out into insurrection because LOOK AT THIS CUTE CHILD HE DIED BECAUSE OF AUSTERITY/MUSLIMS/VACCINES/ISRAEL. The sad truth is, it's always a mix of the chronically angry, distillations of real things that happened that may or may not share the context you're talking about, liars, propagandists, and well-meaning idiots. And it's all wrapped up into a nice newsfeed that specifically designed to maximise your outrage, because that's what keeps you coming back for more. You see it in some of the people on here. They've become furious ideologues, certain of the righteousness of their cause and their cause alone. Then they find themselves on here, one of the many interfaces between their clan and another, and they go absolutely mad because "here are some filthy apostates who have been duped by the other clan, how can they be so stupidly partisan all the time?!"
Ok, so my side note ended up longer than my main point. Sorry about that. Just to tie it up, I'm not saying you're wrong about lockdowns, but nor am I saying you're right. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you think it's more clear cut than it really is, and one clue to that is this: you replied to a post recommending we take better care when wielding rhetorical devices, and by the sixth paragraph you were talking about dead babies. That kind of escalation doesn't happen in conversations unless at least one of them is furiously certain about something that is so very clearly uncertain enough that they need to have a conversation about it.
On your first paragraph my wife and I (81 & 77) have no problem shielding nor with the surgery
We have a weekly Asda delivery and our son or daughter pick up our medication from the chemist and leave it in our porch
Since March our surgery has moved to online triage and it has been a great success together with a ban on anyone calling direct at the surgery. When we have had to see either the doctor/nurse we wait in the car park in our car and the doctor/nurse calls us directly into their consulting room passing through the empty waiting areas
Here in Wales Drakeford has stopped supermarkets selling non essential food and terminal ill non covid elderly patients have to choose which child they want to nominate to be at their bedside in their final hours
This is morally bankrupt and of course banning the sale of non essenitial goods drives Amazon and online shopping demand at the further expense of local shopping
Drakeford insists closing down the whole of Wales is only for 17 days and is a one off event, but as we have been in the equivalent of tier 3 ourselves for the last month I expect Drakeford will return us to tier 3 again
He is experimenting with Wales and believe you me both here in Wales and the rest of the UK a moment is fast approaching when the cry will go out 'enough'
It is notable that Scotland has introduced tiering, notwithstanding 2 additional levels, confirming that even Sturgeon is not favour of a national shutdown
You didn't read Foxy's response to your comments last night then. (Forgive me Foxy if I have misinterpreted via my précis)
1.Non-essentials is a device to deter unnecessary shopping.
2. Your end of life visiting issues are an edict from the Westminster Government.
I can't say I am pleased at not working for two weeks, however if it allows me the opportunity to work unhindered for the following six weeks to eight weeks I will give it a shot.
1) Does not work as it drives on line shopping
Since when did politicians only do things because they work?
I am highly confident this lockdown will work, the first one did and is the only thing that worked.
This is very hard to watch. Not very illuminating. Jumbled sentences from both of them. I don't think it will change many votes. I don't think Trump will actually lose votes this time, but nor will he gain them. It is not the game changer that Trump needs.
If you believe Trafalgar or Rasmussen and IBID/TIPP he does not need a game changer, just not to lose any support tonight
If you believe the poll modellers like The Economist or Nate Silver, he most certainly does need a game changer.
If Nate Silver was right in 2016 Hillary Clinton would have won over 300 EC votes and now be President
How many times.....? Nate Silver's group was 28% right, which was more pro Trump than any of the other groups giving probability predictions for the 2016 election.
Or to put it another way, Biden is in a much better position in the polling than Clinton was 4 years ago and has been for months. If HYUFD really believes Trump should be favorite it's not based on any evidence.
Experience. Few predicted 2016 result.
Experience should teach you not to fall into the normalcy bias mistake. It happened with me in 2019 when I assumed Corbyn would repeat 2015.
The circumstances this time around are vastly, viscerally, different from 2016. The polls don't lie. They didn't in 2019 and they're not in 2020. But it's much more than that. The GOP have distanced themselves from their President. They know they've lost.
And lost big.
I'm going to use 538 and compare Trump's popular vote forecast lead with that of the Republican candidate in the closest Senate races. IA Trump +0.3 GOP -1.0 GA Trump 0.0 GOP +2.6 NC Trump -2.3 GOP -2.9 MT Trump +10.2 GOP +3.0 ME Trump -12.1 GOP -3.0 KS Trump +10.6 GOP +4.9 SC Trump +7.9 GOP +5.2 AZ Trump -2.9 GOP -6.0 AL Trump +19.2 GOP +6.2 AK Trump +7.4 GOP +6.3 MI Trump -7.9 GOP -6.4 CO Trump -11.7 GOP -7.7 TX Trump +2.1 GOP +8.1 MS Trump +13.2 GOP +9.1 MN Trump -7.7 GOP -12.0 KY Trump +19.1 GOP +13.4 ---- Mean Trump +2.8 GOP +1.2
I don't want this to be true, but Trump still looks like he is an electoral asset for the Republicans. I want American voters to judge him so badly that he drags the whole GOP down with him. But the numbers don't show that story.
Otherwise Republican Senate candidates should be outperforming Trump.
If he loses and other Republicans do worse, so much the better
I have met many US Republicans and they are good people with an cultural outlook that is very difficult for many if not most people this side of the pond to understand. Trump is, I believe, an aberration; a quite repulsive individual who, other than his claim to be business friendly, is not a traditional Republican. I hope that the American people wake up and realise that their experiment with populism is a really bad thing for their otherwise largely noble democratic system.
Our own version of dishonest populism, who while I accept is not as repulsive or as psychopathic, will also meet his Waterloo when people realise that having extreme narcissists and liars in positions of power is a really bad thing.
Might take a long time. We had ten years of Blair don't forget.
The current reporting standard is 28 days after diagnosis.
Pretty Certain the FTSE hasn't been at 6238 for a good while.
Not since the markets plunged in mid March
It was around that level in summer. Back when this news was first reported and the deaths reporting standard was changed. I have no idea why isam posted that tweet.
It’s a bit out of date but there are lots of causes of death which could be prevented if we completely stopped doing stuff
If we banned all motor transport there would be a significant drop in vehicle related deaths. A significant number of people die of medical complications - perhaps we should ban all medical procedures. Some people are electrocuted - are you proposing that we go off grid? A small number of women die in childbirth - should we prevent all births? Oh wait we’ve already cancelled all medical procedures above.
Locking down the economy was supposed to be a temporary measure to allow NHS capacity to increase, and to allow time to assess the impact. Before the initial lockdown, and part of the delay was the advice that people only have a certain capacity for being locked down, and the scientists didn’t want to start it too soon
Depends what you mean by "lockdown". Driving is highly regulated. There's a huge list of rules, you have to get your car checked for roadworthiness each year, and you aren't allowed to go whatever speed you like. In fact, the speed you're allowed to go depends on not just where you are, but what conditions are like. Similarly safety regulations on medical procedures, retail and industrial electrical goods are there to minimise deaths. In all of the above cases, we find a balance. Nobody is proposing banning all economic activity, and nor is anybody with the slightest shred of decency advocating just letting it rip.
So now that we've established where we are, somewhere between those two end members, we need to find the right place. And like the speed limit, it's perfectly sensible to suggest that as conditions change, so should the rules. Now, are the kinds of lockdowns experienced and/or proposed by some people going too far one way? Is the loosening proposed by others going too far the other way? Perhaps, you can make your own mind up. In truth, I can see both sides of the argument and I'm not ready to commit. I'm glad I don't have to decide. But please don't go around pretending that temporary lockdowns are the same as "banning all motor transport". That's attacking a straw man and doesn't help convince persuadables like me.
The current Welsh option has to be up there as pretty close to banning all motor transport for a fortnight. Its likely to have a similar effect on the numbers - transmission will probably fall, but as the fundamental state of play won't have changed at the end of it, it won't be long before the numbers are back where they are now again - very much like banning driving for a fortnight would cut road deaths for a couple of weeks, but won't make a lot of difference in the long run.
The fundamental problem with lockdowns is the total absence of a coherent endgame. Unless there is some way out of this which doesn't involve everyone getting the disease, lockdowns are pointless but expensive can kicking (rather like the endless Brexit extensions - they only postponed exactly the same issues as everyone started with).
There isn't a silver bullet on the horizon. A vaccine isn't going to be enough (you can tell this from the way that governments are starting to talk about this going on all next year).
At some point lockdowns will stop working entirely, if that hasn't already happened. Based on what's happened in say Boulton over the summer, where various levels lockdown have made almost no difference to case numbers, it's quite possible that point has already pretty much been reached.
People have had enough (I'm honest, I'm one of them), and aren't taking a blind bit of notice of the rules if they even know what they are, so the only practical outworking of the restrictions is the ruination of the businesses forced to close (mind you what a time to own an off licence! It's an ill wind... ).
I read a post on Facebook today which linked to a petition for partners to be allowed to attend scans and all of labour for pregnant women (I think it covered Wales - I don't know the current English rules). Some of the stories in the comments below the post were truly heartbreaking; Women having miscarriages and stillbirths alone with their husbands sat waiting in the carpark. It's hard to explain how angry I felt after reading a few posts, and how outraged I was at the sheer barbarity of the current rules. My sister is currently heavily pregnant and under these rules in Ceredigion, which has a case rate of something like 22 per 100k. Its utterly mad, the more so given that presumably as most women live with their partners, if one has it, they probably both do anyway.
I think we should shield the vulnerable as best we can, then let it go, because the reality is that otherwise its going to go anyway sooner or later, but with the vulnerable unprotected.
As someone else has posted upthread, by January (it's bleak enough in a normal year) the public will be in open rebellion everywhere (lots of them aren't far off now), and nothing the politicians can do then will allow them to regain control. All that's occuring now is just adding extra pointless misery to that which will come from the ravages of the disease when the public mood breaks.
The devil is in the detail. You say we should "shield the vulnerable" but provide zero detail. Vulnerable people still need to eat, still need to access medical care. How do they get to the supermarket if the bus is full of people spewing out virus particles without catching it? How can they sit in a waiting room at the doctor's with coronavirus in the air, and not die from it? And even if some unspecified measures are put in place that will magically keep the vulnerable separate, how do you stop that becoming overwhelmed with people who just don't really want to get sick?
The "shield the vulnerable" mantra reminds me of communism... nice in theory but it doesn't work.
As a side note, I've noticed a LOT that people read something on Facebook or Twitter and get outraged. When I used to be on both platforms I was permanently of the opinion that the country was about to break out into insurrection because LOOK AT THIS CUTE CHILD HE DIED BECAUSE OF AUSTERITY/MUSLIMS/VACCINES/ISRAEL. The sad truth is, it's always a mix of the chronically angry, distillations of real things that happened that may or may not share the context you're talking about, liars, propagandists, and well-meaning idiots. And it's all wrapped up into a nice newsfeed that specifically designed to maximise your outrage, because that's what keeps you coming back for more. You see it in some of the people on here. They've become furious ideologues, certain of the righteousness of their cause and their cause alone. Then they find themselves on here, one of the many interfaces between their clan and another, and they go absolutely mad because "here are some filthy apostates who have been duped by the other clan, how can they be so stupidly partisan all the time?!"
Ok, so my side note ended up longer than my main point. Sorry about that. Just to tie it up, I'm not saying you're wrong about lockdowns, but nor am I saying you're right. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you think it's more clear cut than it really is, and one clue to that is this: you replied to a post recommending we take better care when wielding rhetorical devices, and by the sixth paragraph you were talking about dead babies. That kind of escalation doesn't happen in conversations unless at least one of them is furiously certain about something that is so very clearly uncertain enough that they need to have a conversation about it.
On your first paragraph my wife and I (81 & 77) have no problem shielding nor with the surgery
We have a weekly Asda delivery and our son or daughter pick up our medication from the chemist and leave it in our porch
Since March our surgery has moved to online triage and it has been a great success together with a ban on anyone calling direct at the surgery. When we have had to see either the doctor/nurse we wait in the car park in our car and the doctor/nurse calls us directly into their consulting room passing through the empty waiting areas
Here in Wales Drakeford has stopped supermarkets selling non essential food and terminal ill non covid elderly patients have to choose which child they want to nominate to be at their bedside in their final hours
This is morally bankrupt and of course banning the sale of non essenitial goods drives Amazon and online shopping demand at the further expense of local shopping
Drakeford insists closing down the whole of Wales is only for 17 days and is a one off event, but as we have been in the equivalent of tier 3 ourselves for the last month I expect Drakeford will return us to tier 3 again
He is experimenting with Wales and believe you me both here in Wales and the rest of the UK a moment is fast approaching when the cry will go out 'enough'
It is notable that Scotland has introduced tiering, notwithstanding 2 additional levels, confirming that even Sturgeon is not favour of a national shutdown
You didn't read Foxy's response to your comments last night then. (Forgive me Foxy if I have misinterpreted via my précis)
1.Non-essentials is a device to deter unnecessary shopping.
2. Your end of life visiting issues are an edict from the Westminster Government.
I can't say I am pleased at not working for two weeks, however if it allows me the opportunity to work unhindered for the following six weeks to eight weeks I will give it a shot.
On 1, isn't it a political move to assuage the discontent of smaller non-essential retailers closed down but watching the supermarkets open and selling the very same stuff?
So now they see Amazon win more shoppers?
For sure. It's likely to simply be "do something" politics. But I guess you could argue that online shoppers might return to physical shopping after the lockdown, but getting them in the habit of physically shopping somewhere else is worse for smaller retailers.
I don't think it's been shown that online shoppers go back to the shops. It's almost like a ratchet with product classes people are willing to buy online. After they've done it once they don't mind doing it again.
Certainly true in my case. Much as I dislike some of Amazon's corporate behaviour, the fact that you can type in almost anything, usually find what you need and buy within minutes and have it arrive to your door the next day is convenience beyond belief.
In the Wales case, I guess it's simply the politics of the small shopkeepers seeing - or being told by - their customers buying the same stuff down the road at Tesco.
Better keep everything open. Even the SAGE report showed that non-essential shopping has a negligible effect on the R.
It’s a bit out of date but there are lots of causes of death which could be prevented if we completely stopped doing stuff
If we banned all motor transport there would be a significant drop in vehicle related deaths. A significant number of people die of medical complications - perhaps we should ban all medical procedures. Some people are electrocuted - are you proposing that we go off grid? A small number of women die in childbirth - should we prevent all births? Oh wait we’ve already cancelled all medical procedures above.
Locking down the economy was supposed to be a temporary measure to allow NHS capacity to increase, and to allow time to assess the impact. Before the initial lockdown, and part of the delay was the advice that people only have a certain capacity for being locked down, and the scientists didn’t want to start it too soon
Depends what you mean by "lockdown". Driving is highly regulated. There's a huge list of rules, you have to get your car checked for roadworthiness each year, and you aren't allowed to go whatever speed you like. In fact, the speed you're allowed to go depends on not just where you are, but what conditions are like. Similarly safety regulations on medical procedures, retail and industrial electrical goods are there to minimise deaths. In all of the above cases, we find a balance. Nobody is proposing banning all economic activity, and nor is anybody with the slightest shred of decency advocating just letting it rip.
So now that we've established where we are, somewhere between those two end members, we need to find the right place. And like the speed limit, it's perfectly sensible to suggest that as conditions change, so should the rules. Now, are the kinds of lockdowns experienced and/or proposed by some people going too far one way? Is the loosening proposed by others going too far the other way? Perhaps, you can make your own mind up. In truth, I can see both sides of the argument and I'm not ready to commit. I'm glad I don't have to decide. But please don't go around pretending that temporary lockdowns are the same as "banning all motor transport". That's attacking a straw man and doesn't help convince persuadables like me.
The current Welsh option has to be up there as pretty close to banning all motor transport for a fortnight. Its likely to have a similar effect on the numbers - transmission will probably fall, but as the fundamental state of play won't have changed at the end of it, it won't be long before the numbers are back where they are now again - very much like banning driving for a fortnight would cut road deaths for a couple of weeks, but won't make a lot of difference in the long run.
The fundamental problem with lockdowns is the total absence of a coherent endgame. Unless there is some way out of this which doesn't involve everyone getting the disease, lockdowns are pointless but expensive can kicking (rather like the endless Brexit extensions - they only postponed exactly the same issues as everyone started with).
There isn't a silver bullet on the horizon. A vaccine isn't going to be enough (you can tell this from the way that governments are starting to talk about this going on all next year).
At some point lockdowns will stop working entirely, if that hasn't already happened. Based on what's happened in say Boulton over the summer, where various levels lockdown have made almost no difference to case numbers, it's quite possible that point has already pretty much been reached.
People have had enough (I'm honest, I'm one of them), and aren't taking a blind bit of notice of the rules if they even know what they are, so the only practical outworking of the restrictions is the ruination of the businesses forced to close (mind you what a time to own an off licence! It's an ill wind... ).
I read a post on Facebook today which linked to a petition for partners to be allowed to attend scans and all of labour for pregnant women (I think it covered Wales - I don't know the current English rules). Some of the stories in the comments below the post were truly heartbreaking; Women having miscarriages and stillbirths alone with their husbands sat waiting in the carpark. It's hard to explain how angry I felt after reading a few posts, and how outraged I was at the sheer barbarity of the current rules. My sister is currently heavily pregnant and under these rules in Ceredigion, which has a case rate of something like 22 per 100k. Its utterly mad, the more so given that presumably as most women live with their partners, if one has it, they probably both do anyway.
I think we should shield the vulnerable as best we can, then let it go, because the reality is that otherwise its going to go anyway sooner or later, but with the vulnerable unprotected.
As someone else has posted upthread, by January (it's bleak enough in a normal year) the public will be in open rebellion everywhere (lots of them aren't far off now), and nothing the politicians can do then will allow them to regain control. All that's occuring now is just adding extra pointless misery to that which will come from the ravages of the disease when the public mood breaks.
The devil is in the detail. You say we should "shield the vulnerable" but provide zero detail. Vulnerable people still need to eat, still need to access medical care. How do they get to the supermarket if the bus is full of people spewing out virus particles without catching it? How can they sit in a waiting room at the doctor's with coronavirus in the air, and not die from it? And even if some unspecified measures are put in place that will magically keep the vulnerable separate, how do you stop that becoming overwhelmed with people who just don't really want to get sick?
The "shield the vulnerable" mantra reminds me of communism... nice in theory but it doesn't work.
As a side note, I've noticed a LOT that people read something on Facebook or Twitter and get outraged. When I used to be on both platforms I was permanently of the opinion that the country was about to break out into insurrection because LOOK AT THIS CUTE CHILD HE DIED BECAUSE OF AUSTERITY/MUSLIMS/VACCINES/ISRAEL. The sad truth is, it's always a mix of the chronically angry, distillations of real things that happened that may or may not share the context you're talking about, liars, propagandists, and well-meaning idiots. And it's all wrapped up into a nice newsfeed that specifically designed to maximise your outrage, because that's what keeps you coming back for more. You see it in some of the people on here. They've become furious ideologues, certain of the righteousness of their cause and their cause alone. Then they find themselves on here, one of the many interfaces between their clan and another, and they go absolutely mad because "here are some filthy apostates who have been duped by the other clan, how can they be so stupidly partisan all the time?!"
Ok, so my side note ended up longer than my main point. Sorry about that. Just to tie it up, I'm not saying you're wrong about lockdowns, but nor am I saying you're right. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you think it's more clear cut than it really is, and one clue to that is this: you replied to a post recommending we take better care when wielding rhetorical devices, and by the sixth paragraph you were talking about dead babies. That kind of escalation doesn't happen in conversations unless at least one of them is furiously certain about something that is so very clearly uncertain enough that they need to have a conversation about it.
On your first paragraph my wife and I (81 & 77) have no problem shielding nor with the surgery
We have a weekly Asda delivery and our son or daughter pick up our medication from the chemist and leave it in our porch
Since March our surgery has moved to online triage and it has been a great success together with a ban on anyone calling direct at the surgery. When we have had to see either the doctor/nurse we wait in the car park in our car and the doctor/nurse calls us directly into their consulting room passing through the empty waiting areas
Here in Wales Drakeford has stopped supermarkets selling non essential food and terminal ill non covid elderly patients have to choose which child they want to nominate to be at their bedside in their final hours
This is morally bankrupt and of course banning the sale of non essenitial goods drives Amazon and online shopping demand at the further expense of local shopping
Drakeford insists closing down the whole of Wales is only for 17 days and is a one off event, but as we have been in the equivalent of tier 3 ourselves for the last month I expect Drakeford will return us to tier 3 again
He is experimenting with Wales and believe you me both here in Wales and the rest of the UK a moment is fast approaching when the cry will go out 'enough'
It is notable that Scotland has introduced tiering, notwithstanding 2 additional levels, confirming that even Sturgeon is not favour of a national shutdown
You didn't read Foxy's response to your comments last night then. (Forgive me Foxy if I have misinterpreted via my précis)
1.Non-essentials is a device to deter unnecessary shopping.
2. Your end of life visiting issues are an edict from the Westminster Government.
I can't say I am pleased at not working for two weeks, however if it allows me the opportunity to work unhindered for the following six weeks to eight weeks I will give it a shot.
On 1, isn't it a political move to assuage the discontent of smaller non-essential retailers closed down but watching the supermarkets open and selling the very same stuff?
So now they see Amazon win more shoppers?
For sure. It's likely to simply be "do something" politics. But I guess you could argue that online shoppers might return to physical shopping after the lockdown, but getting them in the habit of physically shopping somewhere else is worse for smaller retailers.
I don't think it's been shown that online shoppers go back to the shops. It's almost like a ratchet with product classes people are willing to buy online. After they've done it once they don't mind doing it again.
Certainly true in my case. Much as I dislike some of Amazon's corporate behaviour, the fact that you can type in almost anything, usually find what you need and buy within minutes and have it arrive to your door the next day is convenience beyond belief.
In the Wales case, I guess it's simply the politics of the small shopkeepers seeing - or being told by - their customers buying the same stuff down the road at Tesco.
Better keep everything open. Even the SAGE report showed that non-essential shopping has a negligible effect on the R.
The rules need to be strict so people will actually follow them.
CNN also had Hillary winning the first 2016 debate 62% to 27% for Trump and had Clinton winning the second debate 57% to 34% for Trump and CNN had Clinton winning the third 2016 debate 52% to 39% So it is also almost the same result as Trump had after his third debate with Clinton in 2016, where he did the best of the 3.
Didn't watch the debate but, to echo others here, the mood music appears to be that Trump didn't create any major new gaffes and restrained himself. As others have said, that will probably be enough for more reluctant Republicans or even some independents to vote for him, especially given some of the issues at stake.
Funnily enough, the main thing that seemed to trend on social media was Joe Biden's reference to Hitler.
Frank Luntz's polling groups reflect him I think - out and out GOP hacks masquerading as "undecideds"
His focus groups always seem to come to the opposite conclusion to the pollsters. Not impossible but highly suspicious given his role as a GOP strategist. I'd bet that the 3 polls are giving a more accurate reflection, particularly as all 3 give a remarkably similar result.
If you don't think a CNN poll might be biased, I have a bridge to sell you
It’s a bit out of date but there are lots of causes of death which could be prevented if we completely stopped doing stuff
If we banned all motor transport there would be a significant drop in vehicle related deaths. A significant number of people die of medical complications - perhaps we should ban all medical procedures. Some people are electrocuted - are you proposing that we go off grid? A small number of women die in childbirth - should we prevent all births? Oh wait we’ve already cancelled all medical procedures above.
Locking down the economy was supposed to be a temporary measure to allow NHS capacity to increase, and to allow time to assess the impact. Before the initial lockdown, and part of the delay was the advice that people only have a certain capacity for being locked down, and the scientists didn’t want to start it too soon
Depends what you mean by "lockdown". Driving is highly regulated. There's a huge list of rules, you have to get your car checked for roadworthiness each year, and you aren't allowed to go whatever speed you like. In fact, the speed you're allowed to go depends on not just where you are, but what conditions are like. Similarly safety regulations on medical procedures, retail and industrial electrical goods are there to minimise deaths. In all of the above cases, we find a balance. Nobody is proposing banning all economic activity, and nor is anybody with the slightest shred of decency advocating just letting it rip.
So now that we've established where we are, somewhere between those two end members, we need to find the right place. And like the speed limit, it's perfectly sensible to suggest that as conditions change, so should the rules. Now, are the kinds of lockdowns experienced and/or proposed by some people going too far one way? Is the loosening proposed by others going too far the other way? Perhaps, you can make your own mind up. In truth, I can see both sides of the argument and I'm not ready to commit. I'm glad I don't have to decide. But please don't go around pretending that temporary lockdowns are the same as "banning all motor transport". That's attacking a straw man and doesn't help convince persuadables like me.
The current Welsh option has to be up there as pretty close to banning all motor transport for a fortnight. Its likely to have a similar effect on the numbers - transmission will probably fall, but as the fundamental state of play won't have changed at the end of it, it won't be long before the numbers are back where they are now again - very much like banning driving for a fortnight would cut road deaths for a couple of weeks, but won't make a lot of difference in the long run.
The fundamental problem with lockdowns is the total absence of a coherent endgame. Unless there is some way out of this which doesn't involve everyone getting the disease, lockdowns are pointless but expensive can kicking (rather like the endless Brexit extensions - they only postponed exactly the same issues as everyone started with).
There isn't a silver bullet on the horizon. A vaccine isn't going to be enough (you can tell this from the way that governments are starting to talk about this going on all next year).
At some point lockdowns will stop working entirely, if that hasn't already happened. Based on what's happened in say Boulton over the summer, where various levels lockdown have made almost no difference to case numbers, it's quite possible that point has already pretty much been reached.
People have had enough (I'm honest, I'm one of them), and aren't taking a blind bit of notice of the rules if they even know what they are, so the only practical outworking of the restrictions is the ruination of the businesses forced to close (mind you what a time to own an off licence! It's an ill wind... ).
I read a post on Facebook today which linked to a petition for partners to be allowed to attend scans and all of labour for pregnant women (I think it covered Wales - I don't know the current English rules). Some of the stories in the comments below the post were truly heartbreaking; Women having miscarriages and stillbirths alone with their husbands sat waiting in the carpark. It's hard to explain how angry I felt after reading a few posts, and how outraged I was at the sheer barbarity of the current rules. My sister is currently heavily pregnant and under these rules in Ceredigion, which has a case rate of something like 22 per 100k. Its utterly mad, the more so given that presumably as most women live with their partners, if one has it, they probably both do anyway.
I think we should shield the vulnerable as best we can, then let it go, because the reality is that otherwise its going to go anyway sooner or later, but with the vulnerable unprotected.
As someone else has posted upthread, by January (it's bleak enough in a normal year) the public will be in open rebellion everywhere (lots of them aren't far off now), and nothing the politicians can do then will allow them to regain control. All that's occuring now is just adding extra pointless misery to that which will come from the ravages of the disease when the public mood breaks.
The devil is in the detail. You say we should "shield the vulnerable" but provide zero detail. Vulnerable people still need to eat, still need to access medical care. How do they get to the supermarket if the bus is full of people spewing out virus particles without catching it? How can they sit in a waiting room at the doctor's with coronavirus in the air, and not die from it? And even if some unspecified measures are put in place that will magically keep the vulnerable separate, how do you stop that becoming overwhelmed with people who just don't really want to get sick?
The "shield the vulnerable" mantra reminds me of communism... nice in theory but it doesn't work.
As a side note, I've noticed a LOT that people read something on Facebook or Twitter and get outraged. When I used to be on both platforms I was permanently of the opinion that the country was about to break out into insurrection because LOOK AT THIS CUTE CHILD HE DIED BECAUSE OF AUSTERITY/MUSLIMS/VACCINES/ISRAEL. The sad truth is, it's always a mix of the chronically angry, distillations of real things that happened that may or may not share the context you're talking about, liars, propagandists, and well-meaning idiots. And it's all wrapped up into a nice newsfeed that specifically designed to maximise your outrage, because that's what keeps you coming back for more. You see it in some of the people on here. They've become furious ideologues, certain of the righteousness of their cause and their cause alone. Then they find themselves on here, one of the many interfaces between their clan and another, and they go absolutely mad because "here are some filthy apostates who have been duped by the other clan, how can they be so stupidly partisan all the time?!"
Ok, so my side note ended up longer than my main point. Sorry about that. Just to tie it up, I'm not saying you're wrong about lockdowns, but nor am I saying you're right. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you think it's more clear cut than it really is, and one clue to that is this: you replied to a post recommending we take better care when wielding rhetorical devices, and by the sixth paragraph you were talking about dead babies. That kind of escalation doesn't happen in conversations unless at least one of them is furiously certain about something that is so very clearly uncertain enough that they need to have a conversation about it.
On your first paragraph my wife and I (81 & 77) have no problem shielding nor with the surgery
We have a weekly Asda delivery and our son or daughter pick up our medication from the chemist and leave it in our porch
Since March our surgery has moved to online triage and it has been a great success together with a ban on anyone calling direct at the surgery. When we have had to see either the doctor/nurse we wait in the car park in our car and the doctor/nurse calls us directly into their consulting room passing through the empty waiting areas
Here in Wales Drakeford has stopped supermarkets selling non essential food and terminal ill non covid elderly patients have to choose which child they want to nominate to be at their bedside in their final hours
This is morally bankrupt and of course banning the sale of non essenitial goods drives Amazon and online shopping demand at the further expense of local shopping
Drakeford insists closing down the whole of Wales is only for 17 days and is a one off event, but as we have been in the equivalent of tier 3 ourselves for the last month I expect Drakeford will return us to tier 3 again
He is experimenting with Wales and believe you me both here in Wales and the rest of the UK a moment is fast approaching when the cry will go out 'enough'
It is notable that Scotland has introduced tiering, notwithstanding 2 additional levels, confirming that even Sturgeon is not favour of a national shutdown
You didn't read Foxy's response to your comments last night then. (Forgive me Foxy if I have misinterpreted via my précis)
1.Non-essentials is a device to deter unnecessary shopping.
2. Your end of life visiting issues are an edict from the Westminster Government.
I can't say I am pleased at not working for two weeks, however if it allows me the opportunity to work unhindered for the following six weeks to eight weeks I will give it a shot.
1) Does not work as it drives on line shopping
Since when did politicians only do things because they work?
I am highly confident this lockdown will work, the first one did and is the only thing that worked.
I think that's probably true but what a boring PB that would be.
Actually I think it would be a lot better. When do you ever read a comment on the lines of ‘Actually I hadn’t thought of that, what a thoughtful post’? It is the constant trolling, point scoring and refusal to agree with someone on any subject if they disagree on Brexit/Indy/Boris etc that is boring, because it’s the same every day, and doesn’t seem to me to be borne out of anything other than stubbornness or spite
I agree, and look forward to you cutting back on your relentless Starmer is boring/has no personality posts!
That’s not the same thing at all though. I looked into the personality ratings to see whether the public vote people they consider to be relatively boring as PM. The only one in the last 40 years they have is John Major, and never a LoTO. In my opinion that is relevant to betting on the next GE, it’s not trolling people on here, if there are any, who think Starmer is actually a right good laugh. In fact it’s an example of where people might say “I hadn’t considered that, interesting” but prefer to say “Boris is a clown” “This time it’s different” or “Will you stop going on about it?”
I’m not trolling Starmer, just reminding people that a boring LoTO doesn’t usually become PM, regardless of midterm VI and Leader ratings.
This place used to be full of analysis like that, now it’s just a partisan smart arse, point scoring fest, which is a shame
CNN also had Hillary winning the first 2016 debate had Clinton winning 62% to 27% for Trump, CNN had Clinton winning the second debate 57% to 34% for Trump and CNN had Clinton winning the third 2016 debate 52% to 39%
Indeed, Trump is the only person to ever lose all 3 debates in a cycle and win or lose in November will go down as the only person to ever lose every general election debate they got to. But he limited the damage a bit by speaking less.
It’s a bit out of date but there are lots of causes of death which could be prevented if we completely stopped doing stuff
If we banned all motor transport there would be a significant drop in vehicle related deaths. A significant number of people die of medical complications - perhaps we should ban all medical procedures. Some people are electrocuted - are you proposing that we go off grid? A small number of women die in childbirth - should we prevent all births? Oh wait we’ve already cancelled all medical procedures above.
Locking down the economy was supposed to be a temporary measure to allow NHS capacity to increase, and to allow time to assess the impact. Before the initial lockdown, and part of the delay was the advice that people only have a certain capacity for being locked down, and the scientists didn’t want to start it too soon
Depends what you mean by "lockdown". Driving is highly regulated. There's a huge list of rules, you have to get your car checked for roadworthiness each year, and you aren't allowed to go whatever speed you like. In fact, the speed you're allowed to go depends on not just where you are, but what conditions are like. Similarly safety regulations on medical procedures, retail and industrial electrical goods are there to minimise deaths. In all of the above cases, we find a balance. Nobody is proposing banning all economic activity, and nor is anybody with the slightest shred of decency advocating just letting it rip.
So now that we've established where we are, somewhere between those two end members, we need to find the right place. And like the speed limit, it's perfectly sensible to suggest that as conditions change, so should the rules. Now, are the kinds of lockdowns experienced and/or proposed by some people going too far one way? Is the loosening proposed by others going too far the other way? Perhaps, you can make your own mind up. In truth, I can see both sides of the argument and I'm not ready to commit. I'm glad I don't have to decide. But please don't go around pretending that temporary lockdowns are the same as "banning all motor transport". That's attacking a straw man and doesn't help convince persuadables like me.
The current Welsh option has to be up there as pretty close to banning all motor transport for a fortnight. Its likely to have a similar effect on the numbers - transmission will probably fall, but as the fundamental state of play won't have changed at the end of it, it won't be long before the numbers are back where they are now again - very much like banning driving for a fortnight would cut road deaths for a couple of weeks, but won't make a lot of difference in the long run.
The fundamental problem with lockdowns is the total absence of a coherent endgame. Unless there is some way out of this which doesn't involve everyone getting the disease, lockdowns are pointless but expensive can kicking (rather like the endless Brexit extensions - they only postponed exactly the same issues as everyone started with).
There isn't a silver bullet on the horizon. A vaccine isn't going to be enough (you can tell this from the way that governments are starting to talk about this going on all next year).
At some point lockdowns will stop working entirely, if that hasn't already happened. Based on what's happened in say Boulton over the summer, where various levels lockdown have made almost no difference to case numbers, it's quite possible that point has already pretty much been reached.
People have had enough (I'm honest, I'm one of them), and aren't taking a blind bit of notice of the rules if they even know what they are, so the only practical outworking of the restrictions is the ruination of the businesses forced to close (mind you what a time to own an off licence! It's an ill wind... ).
I read a post on Facebook today which linked to a petition for partners to be allowed to attend scans and all of labour for pregnant women (I think it covered Wales - I don't know the current English rules). Some of the stories in the comments below the post were truly heartbreaking; Women having miscarriages and stillbirths alone with their husbands sat waiting in the carpark. It's hard to explain how angry I felt after reading a few posts, and how outraged I was at the sheer barbarity of the current rules. My sister is currently heavily pregnant and under these rules in Ceredigion, which has a case rate of something like 22 per 100k. Its utterly mad, the more so given that presumably as most women live with their partners, if one has it, they probably both do anyway.
I think we should shield the vulnerable as best we can, then let it go, because the reality is that otherwise its going to go anyway sooner or later, but with the vulnerable unprotected.
As someone else has posted upthread, by January (it's bleak enough in a normal year) the public will be in open rebellion everywhere (lots of them aren't far off now), and nothing the politicians can do then will allow them to regain control. All that's occuring now is just adding extra pointless misery to that which will come from the ravages of the disease when the public mood breaks.
The devil is in the detail. You say we should "shield the vulnerable" but provide zero detail. Vulnerable people still need to eat, still need to access medical care. How do they get to the supermarket if the bus is full of people spewing out virus particles without catching it? How can they sit in a waiting room at the doctor's with coronavirus in the air, and not die from it? And even if some unspecified measures are put in place that will magically keep the vulnerable separate, how do you stop that becoming overwhelmed with people who just don't really want to get sick?
The "shield the vulnerable" mantra reminds me of communism... nice in theory but it doesn't work.
As a side note, I've noticed a LOT that people read something on Facebook or Twitter and get outraged. When I used to be on both platforms I was permanently of the opinion that the country was about to break out into insurrection because LOOK AT THIS CUTE CHILD HE DIED BECAUSE OF AUSTERITY/MUSLIMS/VACCINES/ISRAEL. The sad truth is, it's always a mix of the chronically angry, distillations of real things that happened that may or may not share the context you're talking about, liars, propagandists, and well-meaning idiots. And it's all wrapped up into a nice newsfeed that specifically designed to maximise your outrage, because that's what keeps you coming back for more. You see it in some of the people on here. They've become furious ideologues, certain of the righteousness of their cause and their cause alone. Then they find themselves on here, one of the many interfaces between their clan and another, and they go absolutely mad because "here are some filthy apostates who have been duped by the other clan, how can they be so stupidly partisan all the time?!"
Ok, so my side note ended up longer than my main point. Sorry about that. Just to tie it up, I'm not saying you're wrong about lockdowns, but nor am I saying you're right. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you think it's more clear cut than it really is, and one clue to that is this: you replied to a post recommending we take better care when wielding rhetorical devices, and by the sixth paragraph you were talking about dead babies. That kind of escalation doesn't happen in conversations unless at least one of them is furiously certain about something that is so very clearly uncertain enough that they need to have a conversation about it.
On your first paragraph my wife and I (81 & 77) have no problem shielding nor with the surgery
We have a weekly Asda delivery and our son or daughter pick up our medication from the chemist and leave it in our porch
Since March our surgery has moved to online triage and it has been a great success together with a ban on anyone calling direct at the surgery. When we have had to see either the doctor/nurse we wait in the car park in our car and the doctor/nurse calls us directly into their consulting room passing through the empty waiting areas
Here in Wales Drakeford has stopped supermarkets selling non essential food and terminal ill non covid elderly patients have to choose which child they want to nominate to be at their bedside in their final hours
This is morally bankrupt and of course banning the sale of non essenitial goods drives Amazon and online shopping demand at the further expense of local shopping
Drakeford insists closing down the whole of Wales is only for 17 days and is a one off event, but as we have been in the equivalent of tier 3 ourselves for the last month I expect Drakeford will return us to tier 3 again
He is experimenting with Wales and believe you me both here in Wales and the rest of the UK a moment is fast approaching when the cry will go out 'enough'
It is notable that Scotland has introduced tiering, notwithstanding 2 additional levels, confirming that even Sturgeon is not favour of a national shutdown
You didn't read Foxy's response to your comments last night then. (Forgive me Foxy if I have misinterpreted via my précis)
1.Non-essentials is a device to deter unnecessary shopping.
2. Your end of life visiting issues are an edict from the Westminster Government.
I can't say I am pleased at not working for two weeks, however if it allows me the opportunity to work unhindered for the following six weeks to eight weeks I will give it a shot.
On 1, isn't it a political move to assuage the discontent of smaller non-essential retailers closed down but watching the supermarkets open and selling the very same stuff?
If Drakeford has stopped Wiko’s selling mops ( is that “hardware” I ask?) or screws and paint, and I want to put a shelf up or paint a wall, I’m not going to sit here in lockdown patiently waiting for Dai Jones Hardware on Pontypandy high st to open up two weeks on Monday, I’m going to give the profit to one J Bezos of Palo Alto California, because apparently the idiots in Cardiff Bay are the only ones unaware of the internet.
Dai Jones Hardware on Pontypandy high st is quite likely to be selling via ebay/Amazon marketplace, or ought to be.
And the governments new online sales tax will apply to Dai Jones but not J Bezos! One of the more peculiarly incompetent achievements of their reign.
It’s a bit out of date but there are lots of causes of death which could be prevented if we completely stopped doing stuff
If we banned all motor transport there would be a significant drop in vehicle related deaths. A significant number of people die of medical complications - perhaps we should ban all medical procedures. Some people are electrocuted - are you proposing that we go off grid? A small number of women die in childbirth - should we prevent all births? Oh wait we’ve already cancelled all medical procedures above.
Locking down the economy was supposed to be a temporary measure to allow NHS capacity to increase, and to allow time to assess the impact. Before the initial lockdown, and part of the delay was the advice that people only have a certain capacity for being locked down, and the scientists didn’t want to start it too soon
Depends what you mean by "lockdown". Driving is highly regulated. There's a huge list of rules, you have to get your car checked for roadworthiness each year, and you aren't allowed to go whatever speed you like. In fact, the speed you're allowed to go depends on not just where you are, but what conditions are like. Similarly safety regulations on medical procedures, retail and industrial electrical goods are there to minimise deaths. In all of the above cases, we find a balance. Nobody is proposing banning all economic activity, and nor is anybody with the slightest shred of decency advocating just letting it rip.
So now that we've established where we are, somewhere between those two end members, we need to find the right place. And like the speed limit, it's perfectly sensible to suggest that as conditions change, so should the rules. Now, are the kinds of lockdowns experienced and/or proposed by some people going too far one way? Is the loosening proposed by others going too far the other way? Perhaps, you can make your own mind up. In truth, I can see both sides of the argument and I'm not ready to commit. I'm glad I don't have to decide. But please don't go around pretending that temporary lockdowns are the same as "banning all motor transport". That's attacking a straw man and doesn't help convince persuadables like me.
The current Welsh option has to be up there as pretty close to banning all motor transport for a fortnight. Its likely to have a similar effect on the numbers - transmission will probably fall, but as the fundamental state of play won't have changed at the end of it, it won't be long before the numbers are back where they are now again - very much like banning driving for a fortnight would cut road deaths for a couple of weeks, but won't make a lot of difference in the long run.
The fundamental problem with lockdowns is the total absence of a coherent endgame. Unless there is some way out of this which doesn't involve everyone getting the disease, lockdowns are pointless but expensive can kicking (rather like the endless Brexit extensions - they only postponed exactly the same issues as everyone started with).
There isn't a silver bullet on the horizon. A vaccine isn't going to be enough (you can tell this from the way that governments are starting to talk about this going on all next year).
At some point lockdowns will stop working entirely, if that hasn't already happened. Based on what's happened in say Boulton over the summer, where various levels lockdown have made almost no difference to case numbers, it's quite possible that point has already pretty much been reached.
People have had enough (I'm honest, I'm one of them), and aren't taking a blind bit of notice of the rules if they even know what they are, so the only practical outworking of the restrictions is the ruination of the businesses forced to close (mind you what a time to own an off licence! It's an ill wind... ).
I read a post on Facebook today which linked to a petition for partners to be allowed to attend scans and all of labour for pregnant women (I think it covered Wales - I don't know the current English rules). Some of the stories in the comments below the post were truly heartbreaking; Women having miscarriages and stillbirths alone with their husbands sat waiting in the carpark. It's hard to explain how angry I felt after reading a few posts, and how outraged I was at the sheer barbarity of the current rules. My sister is currently heavily pregnant and under these rules in Ceredigion, which has a case rate of something like 22 per 100k. Its utterly mad, the more so given that presumably as most women live with their partners, if one has it, they probably both do anyway.
I think we should shield the vulnerable as best we can, then let it go, because the reality is that otherwise its going to go anyway sooner or later, but with the vulnerable unprotected.
As someone else has posted upthread, by January (it's bleak enough in a normal year) the public will be in open rebellion everywhere (lots of them aren't far off now), and nothing the politicians can do then will allow them to regain control. All that's occuring now is just adding extra pointless misery to that which will come from the ravages of the disease when the public mood breaks.
The devil is in the detail. You say we should "shield the vulnerable" but provide zero detail. Vulnerable people still need to eat, still need to access medical care. How do they get to the supermarket if the bus is full of people spewing out virus particles without catching it? How can they sit in a waiting room at the doctor's with coronavirus in the air, and not die from it? And even if some unspecified measures are put in place that will magically keep the vulnerable separate, how do you stop that becoming overwhelmed with people who just don't really want to get sick?
The "shield the vulnerable" mantra reminds me of communism... nice in theory but it doesn't work.
As a side note, I've noticed a LOT that people read something on Facebook or Twitter and get outraged. When I used to be on both platforms I was permanently of the opinion that the country was about to break out into insurrection because LOOK AT THIS CUTE CHILD HE DIED BECAUSE OF AUSTERITY/MUSLIMS/VACCINES/ISRAEL. The sad truth is, it's always a mix of the chronically angry, distillations of real things that happened that may or may not share the context you're talking about, liars, propagandists, and well-meaning idiots. And it's all wrapped up into a nice newsfeed that specifically designed to maximise your outrage, because that's what keeps you coming back for more. You see it in some of the people on here. They've become furious ideologues, certain of the righteousness of their cause and their cause alone. Then they find themselves on here, one of the many interfaces between their clan and another, and they go absolutely mad because "here are some filthy apostates who have been duped by the other clan, how can they be so stupidly partisan all the time?!"
Ok, so my side note ended up longer than my main point. Sorry about that. Just to tie it up, I'm not saying you're wrong about lockdowns, but nor am I saying you're right. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you think it's more clear cut than it really is, and one clue to that is this: you replied to a post recommending we take better care when wielding rhetorical devices, and by the sixth paragraph you were talking about dead babies. That kind of escalation doesn't happen in conversations unless at least one of them is furiously certain about something that is so very clearly uncertain enough that they need to have a conversation about it.
On your first paragraph my wife and I (81 & 77) have no problem shielding nor with the surgery
We have a weekly Asda delivery and our son or daughter pick up our medication from the chemist and leave it in our porch
Since March our surgery has moved to online triage and it has been a great success together with a ban on anyone calling direct at the surgery. When we have had to see either the doctor/nurse we wait in the car park in our car and the doctor/nurse calls us directly into their consulting room passing through the empty waiting areas
Here in Wales Drakeford has stopped supermarkets selling non essential food and terminal ill non covid elderly patients have to choose which child they want to nominate to be at their bedside in their final hours
This is morally bankrupt and of course banning the sale of non essenitial goods drives Amazon and online shopping demand at the further expense of local shopping
Drakeford insists closing down the whole of Wales is only for 17 days and is a one off event, but as we have been in the equivalent of tier 3 ourselves for the last month I expect Drakeford will return us to tier 3 again
He is experimenting with Wales and believe you me both here in Wales and the rest of the UK a moment is fast approaching when the cry will go out 'enough'
It is notable that Scotland has introduced tiering, notwithstanding 2 additional levels, confirming that even Sturgeon is not favour of a national shutdown
You didn't read Foxy's response to your comments last night then. (Forgive me Foxy if I have misinterpreted via my précis)
1.Non-essentials is a device to deter unnecessary shopping.
2. Your end of life visiting issues are an edict from the Westminster Government.
I can't say I am pleased at not working for two weeks, however if it allows me the opportunity to work unhindered for the following six weeks to eight weeks I will give it a shot.
On 1, isn't it a political move to assuage the discontent of smaller non-essential retailers closed down but watching the supermarkets open and selling the very same stuff?
So now they see Amazon win more shoppers?
For sure. It's likely to simply be "do something" politics. But I guess you could argue that online shoppers might return to physical shopping after the lockdown, but getting them in the habit of physically shopping somewhere else is worse for smaller retailers.
I don't think it's been shown that online shoppers go back to the shops. It's almost like a ratchet with product classes people are willing to buy online. After they've done it once they don't mind doing it again.
Certainly true in my case. Much as I dislike some of Amazon's corporate behaviour, the fact that you can type in almost anything, usually find what you need and buy within minutes and have it arrive to your door the next day is convenience beyond belief.
In the Wales case, I guess it's simply the politics of the small shopkeepers seeing - or being told by - their customers buying the same stuff down the road at Tesco.
Better keep everything open. Even the SAGE report showed that non-essential shopping has a negligible effect on the R.
The rules need to be strict so people will actually follow them.
Yes, that's why we've been so successful at stopping drug dealing. 🙄
Certainly true in my case. Much as I dislike some of Amazon's corporate behaviour, the fact that you can type in almost anything, usually find what you need and buy within minutes and have it arrive to your door the next day is convenience beyond belief.
Absolutely. If only Amazon had been running Test & Trace ....
It’s a bit out of date but there are lots of causes of death which could be prevented if we completely stopped doing stuff
If we banned all motor transport there would be a significant drop in vehicle related deaths. A significant number of people die of medical complications - perhaps we should ban all medical procedures. Some people are electrocuted - are you proposing that we go off grid? A small number of women die in childbirth - should we prevent all births? Oh wait we’ve already cancelled all medical procedures above.
Locking down the economy was supposed to be a temporary measure to allow NHS capacity to increase, and to allow time to assess the impact. Before the initial lockdown, and part of the delay was the advice that people only have a certain capacity for being locked down, and the scientists didn’t want to start it too soon
Depends what you mean by "lockdown". Driving is highly regulated. There's a huge list of rules, you have to get your car checked for roadworthiness each year, and you aren't allowed to go whatever speed you like. In fact, the speed you're allowed to go depends on not just where you are, but what conditions are like. Similarly safety regulations on medical procedures, retail and industrial electrical goods are there to minimise deaths. In all of the above cases, we find a balance. Nobody is proposing banning all economic activity, and nor is anybody with the slightest shred of decency advocating just letting it rip.
So now that we've established where we are, somewhere between those two end members, we need to find the right place. And like the speed limit, it's perfectly sensible to suggest that as conditions change, so should the rules. Now, are the kinds of lockdowns experienced and/or proposed by some people going too far one way? Is the loosening proposed by others going too far the other way? Perhaps, you can make your own mind up. In truth, I can see both sides of the argument and I'm not ready to commit. I'm glad I don't have to decide. But please don't go around pretending that temporary lockdowns are the same as "banning all motor transport". That's attacking a straw man and doesn't help convince persuadables like me.
The current Welsh option has to be up there as pretty close to banning all motor transport for a fortnight. Its likely to have a similar effect on the numbers - transmission will probably fall, but as the fundamental state of play won't have changed at the end of it, it won't be long before the numbers are back where they are now again - very much like banning driving for a fortnight would cut road deaths for a couple of weeks, but won't make a lot of difference in the long run.
The fundamental problem with lockdowns is the total absence of a coherent endgame. Unless there is some way out of this which doesn't involve everyone getting the disease, lockdowns are pointless but expensive can kicking (rather like the endless Brexit extensions - they only postponed exactly the same issues as everyone started with).
There isn't a silver bullet on the horizon. A vaccine isn't going to be enough (you can tell this from the way that governments are starting to talk about this going on all next year).
At some point lockdowns will stop working entirely, if that hasn't already happened. Based on what's happened in say Boulton over the summer, where various levels lockdown have made almost no difference to case numbers, it's quite possible that point has already pretty much been reached.
People have had enough (I'm honest, I'm one of them), and aren't taking a blind bit of notice of the rules if they even know what they are, so the only practical outworking of the restrictions is the ruination of the businesses forced to close (mind you what a time to own an off licence! It's an ill wind... ).
I read a post on Facebook today which linked to a petition for partners to be allowed to attend scans and all of labour for pregnant women (I think it covered Wales - I don't know the current English rules). Some of the stories in the comments below the post were truly heartbreaking; Women having miscarriages and stillbirths alone with their husbands sat waiting in the carpark. It's hard to explain how angry I felt after reading a few posts, and how outraged I was at the sheer barbarity of the current rules. My sister is currently heavily pregnant and under these rules in Ceredigion, which has a case rate of something like 22 per 100k. Its utterly mad, the more so given that presumably as most women live with their partners, if one has it, they probably both do anyway.
I think we should shield the vulnerable as best we can, then let it go, because the reality is that otherwise its going to go anyway sooner or later, but with the vulnerable unprotected.
As someone else has posted upthread, by January (it's bleak enough in a normal year) the public will be in open rebellion everywhere (lots of them aren't far off now), and nothing the politicians can do then will allow them to regain control. All that's occuring now is just adding extra pointless misery to that which will come from the ravages of the disease when the public mood breaks.
The devil is in the detail. You say we should "shield the vulnerable" but provide zero detail. Vulnerable people still need to eat, still need to access medical care. How do they get to the supermarket if the bus is full of people spewing out virus particles without catching it? How can they sit in a waiting room at the doctor's with coronavirus in the air, and not die from it? And even if some unspecified measures are put in place that will magically keep the vulnerable separate, how do you stop that becoming overwhelmed with people who just don't really want to get sick?
The "shield the vulnerable" mantra reminds me of communism... nice in theory but it doesn't work.
As a side note, I've noticed a LOT that people read something on Facebook or Twitter and get outraged. When I used to be on both platforms I was permanently of the opinion that the country was about to break out into insurrection because LOOK AT THIS CUTE CHILD HE DIED BECAUSE OF AUSTERITY/MUSLIMS/VACCINES/ISRAEL. The sad truth is, it's always a mix of the chronically angry, distillations of real things that happened that may or may not share the context you're talking about, liars, propagandists, and well-meaning idiots. And it's all wrapped up into a nice newsfeed that specifically designed to maximise your outrage, because that's what keeps you coming back for more. You see it in some of the people on here. They've become furious ideologues, certain of the righteousness of their cause and their cause alone. Then they find themselves on here, one of the many interfaces between their clan and another, and they go absolutely mad because "here are some filthy apostates who have been duped by the other clan, how can they be so stupidly partisan all the time?!"
Ok, so my side note ended up longer than my main point. Sorry about that. Just to tie it up, I'm not saying you're wrong about lockdowns, but nor am I saying you're right. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you think it's more clear cut than it really is, and one clue to that is this: you replied to a post recommending we take better care when wielding rhetorical devices, and by the sixth paragraph you were talking about dead babies. That kind of escalation doesn't happen in conversations unless at least one of them is furiously certain about something that is so very clearly uncertain enough that they need to have a conversation about it.
On your first paragraph my wife and I (81 & 77) have no problem shielding nor with the surgery
We have a weekly Asda delivery and our son or daughter pick up our medication from the chemist and leave it in our porch
Since March our surgery has moved to online triage and it has been a great success together with a ban on anyone calling direct at the surgery. When we have had to see either the doctor/nurse we wait in the car park in our car and the doctor/nurse calls us directly into their consulting room passing through the empty waiting areas
Here in Wales Drakeford has stopped supermarkets selling non essential food and terminal ill non covid elderly patients have to choose which child they want to nominate to be at their bedside in their final hours
This is morally bankrupt and of course banning the sale of non essenitial goods drives Amazon and online shopping demand at the further expense of local shopping
Drakeford insists closing down the whole of Wales is only for 17 days and is a one off event, but as we have been in the equivalent of tier 3 ourselves for the last month I expect Drakeford will return us to tier 3 again
He is experimenting with Wales and believe you me both here in Wales and the rest of the UK a moment is fast approaching when the cry will go out 'enough'
It is notable that Scotland has introduced tiering, notwithstanding 2 additional levels, confirming that even Sturgeon is not favour of a national shutdown
You didn't read Foxy's response to your comments last night then. (Forgive me Foxy if I have misinterpreted via my précis)
1.Non-essentials is a device to deter unnecessary shopping.
2. Your end of life visiting issues are an edict from the Westminster Government.
I can't say I am pleased at not working for two weeks, however if it allows me the opportunity to work unhindered for the following six weeks to eight weeks I will give it a shot.
1) Does not work as it drives on line shopping
2) Health and visiting is a Wales NHS decision
If you look at last night's threads 1. is corrected by the Sleeping Bard (no lover of Labour) who explained the non-essential shopping argument came about after the intervention of a Conservative AM to protect smaller shops.
2. Is corrected for you by Dr Fox who gives an example from his own family of a similar situation regarding his wife and her sister in the Isle of Wight.
Make your point by all means but check your facts first.
With respect I am not talking about visiting in England
My son in laws mother remains in hospital in a grave condition and neither he nor his sister are allowed to visit.
Furthermore their father is in care and they are not allowed to visit either.
This is morally indefensible and causing great family stress and all this under the Wales NHS
The current reporting standard is 28 days after diagnosis.
Pretty Certain the FTSE hasn't been at 6238 for a good while.
Not since the markets plunged in mid March
It was around that level in summer. Back when this news was first reported and the deaths reporting standard was changed. I have no idea why isam posted that tweet.
Sorry, yes you are right. Pulled up an unhelpful graph.
Although the person in the clip referring to February still raises the possibility it was filmed during the beginning of the crisis in March
@Roy_G_Biv and @theProle make valid points as did the poster last night on visiting restrictions in Hospices.
The problem is that "shielding the vulnerable" requires just those sort of measures. Cancer patients and pregnant women are in the vulnerable groups, and open visiting is the direct opposite of shielding.
Indeed even these visiting rules are too lax if the "herd immunity" enthusiasts of the Great Barrington Declaration get their way.
Surely scaling up rapid antigen testing is the answer here. The nanopore machines have bandwidth for hundreds of simultaneous tests and give results within 20 minutes. I don't understand why one hasn't been put in every single hospital in the country with staff, patients and visitors tested daily.
Have they got regulatory approval though? There are all kinds of manufacturers claiming 99% specificity and sensitivity on their tests but these claims often turn out not true...
The rapid antigen tests don't (yet) have the same sensitivity as PCR, but can give an instant result, and detect those with the highest viral loads. The reason, I think, that they've not been approved is that they're being assessed as an alternative to PCR, which they're not. Properly used, they would do a different job - testing the asymptomatic, and picking up the majority of those with high enough viral loads to be infectious.
PCR doesn't have, and won't ever have, sufficient capacity to test large portions of the population regularly.
I would really appreciate it if you'd just take two seconds to remove my tag from the massive thread for the next person to respond to it, it will take literally two seconds to do it.
Would be most grateful.
What's the subject of the thread? I don't know which one you're referring to.
It’s a bit out of date but there are lots of causes of death which could be prevented if we completely stopped doing stuff
If we banned all motor transport there would be a significant drop in vehicle related deaths. A significant number of people die of medical complications - perhaps we should ban all medical procedures. Some people are electrocuted - are you proposing that we go off grid? A small number of women die in childbirth - should we prevent all births? Oh wait we’ve already cancelled all medical procedures above.
Locking down the economy was supposed to be a temporary measure to allow NHS capacity to increase, and to allow time to assess the impact. Before the initial lockdown, and part of the delay was the advice that people only have a certain capacity for being locked down, and the scientists didn’t want to start it too soon
Depends what you mean by "lockdown". Driving is highly regulated. There's a huge list of rules, you have to get your car checked for roadworthiness each year, and you aren't allowed to go whatever speed you like. In fact, the speed you're allowed to go depends on not just where you are, but what conditions are like. Similarly safety regulations on medical procedures, retail and industrial electrical goods are there to minimise deaths. In all of the above cases, we find a balance. Nobody is proposing banning all economic activity, and nor is anybody with the slightest shred of decency advocating just letting it rip.
So now that we've established where we are, somewhere between those two end members, we need to find the right place. And like the speed limit, it's perfectly sensible to suggest that as conditions change, so should the rules. Now, are the kinds of lockdowns experienced and/or proposed by some people going too far one way? Is the loosening proposed by others going too far the other way? Perhaps, you can make your own mind up. In truth, I can see both sides of the argument and I'm not ready to commit. I'm glad I don't have to decide. But please don't go around pretending that temporary lockdowns are the same as "banning all motor transport". That's attacking a straw man and doesn't help convince persuadables like me.
The current Welsh option has to be up there as pretty close to banning all motor transport for a fortnight. Its likely to have a similar effect on the numbers - transmission will probably fall, but as the fundamental state of play won't have changed at the end of it, it won't be long before the numbers are back where they are now again - very much like banning driving for a fortnight would cut road deaths for a couple of weeks, but won't make a lot of difference in the long run.
The fundamental problem with lockdowns is the total absence of a coherent endgame. Unless there is some way out of this which doesn't involve everyone getting the disease, lockdowns are pointless but expensive can kicking (rather like the endless Brexit extensions - they only postponed exactly the same issues as everyone started with).
There isn't a silver bullet on the horizon. A vaccine isn't going to be enough (you can tell this from the way that governments are starting to talk about this going on all next year).
At some point lockdowns will stop working entirely, if that hasn't already happened. Based on what's happened in say Boulton over the summer, where various levels lockdown have made almost no difference to case numbers, it's quite possible that point has already pretty much been reached.
People have had enough (I'm honest, I'm one of them), and aren't taking a blind bit of notice of the rules if they even know what they are, so the only practical outworking of the restrictions is the ruination of the businesses forced to close (mind you what a time to own an off licence! It's an ill wind... ).
I read a post on Facebook today which linked to a petition for partners to be allowed to attend scans and all of labour for pregnant women (I think it covered Wales - I don't know the current English rules). Some of the stories in the comments below the post were truly heartbreaking; Women having miscarriages and stillbirths alone with their husbands sat waiting in the carpark. It's hard to explain how angry I felt after reading a few posts, and how outraged I was at the sheer barbarity of the current rules. My sister is currently heavily pregnant and under these rules in Ceredigion, which has a case rate of something like 22 per 100k. Its utterly mad, the more so given that presumably as most women live with their partners, if one has it, they probably both do anyway.
I think we should shield the vulnerable as best we can, then let it go, because the reality is that otherwise its going to go anyway sooner or later, but with the vulnerable unprotected.
As someone else has posted upthread, by January (it's bleak enough in a normal year) the public will be in open rebellion everywhere (lots of them aren't far off now), and nothing the politicians can do then will allow them to regain control. All that's occuring now is just adding extra pointless misery to that which will come from the ravages of the disease when the public mood breaks.
The devil is in the detail. You say we should "shield the vulnerable" but provide zero detail. Vulnerable people still need to eat, still need to access medical care. How do they get to the supermarket if the bus is full of people spewing out virus particles without catching it? How can they sit in a waiting room at the doctor's with coronavirus in the air, and not die from it? And even if some unspecified measures are put in place that will magically keep the vulnerable separate, how do you stop that becoming overwhelmed with people who just don't really want to get sick?
The "shield the vulnerable" mantra reminds me of communism... nice in theory but it doesn't work.
As a side note, I've noticed a LOT that people read something on Facebook or Twitter and get outraged. When I used to be on both platforms I was permanently of the opinion that the country was about to break out into insurrection because LOOK AT THIS CUTE CHILD HE DIED BECAUSE OF AUSTERITY/MUSLIMS/VACCINES/ISRAEL. The sad truth is, it's always a mix of the chronically angry, distillations of real things that happened that may or may not share the context you're talking about, liars, propagandists, and well-meaning idiots. And it's all wrapped up into a nice newsfeed that specifically designed to maximise your outrage, because that's what keeps you coming back for more. You see it in some of the people on here. They've become furious ideologues, certain of the righteousness of their cause and their cause alone. Then they find themselves on here, one of the many interfaces between their clan and another, and they go absolutely mad because "here are some filthy apostates who have been duped by the other clan, how can they be so stupidly partisan all the time?!"
Ok, so my side note ended up longer than my main point. Sorry about that. Just to tie it up, I'm not saying you're wrong about lockdowns, but nor am I saying you're right. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you think it's more clear cut than it really is, and one clue to that is this: you replied to a post recommending we take better care when wielding rhetorical devices, and by the sixth paragraph you were talking about dead babies. That kind of escalation doesn't happen in conversations unless at least one of them is furiously certain about something that is so very clearly uncertain enough that they need to have a conversation about it.
On your first paragraph my wife and I (81 & 77) have no problem shielding nor with the surgery
We have a weekly Asda delivery and our son or daughter pick up our medication from the chemist and leave it in our porch
Since March our surgery has moved to online triage and it has been a great success together with a ban on anyone calling direct at the surgery. When we have had to see either the doctor/nurse we wait in the car park in our car and the doctor/nurse calls us directly into their consulting room passing through the empty waiting areas
Here in Wales Drakeford has stopped supermarkets selling non essential food and terminal ill non covid elderly patients have to choose which child they want to nominate to be at their bedside in their final hours
This is morally bankrupt and of course banning the sale of non essenitial goods drives Amazon and online shopping demand at the further expense of local shopping
Drakeford insists closing down the whole of Wales is only for 17 days and is a one off event, but as we have been in the equivalent of tier 3 ourselves for the last month I expect Drakeford will return us to tier 3 again
He is experimenting with Wales and believe you me both here in Wales and the rest of the UK a moment is fast approaching when the cry will go out 'enough'
It is notable that Scotland has introduced tiering, notwithstanding 2 additional levels, confirming that even Sturgeon is not favour of a national shutdown
You didn't read Foxy's response to your comments last night then. (Forgive me Foxy if I have misinterpreted via my précis)
1.Non-essentials is a device to deter unnecessary shopping.
2. Your end of life visiting issues are an edict from the Westminster Government.
I can't say I am pleased at not working for two weeks, however if it allows me the opportunity to work unhindered for the following six weeks to eight weeks I will give it a shot.
1) Does not work as it drives on line shopping
2) Health and visiting is a Wales NHS decision
If you look at last night's threads 1. is corrected by the Sleeping Bard (no lover of Labour) who explained the non-essential shopping argument came about after the intervention of a Conservative AM to protect smaller shops.
2. Is corrected for you by Dr Fox who gives an example from his own family of a similar situation regarding his wife and her sister in the Isle of Wight.
Make your point by all means but check your facts first.
With respect I am not talking about visiting in England
My son in laws mother remains in hospital in a grave condition and neither he nor his sister are allowed to visit.
Furthermore their father is in care and they are not allowed to visit either.
This is morally indefensible and causing great family stress and all this under the Wales NHS
Read Foxy's post on the previous thread it will correct your mistaken assertion.
Didn't watch the debate but, to echo others here, the mood music appears to be that Trump didn't create any major new gaffes and restrained himself. As others have said, that will probably be enough for more reluctant Republicans or even some independents to vote for him, especially given some of the issues at stake.
Funnily enough, the main thing that seemed to trend on social media was Joe Biden's reference to Hitler.
It’s a bit out of date but there are lots of causes of death which could be prevented if we completely stopped doing stuff
If we banned all motor transport there would be a significant drop in vehicle related deaths. A significant number of people die of medical complications - perhaps we should ban all medical procedures. Some people are electrocuted - are you proposing that we go off grid? A small number of women die in childbirth - should we prevent all births? Oh wait we’ve already cancelled all medical procedures above.
Locking down the economy was supposed to be a temporary measure to allow NHS capacity to increase, and to allow time to assess the impact. Before the initial lockdown, and part of the delay was the advice that people only have a certain capacity for being locked down, and the scientists didn’t want to start it too soon
Depends what you mean by "lockdown". Driving is highly regulated. There's a huge list of rules, you have to get your car checked for roadworthiness each year, and you aren't allowed to go whatever speed you like. In fact, the speed you're allowed to go depends on not just where you are, but what conditions are like. Similarly safety regulations on medical procedures, retail and industrial electrical goods are there to minimise deaths. In all of the above cases, we find a balance. Nobody is proposing banning all economic activity, and nor is anybody with the slightest shred of decency advocating just letting it rip.
So now that we've established where we are, somewhere between those two end members, we need to find the right place. And like the speed limit, it's perfectly sensible to suggest that as conditions change, so should the rules. Now, are the kinds of lockdowns experienced and/or proposed by some people going too far one way? Is the loosening proposed by others going too far the other way? Perhaps, you can make your own mind up. In truth, I can see both sides of the argument and I'm not ready to commit. I'm glad I don't have to decide. But please don't go around pretending that temporary lockdowns are the same as "banning all motor transport". That's attacking a straw man and doesn't help convince persuadables like me.
The current Welsh option has to be up there as pretty close to banning all motor transport for a fortnight. Its likely to have a similar effect on the numbers - transmission will probably fall, but as the fundamental state of play won't have changed at the end of it, it won't be long before the numbers are back where they are now again - very much like banning driving for a fortnight would cut road deaths for a couple of weeks, but won't make a lot of difference in the long run.
The fundamental problem with lockdowns is the total absence of a coherent endgame. Unless there is some way out of this which doesn't involve everyone getting the disease, lockdowns are pointless but expensive can kicking (rather like the endless Brexit extensions - they only postponed exactly the same issues as everyone started with).
There isn't a silver bullet on the horizon. A vaccine isn't going to be enough (you can tell this from the way that governments are starting to talk about this going on all next year).
At some point lockdowns will stop working entirely, if that hasn't already happened. Based on what's happened in say Boulton over the summer, where various levels lockdown have made almost no difference to case numbers, it's quite possible that point has already pretty much been reached.
People have had enough (I'm honest, I'm one of them), and aren't taking a blind bit of notice of the rules if they even know what they are, so the only practical outworking of the restrictions is the ruination of the businesses forced to close (mind you what a time to own an off licence! It's an ill wind... ).
I read a post on Facebook today which linked to a petition for partners to be allowed to attend scans and all of labour for pregnant women (I think it covered Wales - I don't know the current English rules). Some of the stories in the comments below the post were truly heartbreaking; Women having miscarriages and stillbirths alone with their husbands sat waiting in the carpark. It's hard to explain how angry I felt after reading a few posts, and how outraged I was at the sheer barbarity of the current rules. My sister is currently heavily pregnant and under these rules in Ceredigion, which has a case rate of something like 22 per 100k. Its utterly mad, the more so given that presumably as most women live with their partners, if one has it, they probably both do anyway.
I think we should shield the vulnerable as best we can, then let it go, because the reality is that otherwise its going to go anyway sooner or later, but with the vulnerable unprotected.
As someone else has posted upthread, by January (it's bleak enough in a normal year) the public will be in open rebellion everywhere (lots of them aren't far off now), and nothing the politicians can do then will allow them to regain control. All that's occuring now is just adding extra pointless misery to that which will come from the ravages of the disease when the public mood breaks.
The devil is in the detail. You say we should "shield the vulnerable" but provide zero detail. Vulnerable people still need to eat, still need to access medical care. How do they get to the supermarket if the bus is full of people spewing out virus particles without catching it? How can they sit in a waiting room at the doctor's with coronavirus in the air, and not die from it? And even if some unspecified measures are put in place that will magically keep the vulnerable separate, how do you stop that becoming overwhelmed with people who just don't really want to get sick?
The "shield the vulnerable" mantra reminds me of communism... nice in theory but it doesn't work.
As a side note, I've noticed a LOT that people read something on Facebook or Twitter and get outraged. When I used to be on both platforms I was permanently of the opinion that the country was about to break out into insurrection because LOOK AT THIS CUTE CHILD HE DIED BECAUSE OF AUSTERITY/MUSLIMS/VACCINES/ISRAEL. The sad truth is, it's always a mix of the chronically angry, distillations of real things that happened that may or may not share the context you're talking about, liars, propagandists, and well-meaning idiots. And it's all wrapped up into a nice newsfeed that specifically designed to maximise your outrage, because that's what keeps you coming back for more. You see it in some of the people on here. They've become furious ideologues, certain of the righteousness of their cause and their cause alone. Then they find themselves on here, one of the many interfaces between their clan and another, and they go absolutely mad because "here are some filthy apostates who have been duped by the other clan, how can they be so stupidly partisan all the time?!"
Ok, so my side note ended up longer than my main point. Sorry about that. Just to tie it up, I'm not saying you're wrong about lockdowns, but nor am I saying you're right. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you think it's more clear cut than it really is, and one clue to that is this: you replied to a post recommending we take better care when wielding rhetorical devices, and by the sixth paragraph you were talking about dead babies. That kind of escalation doesn't happen in conversations unless at least one of them is furiously certain about something that is so very clearly uncertain enough that they need to have a conversation about it.
On your first paragraph my wife and I (81 & 77) have no problem shielding nor with the surgery
We have a weekly Asda delivery and our son or daughter pick up our medication from the chemist and leave it in our porch
Since March our surgery has moved to online triage and it has been a great success together with a ban on anyone calling direct at the surgery. When we have had to see either the doctor/nurse we wait in the car park in our car and the doctor/nurse calls us directly into their consulting room passing through the empty waiting areas
Here in Wales Drakeford has stopped supermarkets selling non essential food and terminal ill non covid elderly patients have to choose which child they want to nominate to be at their bedside in their final hours
This is morally bankrupt and of course banning the sale of non essenitial goods drives Amazon and online shopping demand at the further expense of local shopping
Drakeford insists closing down the whole of Wales is only for 17 days and is a one off event, but as we have been in the equivalent of tier 3 ourselves for the last month I expect Drakeford will return us to tier 3 again
He is experimenting with Wales and believe you me both here in Wales and the rest of the UK a moment is fast approaching when the cry will go out 'enough'
It is notable that Scotland has introduced tiering, notwithstanding 2 additional levels, confirming that even Sturgeon is not favour of a national shutdown
You didn't read Foxy's response to your comments last night then. (Forgive me Foxy if I have misinterpreted via my précis)
1.Non-essentials is a device to deter unnecessary shopping.
2. Your end of life visiting issues are an edict from the Westminster Government.
I can't say I am pleased at not working for two weeks, however if it allows me the opportunity to work unhindered for the following six weeks to eight weeks I will give it a shot.
1) Does not work as it drives on line shopping
Since when did politicians only do things because they work?
I am highly confident this lockdown will work, the first one did and is the only thing that worked.
Which is changing the subject. And true only in the sense that it bought us six months during which remarkably little has been achieved.
Didn't watch the debate but, to echo others here, the mood music appears to be that Trump didn't create any major new gaffes and restrained himself. As others have said, that will probably be enough for more reluctant Republicans or even some independents to vote for him, especially given some of the issues at stake.
Funnily enough, the main thing that seemed to trend on social media was Joe Biden's reference to Hitler.
Frank Luntz's polling groups reflect him I think - out and out GOP hacks masquerading as "undecideds"
His focus groups always seem to come to the opposite conclusion to the pollsters. Not impossible but highly suspicious given his role as a GOP strategist. I'd bet that the 3 polls are giving a more accurate reflection, particularly as all 3 give a remarkably similar result.
Arent they trying to measure different things? The opinion polls are a sample of all voters, the focus groups undecided voters. There is no reason to expect the two to be similar.
This is very hard to watch. Not very illuminating. Jumbled sentences from both of them. I don't think it will change many votes. I don't think Trump will actually lose votes this time, but nor will he gain them. It is not the game changer that Trump needs.
If you believe Trafalgar or Rasmussen and IBID/TIPP he does not need a game changer, just not to lose any support tonight
If you believe the poll modellers like The Economist or Nate Silver, he most certainly does need a game changer.
If Nate Silver was right in 2016 Hillary Clinton would have won over 300 EC votes and now be President
How many times.....? Nate Silver's group was 28% right, which was more pro Trump than any of the other groups giving probability predictions for the 2016 election.
Or to put it another way, Biden is in a much better position in the polling than Clinton was 4 years ago and has been for months. If HYUFD really believes Trump should be favorite it's not based on any evidence.
Experience. Few predicted 2016 result.
Experience should teach you not to fall into the normalcy bias mistake. It happened with me in 2019 when I assumed Corbyn would repeat 2015.
The circumstances this time around are vastly, viscerally, different from 2016. The polls don't lie. They didn't in 2019 and they're not in 2020. But it's much more than that. The GOP have distanced themselves from their President. They know they've lost.
And lost big.
I'm going to use 538 and compare Trump's popular vote forecast lead with that of the Republican candidate in the closest Senate races. IA Trump +0.3 GOP -1.0 GA Trump 0.0 GOP +2.6 NC Trump -2.3 GOP -2.9 MT Trump +10.2 GOP +3.0 ME Trump -12.1 GOP -3.0 KS Trump +10.6 GOP +4.9 SC Trump +7.9 GOP +5.2 AZ Trump -2.9 GOP -6.0 AL Trump +19.2 GOP +6.2 AK Trump +7.4 GOP +6.3 MI Trump -7.9 GOP -6.4 CO Trump -11.7 GOP -7.7 TX Trump +2.1 GOP +8.1 MS Trump +13.2 GOP +9.1 MN Trump -7.7 GOP -12.0 KY Trump +19.1 GOP +13.4 ---- Mean Trump +2.8 GOP +1.2
I don't want this to be true, but Trump still looks like he is an electoral asset for the Republicans. I want American voters to judge him so badly that he drags the whole GOP down with him. But the numbers don't show that story.
Otherwise Republican Senate candidates should be outperforming Trump.
Trump won the biggest electoral college victory for the Republicans since Bush Snr in 1988 and he won Wisconsin for the first time for a Republican presidential candidate since Reagan in 1984, in the rustbelt he is an electoral asset for the GOP compared to a generic Republican, in California he certainly is not (Hillary won California by an even bigger percentage than Obama did in 2008 or 2012 for example) but it is the former he needs for EC victory, he can afford to lose California heavily and the popular vote
It’s a bit out of date but there are lots of causes of death which could be prevented if we completely stopped doing stuff
If we banned all motor transport there would be a significant drop in vehicle related deaths. A significant number of people die of medical complications - perhaps we should ban all medical procedures. Some people are electrocuted - are you proposing that we go off grid? A small number of women die in childbirth - should we prevent all births? Oh wait we’ve already cancelled all medical procedures above.
Locking down the economy was supposed to be a temporary measure to allow NHS capacity to increase, and to allow time to assess the impact. Before the initial lockdown, and part of the delay was the advice that people only have a certain capacity for being locked down, and the scientists didn’t want to start it too soon
Depends what you mean by "lockdown". Driving is highly regulated. There's a huge list of rules, you have to get your car checked for roadworthiness each year, and you aren't allowed to go whatever speed you like. In fact, the speed you're allowed to go depends on not just where you are, but what conditions are like. Similarly safety regulations on medical procedures, retail and industrial electrical goods are there to minimise deaths. In all of the above cases, we find a balance. Nobody is proposing banning all economic activity, and nor is anybody with the slightest shred of decency advocating just letting it rip.
So now that we've established where we are, somewhere between those two end members, we need to find the right place. And like the speed limit, it's perfectly sensible to suggest that as conditions change, so should the rules. Now, are the kinds of lockdowns experienced and/or proposed by some people going too far one way? Is the loosening proposed by others going too far the other way? Perhaps, you can make your own mind up. In truth, I can see both sides of the argument and I'm not ready to commit. I'm glad I don't have to decide. But please don't go around pretending that temporary lockdowns are the same as "banning all motor transport". That's attacking a straw man and doesn't help convince persuadables like me.
The current Welsh option has to be up there as pretty close to banning all motor transport for a fortnight. Its likely to have a similar effect on the numbers - transmission will probably fall, but as the fundamental state of play won't have changed at the end of it, it won't be long before the numbers are back where they are now again - very much like banning driving for a fortnight would cut road deaths for a couple of weeks, but won't make a lot of difference in the long run.
The fundamental problem with lockdowns is the total absence of a coherent endgame. Unless there is some way out of this which doesn't involve everyone getting the disease, lockdowns are pointless but expensive can kicking (rather like the endless Brexit extensions - they only postponed exactly the same issues as everyone started with).
There isn't a silver bullet on the horizon. A vaccine isn't going to be enough (you can tell this from the way that governments are starting to talk about this going on all next year).
At some point lockdowns will stop working entirely, if that hasn't already happened. Based on what's happened in say Boulton over the summer, where various levels lockdown have made almost no difference to case numbers, it's quite possible that point has already pretty much been reached.
People have had enough (I'm honest, I'm one of them), and aren't taking a blind bit of notice of the rules if they even know what they are, so the only practical outworking of the restrictions is the ruination of the businesses forced to close (mind you what a time to own an off licence! It's an ill wind... ).
I read a post on Facebook today which linked to a petition for partners to be allowed to attend scans and all of labour for pregnant women (I think it covered Wales - I don't know the current English rules). Some of the stories in the comments below the post were truly heartbreaking; Women having miscarriages and stillbirths alone with their husbands sat waiting in the carpark. It's hard to explain how angry I felt after reading a few posts, and how outraged I was at the sheer barbarity of the current rules. My sister is currently heavily pregnant and under these rules in Ceredigion, which has a case rate of something like 22 per 100k. Its utterly mad, the more so given that presumably as most women live with their partners, if one has it, they probably both do anyway.
I think we should shield the vulnerable as best we can, then let it go, because the reality is that otherwise its going to go anyway sooner or later, but with the vulnerable unprotected.
As someone else has posted upthread, by January (it's bleak enough in a normal year) the public will be in open rebellion everywhere (lots of them aren't far off now), and nothing the politicians can do then will allow them to regain control. All that's occuring now is just adding extra pointless misery to that which will come from the ravages of the disease when the public mood breaks.
The devil is in the detail. You say we should "shield the vulnerable" but provide zero detail. Vulnerable people still need to eat, still need to access medical care. How do they get to the supermarket if the bus is full of people spewing out virus particles without catching it? How can they sit in a waiting room at the doctor's with coronavirus in the air, and not die from it? And even if some unspecified measures are put in place that will magically keep the vulnerable separate, how do you stop that becoming overwhelmed with people who just don't really want to get sick?
The "shield the vulnerable" mantra reminds me of communism... nice in theory but it doesn't work.
As a side note, I've noticed a LOT that people read something on Facebook or Twitter and get outraged. When I used to be on both platforms I was permanently of the opinion that the country was about to break out into insurrection because LOOK AT THIS CUTE CHILD HE DIED BECAUSE OF AUSTERITY/MUSLIMS/VACCINES/ISRAEL. The sad truth is, it's always a mix of the chronically angry, distillations of real things that happened that may or may not share the context you're talking about, liars, propagandists, and well-meaning idiots. And it's all wrapped up into a nice newsfeed that specifically designed to maximise your outrage, because that's what keeps you coming back for more. You see it in some of the people on here. They've become furious ideologues, certain of the righteousness of their cause and their cause alone. Then they find themselves on here, one of the many interfaces between their clan and another, and they go absolutely mad because "here are some filthy apostates who have been duped by the other clan, how can they be so stupidly partisan all the time?!"
Ok, so my side note ended up longer than my main point. Sorry about that. Just to tie it up, I'm not saying you're wrong about lockdowns, but nor am I saying you're right. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you think it's more clear cut than it really is, and one clue to that is this: you replied to a post recommending we take better care when wielding rhetorical devices, and by the sixth paragraph you were talking about dead babies. That kind of escalation doesn't happen in conversations unless at least one of them is furiously certain about something that is so very clearly uncertain enough that they need to have a conversation about it.
On your first paragraph my wife and I (81 & 77) have no problem shielding nor with the surgery
We have a weekly Asda delivery and our son or daughter pick up our medication from the chemist and leave it in our porch
Since March our surgery has moved to online triage and it has been a great success together with a ban on anyone calling direct at the surgery. When we have had to see either the doctor/nurse we wait in the car park in our car and the doctor/nurse calls us directly into their consulting room passing through the empty waiting areas
Here in Wales Drakeford has stopped supermarkets selling non essential food and terminal ill non covid elderly patients have to choose which child they want to nominate to be at their bedside in their final hours
This is morally bankrupt and of course banning the sale of non essenitial goods drives Amazon and online shopping demand at the further expense of local shopping
Drakeford insists closing down the whole of Wales is only for 17 days and is a one off event, but as we have been in the equivalent of tier 3 ourselves for the last month I expect Drakeford will return us to tier 3 again
He is experimenting with Wales and believe you me both here in Wales and the rest of the UK a moment is fast approaching when the cry will go out 'enough'
It is notable that Scotland has introduced tiering, notwithstanding 2 additional levels, confirming that even Sturgeon is not favour of a national shutdown
You didn't read Foxy's response to your comments last night then. (Forgive me Foxy if I have misinterpreted via my précis)
1.Non-essentials is a device to deter unnecessary shopping.
2. Your end of life visiting issues are an edict from the Westminster Government.
I can't say I am pleased at not working for two weeks, however if it allows me the opportunity to work unhindered for the following six weeks to eight weeks I will give it a shot.
On 1, isn't it a political move to assuage the discontent of smaller non-essential retailers closed down but watching the supermarkets open and selling the very same stuff?
The other thing that came to mind was how many different types of tins of shortbread, fudge, etc, would you have to sell to qualify as opening as a food retailer, who just happened to sell all this other stuff as well.
The reason the rule is absurd is because the whole situation is absurd, but if your choice is between absurdity and mass death, then you've clearly wasted the last seven months in failing to come up with a better alternative.
The rule is fine.
You haven't a clue
I am disappointed in you BigG. You have been incredibly rude to Horse over the last 24 hours. I didn't expect that from you.
Saying the rule is fine when it abundantly is not and as evidenced by posters on here is not rude, just stating the obvious
I think that's probably true but what a boring PB that would be.
Actually I think it would be a lot better. When do you ever read a comment on the lines of ‘Actually I hadn’t thought of that, what a thoughtful post’? It is the constant trolling, point scoring and refusal to agree with someone on any subject if they disagree on Brexit/Indy/Boris etc that is boring, because it’s the same every day, and doesn’t seem to me to be borne out of anything other than stubbornness or spite
I agree, and look forward to you cutting back on your relentless Starmer is boring/has no personality posts!
That’s not the same thing at all though. I looked into the personality ratings to see whether the public vote people they consider to be relatively boring as PM. The only one in the last 40 years they have is John Major, and never a LoTO. In my opinion that is relevant to betting on the next GE, it’s not trolling people on here, if there are any, who think Starmer is actually a right good laugh. In fact it’s an example of where people might say “I hadn’t considered that, interesting” but prefer to say “Boris is a clown” “This time it’s different” or “Will you stop going on about it?”
I’m not trolling Starmer, just reminding people that a boring LoTO doesn’t usually become PM, regardless of midterm VI and Leader ratings.
This place used to be full of analysis like that, now it’s just a partisan smart arse, point scoring fest, which is a shame
LotO, not PM: Foot, Kinnock, Smith, Hague, Howard, Duncan-Smith, Miliband, Corbyn PM, not LotO: Major, Brown, May, Johnson both: [Thatcher], Blair, Cameron unknown: Starmer (did I miss anyone?)
I have to say, there's not a lot of data points there
"Sales by retailers in Great Britain directly to end consumers, including spending on goods (in store and online) (Retail Sales Index) and spending on services (Index of Services). The industry as a whole is used as an indicator of how the wider economy is performing and the strength of consumer spending."
The RSI Internet shows month-on-month growth of 13% in March, 17% in April, 16% in May, 14% in June, -10% in July, -5% in August and par in September. October will surely be up again. Compound all that together and you can see where the growth is.
There is also the big switch from catering - particularly workers eating out or getting takeaways at lunchtime, including in work canteens - to buying more food to be consumed at home.
@Roy_G_Biv and @theProle make valid points as did the poster last night on visiting restrictions in Hospices.
The problem is that "shielding the vulnerable" requires just those sort of measures. Cancer patients and pregnant women are in the vulnerable groups, and open visiting is the direct opposite of shielding.
Indeed even these visiting rules are too lax if the "herd immunity" enthusiasts of the Great Barrington Declaration get their way.
Surely scaling up rapid antigen testing is the answer here. The nanopore machines have bandwidth for hundreds of simultaneous tests and give results within 20 minutes. I don't understand why one hasn't been put in every single hospital in the country with staff, patients and visitors tested daily.
Have they got regulatory approval though? There are all kinds of manufacturers claiming 99% specificity and sensitivity on their tests but these claims often turn out not true...
The rapid antigen tests don't (yet) have the same sensitivity as PCR, but can give an instant result, and detect those with the highest viral loads. The reason, I think, that they've not been approved is that they're being assessed as an alternative to PCR, which they're not. Properly used, they would do a different job - testing the asymptomatic, and picking up the majority of those with high enough viral loads to be infectious.
PCR doesn't have, and won't ever have, sufficient capacity to test large portions of the population regularly.
I thought nanopore and DNAnudge have been approved for wide use?
It’s a bit out of date but there are lots of causes of death which could be prevented if we completely stopped doing stuff
If we banned all motor transport there would be a significant drop in vehicle related deaths. A significant number of people die of medical complications - perhaps we should ban all medical procedures. Some people are electrocuted - are you proposing that we go off grid? A small number of women die in childbirth - should we prevent all births? Oh wait we’ve already cancelled all medical procedures above.
Locking down the economy was supposed to be a temporary measure to allow NHS capacity to increase, and to allow time to assess the impact. Before the initial lockdown, and part of the delay was the advice that people only have a certain capacity for being locked down, and the scientists didn’t want to start it too soon
Depends what you mean by "lockdown". Driving is highly regulated. There's a huge list of rules, you have to get your car checked for roadworthiness each year, and you aren't allowed to go whatever speed you like. In fact, the speed you're allowed to go depends on not just where you are, but what conditions are like. Similarly safety regulations on medical procedures, retail and industrial electrical goods are there to minimise deaths. In all of the above cases, we find a balance. Nobody is proposing banning all economic activity, and nor is anybody with the slightest shred of decency advocating just letting it rip.
So now that we've established where we are, somewhere between those two end members, we need to find the right place. And like the speed limit, it's perfectly sensible to suggest that as conditions change, so should the rules. Now, are the kinds of lockdowns experienced and/or proposed by some people going too far one way? Is the loosening proposed by others going too far the other way? Perhaps, you can make your own mind up. In truth, I can see both sides of the argument and I'm not ready to commit. I'm glad I don't have to decide. But please don't go around pretending that temporary lockdowns are the same as "banning all motor transport". That's attacking a straw man and doesn't help convince persuadables like me.
The current Welsh option has to be up there as pretty close to banning all motor transport for a fortnight. Its likely to have a similar effect on the numbers - transmission will probably fall, but as the fundamental state of play won't have changed at the end of it, it won't be long before the numbers are back where they are now again - very much like banning driving for a fortnight would cut road deaths for a couple of weeks, but won't make a lot of difference in the long run.
The fundamental problem with lockdowns is the total absence of a coherent endgame. Unless there is some way out of this which doesn't involve everyone getting the disease, lockdowns are pointless but expensive can kicking (rather like the endless Brexit extensions - they only postponed exactly the same issues as everyone started with).
There isn't a silver bullet on the horizon. A vaccine isn't going to be enough (you can tell this from the way that governments are starting to talk about this going on all next year).
At some point lockdowns will stop working entirely, if that hasn't already happened. Based on what's happened in say Boulton over the summer, where various levels lockdown have made almost no difference to case numbers, it's quite possible that point has already pretty much been reached.
People have had enough (I'm honest, I'm one of them), and aren't taking a blind bit of notice of the rules if they even know what they are, so the only practical outworking of the restrictions is the ruination of the businesses forced to close (mind you what a time to own an off licence! It's an ill wind... ).
I read a post on Facebook today which linked to a petition for partners to be allowed to attend scans and all of labour for pregnant women (I think it covered Wales - I don't know the current English rules). Some of the stories in the comments below the post were truly heartbreaking; Women having miscarriages and stillbirths alone with their husbands sat waiting in the carpark. It's hard to explain how angry I felt after reading a few posts, and how outraged I was at the sheer barbarity of the current rules. My sister is currently heavily pregnant and under these rules in Ceredigion, which has a case rate of something like 22 per 100k. Its utterly mad, the more so given that presumably as most women live with their partners, if one has it, they probably both do anyway.
I think we should shield the vulnerable as best we can, then let it go, because the reality is that otherwise its going to go anyway sooner or later, but with the vulnerable unprotected.
As someone else has posted upthread, by January (it's bleak enough in a normal year) the public will be in open rebellion everywhere (lots of them aren't far off now), and nothing the politicians can do then will allow them to regain control. All that's occuring now is just adding extra pointless misery to that which will come from the ravages of the disease when the public mood breaks.
The devil is in the detail. You say we should "shield the vulnerable" but provide zero detail. Vulnerable people still need to eat, still need to access medical care. How do they get to the supermarket if the bus is full of people spewing out virus particles without catching it? How can they sit in a waiting room at the doctor's with coronavirus in the air, and not die from it? And even if some unspecified measures are put in place that will magically keep the vulnerable separate, how do you stop that becoming overwhelmed with people who just don't really want to get sick?
The "shield the vulnerable" mantra reminds me of communism... nice in theory but it doesn't work.
As a side note, I've noticed a LOT that people read something on Facebook or Twitter and get outraged. When I used to be on both platforms I was permanently of the opinion that the country was about to break out into insurrection because LOOK AT THIS CUTE CHILD HE DIED BECAUSE OF AUSTERITY/MUSLIMS/VACCINES/ISRAEL. The sad truth is, it's always a mix of the chronically angry, distillations of real things that happened that may or may not share the context you're talking about, liars, propagandists, and well-meaning idiots. And it's all wrapped up into a nice newsfeed that specifically designed to maximise your outrage, because that's what keeps you coming back for more. You see it in some of the people on here. They've become furious ideologues, certain of the righteousness of their cause and their cause alone. Then they find themselves on here, one of the many interfaces between their clan and another, and they go absolutely mad because "here are some filthy apostates who have been duped by the other clan, how can they be so stupidly partisan all the time?!"
Ok, so my side note ended up longer than my main point. Sorry about that. Just to tie it up, I'm not saying you're wrong about lockdowns, but nor am I saying you're right. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you think it's more clear cut than it really is, and one clue to that is this: you replied to a post recommending we take better care when wielding rhetorical devices, and by the sixth paragraph you were talking about dead babies. That kind of escalation doesn't happen in conversations unless at least one of them is furiously certain about something that is so very clearly uncertain enough that they need to have a conversation about it.
On your first paragraph my wife and I (81 & 77) have no problem shielding nor with the surgery
We have a weekly Asda delivery and our son or daughter pick up our medication from the chemist and leave it in our porch
Since March our surgery has moved to online triage and it has been a great success together with a ban on anyone calling direct at the surgery. When we have had to see either the doctor/nurse we wait in the car park in our car and the doctor/nurse calls us directly into their consulting room passing through the empty waiting areas
Here in Wales Drakeford has stopped supermarkets selling non essential food and terminal ill non covid elderly patients have to choose which child they want to nominate to be at their bedside in their final hours
This is morally bankrupt and of course banning the sale of non essenitial goods drives Amazon and online shopping demand at the further expense of local shopping
Drakeford insists closing down the whole of Wales is only for 17 days and is a one off event, but as we have been in the equivalent of tier 3 ourselves for the last month I expect Drakeford will return us to tier 3 again
He is experimenting with Wales and believe you me both here in Wales and the rest of the UK a moment is fast approaching when the cry will go out 'enough'
It is notable that Scotland has introduced tiering, notwithstanding 2 additional levels, confirming that even Sturgeon is not favour of a national shutdown
You didn't read Foxy's response to your comments last night then. (Forgive me Foxy if I have misinterpreted via my précis)
1.Non-essentials is a device to deter unnecessary shopping.
2. Your end of life visiting issues are an edict from the Westminster Government.
I can't say I am pleased at not working for two weeks, however if it allows me the opportunity to work unhindered for the following six weeks to eight weeks I will give it a shot.
On 1, isn't it a political move to assuage the discontent of smaller non-essential retailers closed down but watching the supermarkets open and selling the very same stuff?
The other thing that came to mind was how many different types of tins of shortbread, fudge, etc, would you have to sell to qualify as opening as a food retailer, who just happened to sell all this other stuff as well.
The reason the rule is absurd is because the whole situation is absurd, but if your choice is between absurdity and mass death, then you've clearly wasted the last seven months in failing to come up with a better alternative.
The rule is fine.
You haven't a clue
I am disappointed in you BigG. You have been incredibly rude to Horse over the last 24 hours. I didn't expect that from you.
I don't engage with bullies but thanks for calling out this behaviour.
It’s a bit out of date but there are lots of causes of death which could be prevented if we completely stopped doing stuff
If we banned all motor transport there would be a significant drop in vehicle related deaths. A significant number of people die of medical complications - perhaps we should ban all medical procedures. Some people are electrocuted - are you proposing that we go off grid? A small number of women die in childbirth - should we prevent all births? Oh wait we’ve already cancelled all medical procedures above.
Locking down the economy was supposed to be a temporary measure to allow NHS capacity to increase, and to allow time to assess the impact. Before the initial lockdown, and part of the delay was the advice that people only have a certain capacity for being locked down, and the scientists didn’t want to start it too soon
Depends what you mean by "lockdown". Driving is highly regulated. There's a huge list of rules, you have to get your car checked for roadworthiness each year, and you aren't allowed to go whatever speed you like. In fact, the speed you're allowed to go depends on not just where you are, but what conditions are like. Similarly safety regulations on medical procedures, retail and industrial electrical goods are there to minimise deaths. In all of the above cases, we find a balance. Nobody is proposing banning all economic activity, and nor is anybody with the slightest shred of decency advocating just letting it rip.
So now that we've established where we are, somewhere between those two end members, we need to find the right place. And like the speed limit, it's perfectly sensible to suggest that as conditions change, so should the rules. Now, are the kinds of lockdowns experienced and/or proposed by some people going too far one way? Is the loosening proposed by others going too far the other way? Perhaps, you can make your own mind up. In truth, I can see both sides of the argument and I'm not ready to commit. I'm glad I don't have to decide. But please don't go around pretending that temporary lockdowns are the same as "banning all motor transport". That's attacking a straw man and doesn't help convince persuadables like me.
The current Welsh option has to be up there as pretty close to banning all motor transport for a fortnight. Its likely to have a similar effect on the numbers - transmission will probably fall, but as the fundamental state of play won't have changed at the end of it, it won't be long before the numbers are back where they are now again - very much like banning driving for a fortnight would cut road deaths for a couple of weeks, but won't make a lot of difference in the long run.
The fundamental problem with lockdowns is the total absence of a coherent endgame. Unless there is some way out of this which doesn't involve everyone getting the disease, lockdowns are pointless but expensive can kicking (rather like the endless Brexit extensions - they only postponed exactly the same issues as everyone started with).
There isn't a silver bullet on the horizon. A vaccine isn't going to be enough (you can tell this from the way that governments are starting to talk about this going on all next year).
At some point lockdowns will stop working entirely, if that hasn't already happened. Based on what's happened in say Boulton over the summer, where various levels lockdown have made almost no difference to case numbers, it's quite possible that point has already pretty much been reached.
People have had enough (I'm honest, I'm one of them), and aren't taking a blind bit of notice of the rules if they even know what they are, so the only practical outworking of the restrictions is the ruination of the businesses forced to close (mind you what a time to own an off licence! It's an ill wind... ).
I read a post on Facebook today which linked to a petition for partners to be allowed to attend scans and all of labour for pregnant women (I think it covered Wales - I don't know the current English rules). Some of the stories in the comments below the post were truly heartbreaking; Women having miscarriages and stillbirths alone with their husbands sat waiting in the carpark. It's hard to explain how angry I felt after reading a few posts, and how outraged I was at the sheer barbarity of the current rules. My sister is currently heavily pregnant and under these rules in Ceredigion, which has a case rate of something like 22 per 100k. Its utterly mad, the more so given that presumably as most women live with their partners, if one has it, they probably both do anyway.
I think we should shield the vulnerable as best we can, then let it go, because the reality is that otherwise its going to go anyway sooner or later, but with the vulnerable unprotected.
As someone else has posted upthread, by January (it's bleak enough in a normal year) the public will be in open rebellion everywhere (lots of them aren't far off now), and nothing the politicians can do then will allow them to regain control. All that's occuring now is just adding extra pointless misery to that which will come from the ravages of the disease when the public mood breaks.
The devil is in the detail. You say we should "shield the vulnerable" but provide zero detail. Vulnerable people still need to eat, still need to access medical care. How do they get to the supermarket if the bus is full of people spewing out virus particles without catching it? How can they sit in a waiting room at the doctor's with coronavirus in the air, and not die from it? And even if some unspecified measures are put in place that will magically keep the vulnerable separate, how do you stop that becoming overwhelmed with people who just don't really want to get sick?
The "shield the vulnerable" mantra reminds me of communism... nice in theory but it doesn't work.
As a side note, I've noticed a LOT that people read something on Facebook or Twitter and get outraged. When I used to be on both platforms I was permanently of the opinion that the country was about to break out into insurrection because LOOK AT THIS CUTE CHILD HE DIED BECAUSE OF AUSTERITY/MUSLIMS/VACCINES/ISRAEL. The sad truth is, it's always a mix of the chronically angry, distillations of real things that happened that may or may not share the context you're talking about, liars, propagandists, and well-meaning idiots. And it's all wrapped up into a nice newsfeed that specifically designed to maximise your outrage, because that's what keeps you coming back for more. You see it in some of the people on here. They've become furious ideologues, certain of the righteousness of their cause and their cause alone. Then they find themselves on here, one of the many interfaces between their clan and another, and they go absolutely mad because "here are some filthy apostates who have been duped by the other clan, how can they be so stupidly partisan all the time?!"
Ok, so my side note ended up longer than my main point. Sorry about that. Just to tie it up, I'm not saying you're wrong about lockdowns, but nor am I saying you're right. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you think it's more clear cut than it really is, and one clue to that is this: you replied to a post recommending we take better care when wielding rhetorical devices, and by the sixth paragraph you were talking about dead babies. That kind of escalation doesn't happen in conversations unless at least one of them is furiously certain about something that is so very clearly uncertain enough that they need to have a conversation about it.
On your first paragraph my wife and I (81 & 77) have no problem shielding nor with the surgery
We have a weekly Asda delivery and our son or daughter pick up our medication from the chemist and leave it in our porch
Since March our surgery has moved to online triage and it has been a great success together with a ban on anyone calling direct at the surgery. When we have had to see either the doctor/nurse we wait in the car park in our car and the doctor/nurse calls us directly into their consulting room passing through the empty waiting areas
Here in Wales Drakeford has stopped supermarkets selling non essential food and terminal ill non covid elderly patients have to choose which child they want to nominate to be at their bedside in their final hours
This is morally bankrupt and of course banning the sale of non essenitial goods drives Amazon and online shopping demand at the further expense of local shopping
Drakeford insists closing down the whole of Wales is only for 17 days and is a one off event, but as we have been in the equivalent of tier 3 ourselves for the last month I expect Drakeford will return us to tier 3 again
He is experimenting with Wales and believe you me both here in Wales and the rest of the UK a moment is fast approaching when the cry will go out 'enough'
It is notable that Scotland has introduced tiering, notwithstanding 2 additional levels, confirming that even Sturgeon is not favour of a national shutdown
You didn't read Foxy's response to your comments last night then. (Forgive me Foxy if I have misinterpreted via my précis)
1.Non-essentials is a device to deter unnecessary shopping.
2. Your end of life visiting issues are an edict from the Westminster Government.
I can't say I am pleased at not working for two weeks, however if it allows me the opportunity to work unhindered for the following six weeks to eight weeks I will give it a shot.
1) Does not work as it drives on line shopping
Since when did politicians only do things because they work?
I am highly confident this lockdown will work, the first one did and is the only thing that worked.
Which is changing the subject. And true only in the sense that it bought us six months during which remarkably little has been achieved.
I think that's probably true but what a boring PB that would be.
Actually I think it would be a lot better. When do you ever read a comment on the lines of ‘Actually I hadn’t thought of that, what a thoughtful post’?
Its not unheard of, though of course not common. People should not feel embarrassed about admitting being wrong, changing their minds or seeing the other side, to anonymous internet weirdos.
Europe is heading for a situation where cases far exceed earlier because of more testing the problems of overstretched icu are starting to appear, one would have thought the best brains could sit down as a group and come up with some common approach. It’s going to be a really shit winter across the continent.
I think that's probably true but what a boring PB that would be.
Actually I think it would be a lot better. When do you ever read a comment on the lines of ‘Actually I hadn’t thought of that, what a thoughtful post’? It is the constant trolling, point scoring and refusal to agree with someone on any subject if they disagree on Brexit/Indy/Boris etc that is boring, because it’s the same every day, and doesn’t seem to me to be borne out of anything other than stubbornness or spite
I agree, and look forward to you cutting back on your relentless Starmer is boring/has no personality posts!
That’s not the same thing at all though. I looked into the personality ratings to see whether the public vote people they consider to be relatively boring as PM. The only one in the last 40 years they have is John Major, and never a LoTO. In my opinion that is relevant to betting on the next GE, it’s not trolling people on here, if there are any, who think Starmer is actually a right good laugh. In fact it’s an example of where people might say “I hadn’t considered that, interesting” but prefer to say “Boris is a clown” “This time it’s different” or “Will you stop going on about it?”
I’m not trolling Starmer, just reminding people that a boring LoTO doesn’t usually become PM, regardless of midterm VI and Leader ratings.
This place used to be full of analysis like that, now it’s just a partisan smart arse, point scoring fest, which is a shame
LotO, not PM: Foot, Kinnock, Smith, Hague, Howard, Duncan-Smith, Miliband, Corbyn PM, not LotO: Major, Brown, May, Johnson both: [Thatcher], Blair, Cameron unknown: Starmer (did I miss anyone?)
I have to say, there's not a lot of data points there
There aren’t when you bet on any General Election
LotO>PM Thatcher, Blair, Cameron - all beat their rivals on personality
@Roy_G_Biv and @theProle make valid points as did the poster last night on visiting restrictions in Hospices.
The problem is that "shielding the vulnerable" requires just those sort of measures. Cancer patients and pregnant women are in the vulnerable groups, and open visiting is the direct opposite of shielding.
Indeed even these visiting rules are too lax if the "herd immunity" enthusiasts of the Great Barrington Declaration get their way.
Surely scaling up rapid antigen testing is the answer here. The nanopore machines have bandwidth for hundreds of simultaneous tests and give results within 20 minutes. I don't understand why one hasn't been put in every single hospital in the country with staff, patients and visitors tested daily.
Have they got regulatory approval though? There are all kinds of manufacturers claiming 99% specificity and sensitivity on their tests but these claims often turn out not true...
Ultimately that's where we are going I think, although I think the govt wants a saliva test rather than swab...
Yes, the nanopore test has been approved and it is a saliva based test with no expertise needed for swab taking.
As I said, no one has yet explained why they haven't been rolled out to every hospital in the country so staff, patients and visitors can be tested daily.
Absolutely. It's not an antigen test, though - it's a quicker and cheaper DNA/RNA amplification technology which does the same sort of thing as PCR far quicker and nearly as accurately. So it would be ideal, though not of negligible cost, for the purpose you describe.
The antigen tests are intended to be much cheaper, and used on a much larger scale.
This is very hard to watch. Not very illuminating. Jumbled sentences from both of them. I don't think it will change many votes. I don't think Trump will actually lose votes this time, but nor will he gain them. It is not the game changer that Trump needs.
If you believe Trafalgar or Rasmussen and IBID/TIPP he does not need a game changer, just not to lose any support tonight
If you believe the poll modellers like The Economist or Nate Silver, he most certainly does need a game changer.
If Nate Silver was right in 2016 Hillary Clinton would have won over 300 EC votes and now be President
How many times.....? Nate Silver's group was 28% right, which was more pro Trump than any of the other groups giving probability predictions for the 2016 election.
Or to put it another way, Biden is in a much better position in the polling than Clinton was 4 years ago and has been for months. If HYUFD really believes Trump should be favorite it's not based on any evidence.
Experience. Few predicted 2016 result.
Experience should teach you not to fall into the normalcy bias mistake. It happened with me in 2019 when I assumed Corbyn would repeat 2015.
The circumstances this time around are vastly, viscerally, different from 2016. The polls don't lie. They didn't in 2019 and they're not in 2020. But it's much more than that. The GOP have distanced themselves from their President. They know they've lost.
And lost big.
I'm going to use 538 and compare Trump's popular vote forecast lead with that of the Republican candidate in the closest Senate races. IA Trump +0.3 GOP -1.0 GA Trump 0.0 GOP +2.6 NC Trump -2.3 GOP -2.9 MT Trump +10.2 GOP +3.0 ME Trump -12.1 GOP -3.0 KS Trump +10.6 GOP +4.9 SC Trump +7.9 GOP +5.2 AZ Trump -2.9 GOP -6.0 AL Trump +19.2 GOP +6.2 AK Trump +7.4 GOP +6.3 MI Trump -7.9 GOP -6.4 CO Trump -11.7 GOP -7.7 TX Trump +2.1 GOP +8.1 MS Trump +13.2 GOP +9.1 MN Trump -7.7 GOP -12.0 KY Trump +19.1 GOP +13.4 ---- Mean Trump +2.8 GOP +1.2
I don't want this to be true, but Trump still looks like he is an electoral asset for the Republicans. I want American voters to judge him so badly that he drags the whole GOP down with him. But the numbers don't show that story.
Otherwise Republican Senate candidates should be outperforming Trump.
Trump won the biggest electoral college victory for the Republicans since Bush Snr in 1988 and he won Wisconsin for the first time for a Republican presidential candidate since Reagan in 1984, in the rustbelt he is an electoral asset for the GOP compared to a generic Republican, in California he certainly is not (Hillary won California by an even bigger percentage than Obama did in 2008 or 2012 for example) but it is the former he needs for EC victory, he can afford to lose California heavily and the popular vote
There are only three Midwest states in the 16 that I looked at and Trump's advantage over the GOP was smaller in those (+1.0) than in the set as a whole (+1.6).
Europe is heading for a situation where cases far exceed earlier because of more testing the problems of overstretched icu are starting to appear, one would have thought the best brains could sit down as a group and come up with some common approach. It’s going to be a really shit winter across the continent.
Cases only look like they are higher than last time because European countries have scaled up testing, sometimes by as much as 100x, the spring time peak in the UK is thought to be around 150-180k cases per day, we just weren't picking them up.
If Drakeford has stopped Wiko’s selling mops ( is that “hardware” I ask?) or screws and paint, and I want to put a shelf up or paint a wall, I’m not going to sit here in lockdown patiently waiting for Dai Jones Hardware on Pontypandy high st to open up two weeks on Monday, I’m going to give the profit to one J Bezos of Palo Alto California, because apparently the idiots in Cardiff Bay are the only ones unaware of the internet.
We have all been worried about the obstacles you face purchasing George linen blend shirts from ASDA. 😁
Somehow, maybe wrongly, I had imagined you were clothed quite differently.
My wife often wishes I were clothed differently to how I usually am. It’s taken years for her to trust me to be let out alone to shop.
Didn't watch the debate but, to echo others here, the mood music appears to be that Trump didn't create any major new gaffes and restrained himself. As others have said, that will probably be enough for more reluctant Republicans or even some independents to vote for him, especially given some of the issues at stake.
Funnily enough, the main thing that seemed to trend on social media was Joe Biden's reference to Hitler.
FYI - Jon Rolston in Nevada. Despite the tables he posted on his second most recent tweet, it's clear from the last update, he still thinks Nevada is an open race.
You're clutching at straws. The way you make your comment implies that you think Rawlston is saying that the data is pointing to the Republicans at least holding their position by comparison with the same point in 2016, when the Dems won Nevada, which is why the race can't be called there yet given the narrow margin in 2016.
Rawlston is doing no such thing. What he's essentially saying is that you can't make any meaningful comparisons with what happened in previous years, because this election is unique. This time the state mailed out ballot papers to EVERY voter in the state. The Dems are overall still way ahead of where they were at the same time in 2016, but within that Dems have clearly been inclined to vote early by mail in huge numbers (Trump's comments about mail probably putting off Republicans) whereas Reps are still voting early in person. So is this a real or superficial improvement for the Dems? It's really hard to tell because all the comparisons are skewed.
By contrast, in previous years, it's been possible to draw conclusions from early voting in Nevada because the state has conducted early voting on a consistent basis year-by-year so if one party is further ahead after say 5 days of early voting than they were previously, you can reasonably conclude that there's been an overall swing to them. This year you'll be better looking to other states to draw early conclusions from early voting.
@Roy_G_Biv and @theProle make valid points as did the poster last night on visiting restrictions in Hospices.
The problem is that "shielding the vulnerable" requires just those sort of measures. Cancer patients and pregnant women are in the vulnerable groups, and open visiting is the direct opposite of shielding.
Indeed even these visiting rules are too lax if the "herd immunity" enthusiasts of the Great Barrington Declaration get their way.
Surely scaling up rapid antigen testing is the answer here. The nanopore machines have bandwidth for hundreds of simultaneous tests and give results within 20 minutes. I don't understand why one hasn't been put in every single hospital in the country with staff, patients and visitors tested daily.
Have they got regulatory approval though? There are all kinds of manufacturers claiming 99% specificity and sensitivity on their tests but these claims often turn out not true...
Ultimately that's where we are going I think, although I think the govt wants a saliva test rather than swab...
Yes, the nanopore test has been approved and it is a saliva based test with no expertise needed for swab taking.
As I said, no one has yet explained why they haven't been rolled out to every hospital in the country so staff, patients and visitors can be tested daily.
Absolutely. It's not an antigen test, though - it's a quicker and cheaper DNA/RNA amplification technology which does the same sort of thing as PCR far quicker and nearly as accurately. So it would be ideal, though not of negligible cost, for the purpose you describe.
The antigen tests are intended to be much cheaper, and used on a much larger scale.
All three technologies have their place.
I think it's what Heathrow are using for pre-departure testing and asking for approval to use as arrival testing instead of quarantine.
Aiui the price of the highest bandwidth machine is about £20k and the running costs are actually fairly low, I'm not sure that is an insurmountable cost for the government to provide one per trust and allow venues to start using them to screen people before entering.
Sold 'QAnon' on SPIN £5 @ 5, settled at 0 Sold 'Here's the deal' £5 @ 8, settled at 2.
Net Kerching!: +£55
Well done. I sold HTD as well. Why on earth would anybody be chuntering "Here's the deal" the whole time?
Every single "runner" in the market was a massive sell as it turned out.
HTD got 2 mentions, ACB got 1, all others zero.
That's good betting - because the bigger risk is on the upside; had any one of the terms become the subject of a back and forth exchange between the two of them, they could have got a lot of mentions.
Didn't watch the debate but, to echo others here, the mood music appears to be that Trump didn't create any major new gaffes and restrained himself. As others have said, that will probably be enough for more reluctant Republicans or even some independents to vote for him, especially given some of the issues at stake.
Funnily enough, the main thing that seemed to trend on social media was Joe Biden's reference to Hitler.
Frank Luntz's polling groups reflect him I think - out and out GOP hacks masquerading as "undecideds"
His focus groups always seem to come to the opposite conclusion to the pollsters. Not impossible but highly suspicious given his role as a GOP strategist. I'd bet that the 3 polls are giving a more accurate reflection, particularly as all 3 give a remarkably similar result.
Well, I guess he managed to get every Black GOP voter in the States on his focus group looking at that montage.
I think that's probably true but what a boring PB that would be.
Actually I think it would be a lot better. When do you ever read a comment on the lines of ‘Actually I hadn’t thought of that, what a thoughtful post’? It is the constant trolling, point scoring and refusal to agree with someone on any subject if they disagree on Brexit/Indy/Boris etc that is boring, because it’s the same every day, and doesn’t seem to me to be borne out of anything other than stubbornness or spite
I agree, and look forward to you cutting back on your relentless Starmer is boring/has no personality posts!
That’s not the same thing at all though. I looked into the personality ratings to see whether the public vote people they consider to be relatively boring as PM. The only one in the last 40 years they have is John Major, and never a LoTO. In my opinion that is relevant to betting on the next GE, it’s not trolling people on here, if there are any, who think Starmer is actually a right good laugh. In fact it’s an example of where people might say “I hadn’t considered that, interesting” but prefer to say “Boris is a clown” “This time it’s different” or “Will you stop going on about it?”
I’m not trolling Starmer, just reminding people that a boring LoTO doesn’t usually become PM, regardless of midterm VI and Leader ratings.
This place used to be full of analysis like that, now it’s just a partisan smart arse, point scoring fest, which is a shame
Heath in 1970 and Attlee in 1945 and 1950 show the boring candidate can sometimes win but it is the exception rather than the rule and in 1970 followed the IMF bailout and in 1945 the Depression of the 1930s the Tories were still blamed for.
1992 may also be an example but Major was seen as a nice guy and personally more charismatic than his spitting image puppet and his soap box oratory went down well, 2017 is also partly an example as May won most seats but then again she also lost her majority
A job advert posted on recruitment sites stated that the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) was looking for a temporary “VP of operations” with experience “in running call centres of 18,000”...
Pardon my ignorance, but do we have any 18,000 staff call centres in the UK?
Also, we're in the UK, it's Director of Operations, not Vice President of Operations.
Were we conquered by Les États Unis and nobody told me?
Europe is heading for a situation where cases far exceed earlier because of more testing the problems of overstretched icu are starting to appear, one would have thought the best brains could sit down as a group and come up with some common approach. It’s going to be a really shit winter across the continent.
As we are nowhere close to a common approach between the four nations of the UK and the two nations of the island of Ireland I think we will be in for a long wait.
Neither the UK nor the EU have been impressive in this area at all.
I'm repeating that I am not predicting for Trump vs Biden as I know PB Tories will shove it down my throat at every occasion like they do everything else.
But looking at some of Trump's wins in 2016, he won by tiny margins, I find it hard to believe he's gone forward in those states.
I think that's probably true but what a boring PB that would be.
Actually I think it would be a lot better. When do you ever read a comment on the lines of ‘Actually I hadn’t thought of that, what a thoughtful post’? It is the constant trolling, point scoring and refusal to agree with someone on any subject if they disagree on Brexit/Indy/Boris etc that is boring, because it’s the same every day, and doesn’t seem to me to be borne out of anything other than stubbornness or spite
I agree, and look forward to you cutting back on your relentless Starmer is boring/has no personality posts!
That’s not the same thing at all though. I looked into the personality ratings to see whether the public vote people they consider to be relatively boring as PM. The only one in the last 40 years they have is John Major, and never a LoTO. In my opinion that is relevant to betting on the next GE, it’s not trolling people on here, if there are any, who think Starmer is actually a right good laugh. In fact it’s an example of where people might say “I hadn’t considered that, interesting” but prefer to say “Boris is a clown” “This time it’s different” or “Will you stop going on about it?”
I’m not trolling Starmer, just reminding people that a boring LoTO doesn’t usually become PM, regardless of midterm VI and Leader ratings.
This place used to be full of analysis like that, now it’s just a partisan smart arse, point scoring fest, which is a shame
LotO, not PM: Foot, Kinnock, Smith, Hague, Howard, Duncan-Smith, Miliband, Corbyn PM, not LotO: Major, Brown, May, Johnson both: [Thatcher], Blair, Cameron unknown: Starmer (did I miss anyone?)
I have to say, there's not a lot of data points there
There aren’t when you bet on any General Election
LotO>PM Thatcher, Blair, Cameron - all beat their rivals on personality
Did Theresa May have more personality than Jeremy Corbyn?
The devil is in the detail. You say we should "shield the vulnerable" but provide zero detail. Vulnerable people still need to eat, still need to access medical care. How do they get to the supermarket if the bus is full of people spewing out virus particles without catching it? How can they sit in a waiting room at the doctor's with coronavirus in the air, and not die from it? And even if some unspecified measures are put in place that will magically keep the vulnerable separate, how do you stop that becoming overwhelmed with people who just don't really want to get sick?
The "shield the vulnerable" mantra reminds me of communism... nice in theory but it doesn't work.
As a side note, I've noticed a LOT that people read something on Facebook or Twitter and get outraged. When I used to be on both platforms I was permanently of the opinion that the country was about to break out into insurrection because LOOK AT THIS CUTE CHILD HE DIED BECAUSE OF AUSTERITY/MUSLIMS/VACCINES/ISRAEL. The sad truth is, it's always a mix of the chronically angry, distillations of real things that happened that may or may not share the context you're talking about, liars, propagandists, and well-meaning idiots. And it's all wrapped up into a nice newsfeed that specifically designed to maximise your outrage, because that's what keeps you coming back for more. You see it in some of the people on here. They've become furious ideologues, certain of the righteousness of their cause and their cause alone. Then they find themselves on here, one of the many interfaces between their clan and another, and they go absolutely mad because "here are some filthy apostates who have been duped by the other clan, how can they be so stupidly partisan all the time?!"
Ok, so my side note ended up longer than my main point. Sorry about that. Just to tie it up, I'm not saying you're wrong about lockdowns, but nor am I saying you're right. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you think it's more clear cut than it really is, and one clue to that is this: you replied to a post recommending we take better care when wielding rhetorical devices, and by the sixth paragraph you were talking about dead babies. That kind of escalation doesn't happen in conversations unless at least one of them is furiously certain about something that is so very clearly uncertain enough that they need to have a conversation about it.
Practical measures
Separation of Covid patients in hospitals for infection control purposes Control of staffing - no cross working on Covid and non Covid wards Assessment of staff working on Covid wards - priority given to those who will not mix at home, less people at home to infect Somebody described the old plague hospitals as being totally separated and that should be the aim even if that means paying full time wages to a cleaner porter even if not working full time hours
Similar measures as above at care homes. My wife’s Grandma is very ill in a home. Visiting is normally banned but they have allowed both daughters to visit when she had a stroke and looked like she would die. She has improved since and now visiting is banned again, Pragmatic and sensitive treatment at end of life where risks to health are limited.
Enforce priority system for online grocery shopping for over 70s Cover costs for pharmacies to undertake home delivery of medicines to those shielding Encourage shielding only hours in retail Free TV license / broadband for homes with shielding people
Can you do me a favour and remove the @CorrectHorseBattery from the massive thread you're all responding to, I get an email for every post as I am quoted in it.
If you respond to the quotes I've made, or just remove me from the new thread, I won't get notified. Thanks.
It’s a bit out of date but there are lots of causes of death which could be prevented if we completely stopped doing stuff
If we banned all motor transport there would be a significant drop in vehicle related deaths. A significant number of people die of medical complications - perhaps we should ban all medical procedures. Some people are electrocuted - are you proposing that we go off grid? A small number of women die in childbirth - should we prevent all births? Oh wait we’ve already cancelled all medical procedures above.
Locking down the economy was supposed to be a temporary measure to allow NHS capacity to increase, and to allow time to assess the impact. Before the initial lockdown, and part of the delay was the advice that people only have a certain capacity for being locked down, and the scientists didn’t want to start it too soon
Depends what you mean by "lockdown". Driving is highly regulated. There's a huge list of rules, you have to get your car checked for roadworthiness each year, and you aren't allowed to go whatever speed you like. In fact, the speed you're allowed to go depends on not just where you are, but what conditions are like. Similarly safety regulations on medical procedures, retail and industrial electrical goods are there to minimise deaths. In all of the above cases, we find a balance. Nobody is proposing banning all economic activity, and nor is anybody with the slightest shred of decency advocating just letting it rip.
So now that we've established where we are, somewhere between those two end members, we need to find the right place. And like the speed limit, it's perfectly sensible to suggest that as conditions change, so should the rules. Now, are the kinds of lockdowns experienced and/or proposed by some people going too far one way? Is the loosening proposed by others going too far the other way? Perhaps, you can make your own mind up. In truth, I can see both sides of the argument and I'm not ready to commit. I'm glad I don't have to decide. But please don't go around pretending that temporary lockdowns are the same as "banning all motor transport". That's attacking a straw man and doesn't help convince persuadables like me.
The current Welsh option has to be up there as pretty close to banning all motor transport for a fortnight. Its likely to have a similar effect on the numbers - transmission will probably fall, but as the fundamental state of play won't have changed at the end of it, it won't be long before the numbers are back where they are now again - very much like banning driving for a fortnight would cut road deaths for a couple of weeks, but won't make a lot of difference in the long run.
The fundamental problem with lockdowns is the total absence of a coherent endgame. Unless there is some way out of this which doesn't involve everyone getting the disease, lockdowns are pointless but expensive can kicking (rather like the endless Brexit extensions - they only postponed exactly the same issues as everyone started with).
There isn't a silver bullet on the horizon. A vaccine isn't going to be enough (you can tell this from the way that governments are starting to talk about this going on all next year).
At some point lockdowns will stop working entirely, if that hasn't already happened. Based on what's happened in say Boulton over the summer, where various levels lockdown have made almost no difference to case numbers, it's quite possible that point has already pretty much been reached.
People have had enough (I'm honest, I'm one of them), and aren't taking a blind bit of notice of the rules if they even know what they are, so the only practical outworking of the restrictions is the ruination of the businesses forced to close (mind you what a time to own an off licence! It's an ill wind... ).
I read a post on Facebook today which linked to a petition for partners to be allowed to attend scans and all of labour for pregnant women (I think it covered Wales - I don't know the current English rules). Some of the stories in the comments below the post were truly heartbreaking; Women having miscarriages and stillbirths alone with their husbands sat waiting in the carpark. It's hard to explain how angry I felt after reading a few posts, and how outraged I was at the sheer barbarity of the current rules. My sister is currently heavily pregnant and under these rules in Ceredigion, which has a case rate of something like 22 per 100k. Its utterly mad, the more so given that presumably as most women live with their partners, if one has it, they probably both do anyway.
I think we should shield the vulnerable as best we can, then let it go, because the reality is that otherwise its going to go anyway sooner or later, but with the vulnerable unprotected.
As someone else has posted upthread, by January (it's bleak enough in a normal year) the public will be in open rebellion everywhere (lots of them aren't far off now), and nothing the politicians can do then will allow them to regain control. All that's occuring now is just adding extra pointless misery to that which will come from the ravages of the disease when the public mood breaks.
The devil is in the detail. You say we should "shield the vulnerable" but provide zero detail. Vulnerable people still need to eat, still need to access medical care. How do they get to the supermarket if the bus is full of people spewing out virus particles without catching it? How can they sit in a waiting room at the doctor's with coronavirus in the air, and not die from it? And even if some unspecified measures are put in place that will magically keep the vulnerable separate, how do you stop that becoming overwhelmed with people who just don't really want to get sick?
The "shield the vulnerable" mantra reminds me of communism... nice in theory but it doesn't work.
As a side note, I've noticed a LOT that people read something on Facebook or Twitter and get outraged. When I used to be on both platforms I was permanently of the opinion that the country was about to break out into insurrection because LOOK AT THIS CUTE CHILD HE DIED BECAUSE OF AUSTERITY/MUSLIMS/VACCINES/ISRAEL. The sad truth is, it's always a mix of the chronically angry, distillations of real things that happened that may or may not share the context you're talking about, liars, propagandists, and well-meaning idiots. And it's all wrapped up into a nice newsfeed that specifically designed to maximise your outrage, because that's what keeps you coming back for more. You see it in some of the people on here. They've become furious ideologues, certain of the righteousness of their cause and their cause alone. Then they find themselves on here, one of the many interfaces between their clan and another, and they go absolutely mad because "here are some filthy apostates who have been duped by the other clan, how can they be so stupidly partisan all the time?!"
Ok, so my side note ended up longer than my main point. Sorry about that. Just to tie it up, I'm not saying you're wrong about lockdowns, but nor am I saying you're right. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you think it's more clear cut than it really is, and one clue to that is this: you replied to a post recommending we take better care when wielding rhetorical devices, and by the sixth paragraph you were talking about dead babies. That kind of escalation doesn't happen in conversations unless at least one of them is furiously certain about something that is so very clearly uncertain enough that they need to have a conversation about it.
On your first paragraph my wife and I (81 & 77) have no problem shielding nor with the surgery
We have a weekly Asda delivery and our son or daughter pick up our medication from the chemist and leave it in our porch
Since March our surgery has moved to online triage and it has been a great success together with a ban on anyone calling direct at the surgery. When we have had to see either the doctor/nurse we wait in the car park in our car and the doctor/nurse calls us directly into their consulting room passing through the empty waiting areas
Here in Wales Drakeford has stopped supermarkets selling non essential food and terminal ill non covid elderly patients have to choose which child they want to nominate to be at their bedside in their final hours
This is morally bankrupt and of course banning the sale of non essenitial goods drives Amazon and online shopping demand at the further expense of local shopping
Drakeford insists closing down the whole of Wales is only for 17 days and is a one off event, but as we have been in the equivalent of tier 3 ourselves for the last month I expect Drakeford will return us to tier 3 again
He is experimenting with Wales and believe you me both here in Wales and the rest of the UK a moment is fast approaching when the cry will go out 'enough'
It is notable that Scotland has introduced tiering, notwithstanding 2 additional levels, confirming that even Sturgeon is not favour of a national shutdown
You didn't read Foxy's response to your comments last night then. (Forgive me Foxy if I have misinterpreted via my précis)
1.Non-essentials is a device to deter unnecessary shopping.
2. Your end of life visiting issues are an edict from the Westminster Government.
I can't say I am pleased at not working for two weeks, however if it allows me the opportunity to work unhindered for the following six weeks to eight weeks I will give it a shot.
On 1, isn't it a political move to assuage the discontent of smaller non-essential retailers closed down but watching the supermarkets open and selling the very same stuff?
At the insistence of a Conservative AM.
Apparently taken up by the Welsh Govt and supported by Plaid.
Fools the lot.
As somebody said downthread, to help control the virus Wales has banned buying socks and cornflakes at the same time.
Well that’s going to bring R crashing down isn’t it.
The "weekend effect" for reporting by SPECIMEN date is starting to get ludicrous. I would be interested to hear what @Malmesbury thinks is going on
If you have home testing you have to do the test early morning before the courier calls, and they don't collect Sundays (and many people probably think when booking their date that they may not collect Saturdays, although they do)
This is very hard to watch. Not very illuminating. Jumbled sentences from both of them. I don't think it will change many votes. I don't think Trump will actually lose votes this time, but nor will he gain them. It is not the game changer that Trump needs.
If you believe Trafalgar or Rasmussen and IBID/TIPP he does not need a game changer, just not to lose any support tonight
If you believe the poll modellers like The Economist or Nate Silver, he most certainly does need a game changer.
If Nate Silver was right in 2016 Hillary Clinton would have won over 300 EC votes and now be President
How many times.....? Nate Silver's group was 28% right, which was more pro Trump than any of the other groups giving probability predictions for the 2016 election.
Or to put it another way, Biden is in a much better position in the polling than Clinton was 4 years ago and has been for months. If HYUFD really believes Trump should be favorite it's not based on any evidence.
Experience. Few predicted 2016 result.
Experience should teach you not to fall into the normalcy bias mistake. It happened with me in 2019 when I assumed Corbyn would repeat 2015.
The circumstances this time around are vastly, viscerally, different from 2016. The polls don't lie. They didn't in 2019 and they're not in 2020. But it's much more than that. The GOP have distanced themselves from their President. They know they've lost.
And lost big.
I'm going to use 538 and compare Trump's popular vote forecast lead with that of the Republican candidate in the closest Senate races. IA Trump +0.3 GOP -1.0 GA Trump 0.0 GOP +2.6 NC Trump -2.3 GOP -2.9 MT Trump +10.2 GOP +3.0 ME Trump -12.1 GOP -3.0 KS Trump +10.6 GOP +4.9 SC Trump +7.9 GOP +5.2 AZ Trump -2.9 GOP -6.0 AL Trump +19.2 GOP +6.2 AK Trump +7.4 GOP +6.3 MI Trump -7.9 GOP -6.4 CO Trump -11.7 GOP -7.7 TX Trump +2.1 GOP +8.1 MS Trump +13.2 GOP +9.1 MN Trump -7.7 GOP -12.0 KY Trump +19.1 GOP +13.4 ---- Mean Trump +2.8 GOP +1.2
I don't want this to be true, but Trump still looks like he is an electoral asset for the Republicans. I want American voters to judge him so badly that he drags the whole GOP down with him. But the numbers don't show that story.
Otherwise Republican Senate candidates should be outperforming Trump.
I think you are misreading these numbers.
Trump is dragging the whole GOP down with him but the voters so disgusted with him and the GOP aren't showing up in either column in your table.
All your table shows is that there are some who back Trump who don't back the generic GOP which shouldn't be too surprising but those who've abandoned the GOP because of Trump aren't voting for either which is why a blue wave is coming.
What your table shows is very bad news for the GOP.
I think that's probably true but what a boring PB that would be.
Actually I think it would be a lot better. When do you ever read a comment on the lines of ‘Actually I hadn’t thought of that, what a thoughtful post’? It is the constant trolling, point scoring and refusal to agree with someone on any subject if they disagree on Brexit/Indy/Boris etc that is boring, because it’s the same every day, and doesn’t seem to me to be borne out of anything other than stubbornness or spite
I agree, and look forward to you cutting back on your relentless Starmer is boring/has no personality posts!
That’s not the same thing at all though. I looked into the personality ratings to see whether the public vote people they consider to be relatively boring as PM. The only one in the last 40 years they have is John Major, and never a LoTO. In my opinion that is relevant to betting on the next GE, it’s not trolling people on here, if there are any, who think Starmer is actually a right good laugh. In fact it’s an example of where people might say “I hadn’t considered that, interesting” but prefer to say “Boris is a clown” “This time it’s different” or “Will you stop going on about it?”
I’m not trolling Starmer, just reminding people that a boring LoTO doesn’t usually become PM, regardless of midterm VI and Leader ratings.
This place used to be full of analysis like that, now it’s just a partisan smart arse, point scoring fest, which is a shame
LotO, not PM: Foot, Kinnock, Smith, Hague, Howard, Duncan-Smith, Miliband, Corbyn PM, not LotO: Major, Brown, May, Johnson both: [Thatcher], Blair, Cameron unknown: Starmer (did I miss anyone?)
I have to say, there's not a lot of data points there
Agreed, its a bit like the taller president one, there is very likely something in it but the tiny samples make it sound more important than it really is.
Also there is a pattern of PMs being chosen for the opposite of the key negative characteristics of the exiting PM
Thatcher divisive - Major uniting Major dull - Blair inspiring Blair big picture - Brown detail Brown control freak - Cameron delegator Cameron delegator - May control freak May dull - Johnson inspiring Johnson clown/divisive/incompetent - ........ serious/uniting/competent
In normal circumstances I think it carries some weight, but not sure being dull is even a negative in terms of who will replace Johnson.
Didn't watch the debate but, to echo others here, the mood music appears to be that Trump didn't create any major new gaffes and restrained himself. As others have said, that will probably be enough for more reluctant Republicans or even some independents to vote for him, especially given some of the issues at stake.
Funnily enough, the main thing that seemed to trend on social media was Joe Biden's reference to Hitler.
I have just watched it and I reckon Trump edged it. However according to the Independent.........
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden did a better job in the final debate on Thursday than his rival Donald Trump, according to a number of snap reaction polls.
CNN’s poll, released shortly after the debate ended on Thursday night, found that 53 per cent of viewers felt Mr Biden had won the debate, compared to 39 per cent who believed Mr Trump had done a better job.
Similar numbers were seen in polls by YouGov America, which had Mr Biden on 54 per cent and Mr Trump on 35 per cent, and Data for Progress (Biden 52 per cent; Trump 41 per cent.
I'm repeating that I am not predicting for Trump vs Biden as I know PB Tories will shove it down my throat at every occasion like they do everything else.
But looking at some of Trump's wins in 2016, he won by tiny margins, I find it hard to believe he's gone forward in those states.
So either Trump winning by minuscule margins (is that smaller than tiny?) or Biden?
It’s a bit out of date but there are lots of causes of death which could be prevented if we completely stopped doing stuff
If we banned all motor transport there would be a significant drop in vehicle related deaths. A significant number of people die of medical complications - perhaps we should ban all medical procedures. Some people are electrocuted - are you proposing that we go off grid? A small number of women die in childbirth - should we prevent all births? Oh wait we’ve already cancelled all medical procedures above.
Locking down the economy was supposed to be a temporary measure to allow NHS capacity to increase, and to allow time to assess the impact. Before the initial lockdown, and part of the delay was the advice that people only have a certain capacity for being locked down, and the scientists didn’t want to start it too soon
Depends what you mean by "lockdown". Driving is highly regulated. There's a huge list of rules, you have to get your car checked for roadworthiness each year, and you aren't allowed to go whatever speed you like. In fact, the speed you're allowed to go depends on not just where you are, but what conditions are like. Similarly safety regulations on medical procedures, retail and industrial electrical goods are there to minimise deaths. In all of the above cases, we find a balance. Nobody is proposing banning all economic activity, and nor is anybody with the slightest shred of decency advocating just letting it rip.
So now that we've established where we are, somewhere between those two end members, we need to find the right place. And like the speed limit, it's perfectly sensible to suggest that as conditions change, so should the rules. Now, are the kinds of lockdowns experienced and/or proposed by some people going too far one way? Is the loosening proposed by others going too far the other way? Perhaps, you can make your own mind up. In truth, I can see both sides of the argument and I'm not ready to commit. I'm glad I don't have to decide. But please don't go around pretending that temporary lockdowns are the same as "banning all motor transport". That's attacking a straw man and doesn't help convince persuadables like me.
The current Welsh option has to be up there as pretty close to banning all motor transport for a fortnight. Its likely to have a similar effect on the numbers - transmission will probably fall, but as the fundamental state of play won't have changed at the end of it, it won't be long before the numbers are back where they are now again - very much like banning driving for a fortnight would cut road deaths for a couple of weeks, but won't make a lot of difference in the long run.
The fundamental problem with lockdowns is the total absence of a coherent endgame. Unless there is some way out of this which doesn't involve everyone getting the disease, lockdowns are pointless but expensive can kicking (rather like the endless Brexit extensions - they only postponed exactly the same issues as everyone started with).
There isn't a silver bullet on the horizon. A vaccine isn't going to be enough (you can tell this from the way that governments are starting to talk about this going on all next year).
At some point lockdowns will stop working entirely, if that hasn't already happened. Based on what's happened in say Boulton over the summer, where various levels lockdown have made almost no difference to case numbers, it's quite possible that point has already pretty much been reached.
People have had enough (I'm honest, I'm one of them), and aren't taking a blind bit of notice of the rules if they even know what they are, so the only practical outworking of the restrictions is the ruination of the businesses forced to close (mind you what a time to own an off licence! It's an ill wind... ).
I read a post on Facebook today which linked to a petition for partners to be allowed to attend scans and all of labour for pregnant women (I think it covered Wales - I don't know the current English rules). Some of the stories in the comments below the post were truly heartbreaking; Women having miscarriages and stillbirths alone with their husbands sat waiting in the carpark. It's hard to explain how angry I felt after reading a few posts, and how outraged I was at the sheer barbarity of the current rules. My sister is currently heavily pregnant and under these rules in Ceredigion, which has a case rate of something like 22 per 100k. Its utterly mad, the more so given that presumably as most women live with their partners, if one has it, they probably both do anyway.
I think we should shield the vulnerable as best we can, then let it go, because the reality is that otherwise its going to go anyway sooner or later, but with the vulnerable unprotected.
As someone else has posted upthread, by January (it's bleak enough in a normal year) the public will be in open rebellion everywhere (lots of them aren't far off now), and nothing the politicians can do then will allow them to regain control. All that's occuring now is just adding extra pointless misery to that which will come from the ravages of the disease when the public mood breaks.
The devil is in the detail. You say we should "shield the vulnerable" but provide zero detail. Vulnerable people still need to eat, still need to access medical care. How do they get to the supermarket if the bus is full of people spewing out virus particles without catching it? How can they sit in a waiting room at the doctor's with coronavirus in the air, and not die from it? And even if some unspecified measures are put in place that will magically keep the vulnerable separate, how do you stop that becoming overwhelmed with people who just don't really want to get sick?
The "shield the vulnerable" mantra reminds me of communism... nice in theory but it doesn't work.
As a side note, I've noticed a LOT that people read something on Facebook or Twitter and get outraged. When I used to be on both platforms I was permanently of the opinion that the country was about to break out into insurrection because LOOK AT THIS CUTE CHILD HE DIED BECAUSE OF AUSTERITY/MUSLIMS/VACCINES/ISRAEL. The sad truth is, it's always a mix of the chronically angry, distillations of real things that happened that may or may not share the context you're talking about, liars, propagandists, and well-meaning idiots. And it's all wrapped up into a nice newsfeed that specifically designed to maximise your outrage, because that's what keeps you coming back for more. You see it in some of the people on here. They've become furious ideologues, certain of the righteousness of their cause and their cause alone. Then they find themselves on here, one of the many interfaces between their clan and another, and they go absolutely mad because "here are some filthy apostates who have been duped by the other clan, how can they be so stupidly partisan all the time?!"
Ok, so my side note ended up longer than my main point. Sorry about that. Just to tie it up, I'm not saying you're wrong about lockdowns, but nor am I saying you're right. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you think it's more clear cut than it really is, and one clue to that is this: you replied to a post recommending we take better care when wielding rhetorical devices, and by the sixth paragraph you were talking about dead babies. That kind of escalation doesn't happen in conversations unless at least one of them is furiously certain about something that is so very clearly uncertain enough that they need to have a conversation about it.
On your first paragraph my wife and I (81 & 77) have no problem shielding nor with the surgery
We have a weekly Asda delivery and our son or daughter pick up our medication from the chemist and leave it in our porch
Since March our surgery has moved to online triage and it has been a great success together with a ban on anyone calling direct at the surgery. When we have had to see either the doctor/nurse we wait in the car park in our car and the doctor/nurse calls us directly into their consulting room passing through the empty waiting areas
Here in Wales Drakeford has stopped supermarkets selling non essential food and terminal ill non covid elderly patients have to choose which child they want to nominate to be at their bedside in their final hours
This is morally bankrupt and of course banning the sale of non essenitial goods drives Amazon and online shopping demand at the further expense of local shopping
Drakeford insists closing down the whole of Wales is only for 17 days and is a one off event, but as we have been in the equivalent of tier 3 ourselves for the last month I expect Drakeford will return us to tier 3 again
He is experimenting with Wales and believe you me both here in Wales and the rest of the UK a moment is fast approaching when the cry will go out 'enough'
It is notable that Scotland has introduced tiering, notwithstanding 2 additional levels, confirming that even Sturgeon is not favour of a national shutdown
You didn't read Foxy's response to your comments last night then. (Forgive me Foxy if I have misinterpreted via my précis)
1.Non-essentials is a device to deter unnecessary shopping.
2. Your end of life visiting issues are an edict from the Westminster Government.
I can't say I am pleased at not working for two weeks, however if it allows me the opportunity to work unhindered for the following six weeks to eight weeks I will give it a shot.
1) Does not work as it drives on line shopping
Since when did politicians only do things because they work?
I am highly confident this lockdown will work, the first one did and is the only thing that worked.
The first one lasted 12 weeks! I am sure there will be some impact, but this is not a Chinese style lockdown.
Also, we're in the UK, it's Director of Operations, not Vice President of Operations.
Were we conquered by Les États Unis and nobody told me?
I love the way American companies do that. My friend who worked for an American bank once got arrested by Japanese police after throwing an egg at the nationalist sound truck outside his flat, which was opposite the Russian embassy. At one point his situation was looking pretty grim but their attitude changed when he whipped out is business card which would have said something like "$FAMOUS_BANK, Vice President (derivatives desk database backup tape archive management operations)".
This is very hard to watch. Not very illuminating. Jumbled sentences from both of them. I don't think it will change many votes. I don't think Trump will actually lose votes this time, but nor will he gain them. It is not the game changer that Trump needs.
If you believe Trafalgar or Rasmussen and IBID/TIPP he does not need a game changer, just not to lose any support tonight
If you believe the poll modellers like The Economist or Nate Silver, he most certainly does need a game changer.
If Nate Silver was right in 2016 Hillary Clinton would have won over 300 EC votes and now be President
How many times.....? Nate Silver's group was 28% right, which was more pro Trump than any of the other groups giving probability predictions for the 2016 election.
Or to put it another way, Biden is in a much better position in the polling than Clinton was 4 years ago and has been for months. If HYUFD really believes Trump should be favorite it's not based on any evidence.
Experience. Few predicted 2016 result.
Experience should teach you not to fall into the normalcy bias mistake. It happened with me in 2019 when I assumed Corbyn would repeat 2015.
The circumstances this time around are vastly, viscerally, different from 2016. The polls don't lie. They didn't in 2019 and they're not in 2020. But it's much more than that. The GOP have distanced themselves from their President. They know they've lost.
And lost big.
I'm going to use 538 and compare Trump's popular vote forecast lead with that of the Republican candidate in the closest Senate races. IA Trump +0.3 GOP -1.0 GA Trump 0.0 GOP +2.6 NC Trump -2.3 GOP -2.9 MT Trump +10.2 GOP +3.0 ME Trump -12.1 GOP -3.0 KS Trump +10.6 GOP +4.9 SC Trump +7.9 GOP +5.2 AZ Trump -2.9 GOP -6.0 AL Trump +19.2 GOP +6.2 AK Trump +7.4 GOP +6.3 MI Trump -7.9 GOP -6.4 CO Trump -11.7 GOP -7.7 TX Trump +2.1 GOP +8.1 MS Trump +13.2 GOP +9.1 MN Trump -7.7 GOP -12.0 KY Trump +19.1 GOP +13.4 ---- Mean Trump +2.8 GOP +1.2
I don't want this to be true, but Trump still looks like he is an electoral asset for the Republicans. I want American voters to judge him so badly that he drags the whole GOP down with him. But the numbers don't show that story.
Otherwise Republican Senate candidates should be outperforming Trump.
Trump won the biggest electoral college victory for the Republicans since Bush Snr in 1988 and he won Wisconsin for the first time for a Republican presidential candidate since Reagan in 1984, in the rustbelt he is an electoral asset for the GOP compared to a generic Republican, in California he certainly is not (Hillary won California by an even bigger percentage than Obama did in 2008 or 2012 for example) but it is the former he needs for EC victory, he can afford to lose California heavily and the popular vote
There are only three Midwest states in the 16 that I looked at and Trump's advantage over the GOP was smaller in those (+1.0) than in the set as a whole (+1.6).
In Iowa Trump did better than the GOP candidate, in Michigan fractionally worse (though Trafalgar suggest the GOP will win both the Michigan presidential and Senate race) you provided no data for Wisconsin or Pennsylvania in the rustbelt both of which Trump won for the first time for a Republican since the 1980s and Trump won Ohio by more than even George W Bush did too
Comments
Why anyone would view him as a pundit is beyond me.
People also need to realise that visitors are not just a hazard to their relative (which they may choose to accept) but also to everyone else's relatives and to staff. Who may then inadvertently create a much bigger outbreak in a vulnerable community.
So, you may trust your own birth partner, but do you equally trust the partners of all the others in the waiting room?
2. Is corrected for you by Dr Fox who gives an example from his own family of a similar situation regarding his wife and her sister in the Isle of Wight.
Make your point by all means but check your facts first.
If you respond to the quotes I've made, or just remove me from the new thread, I won't get notified. Thanks.
The measure was adopted following Tory pressure (Russell George AM). They wanted to protect small shopkeepers.
“In regards to which businesses are required to close, in the previous lockdown there were businesses such as clothing, hardware shops were required to close. Businesses such as Asda, Morrisons, Tesco, were selling those items of clothing and hardware, and it felt very wrong and disproportionate to the small businesses” (Russell George)
The Tories then backed off and left Drakeford to propose and carry the can for an unworkable policy.
The result is a big PR own goal for Drakeford with lots of negative policy (what is defined as essential, dictator Drakeford). And probably more shit is yet to come when the police actually try to enforce the policy.
SKS should be looking & learning. That is a textbook example of how an Opposition can stitch up a Government.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/22/uk-government-seeks-test-and-trace-executive-for-up-to-2000-a-day
The government is seeking a director of operations for its beleaguered test-and-trace system who can turn around “failing call centres” for a rate of up to £2,000 a day.
A job advert posted on recruitment sites stated that the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) was looking for a temporary “VP of operations” with experience “in running call centres of 18,000”...
The odious Allison Pearson, Toby Young, and Julia Hartley-Brewer between them are responsible for whole swathes of misinformation, exemplifying the Dunning-Kruger effect but being relentlessly loud as they bray their knee-jerk beliefs of what they want to be true. Instantly and inevitably latching on to any possible wrong-headed interpretation of something (that says what they want to be true) and are unshakeable in it (because in their world, changing one's mind in the face of evidence is a sign of weakness).
And if you can draw up lines of "them and us," chant insults and name-call, you can get what you want. Unfortunately, covid tends not to hear them or read them.
In the Wales case, I guess it's simply the politics of the small shopkeepers seeing - or being told by - their customers buying the same stuff down the road at Tesco.
Our own version of dishonest populism, who while I accept is not as repulsive or as psychopathic, will also meet his Waterloo when people realise that having extreme narcissists and liars in positions of power is a really bad thing.
Back in March Grandson One (an adult) went to Tesco for us.Among the items in his trolley was a bottle of gin. 'That's not essential' said the woman at the checkout. 'It's for my Grannie" "Oh, ok, then" and she carried on with the checkout!
How is alcohol regarded in Wales? I have a picture of my Welsh grandmother, in her youth, in the uniform of the Band of Hope. That was 120 years ago, though!
As I said, no one has yet explained why they haven't been rolled out to every hospital in the country so staff, patients and visitors can be tested daily.
23,000 cases on the 19th. How many contact would that translate to to track down?
We live in a free society and yet the leader of Wales is forbidding people from buying socks with their cornflakes.
It might well be necessary, and logically consistent, but it is absurd.
Would be most grateful.
Also why does England and Scotland reject national lockdowns
Answer they both know the economic wasteland that follows
Somehow, maybe wrongly, I had imagined you were clothed quite differently.
After the first debate CNN had Biden winning 60% to 28%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_debates
CNN also had Hillary winning the first 2016 debate 62% to 27% for Trump and had Clinton winning the second debate 57% to 34% for Trump and CNN had Clinton winning the third 2016 debate 52% to 39% So it is also almost the same result as Trump had after his third debate with Clinton in 2016, where he did the best of the 3.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_debates
https://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/19/politics/hillary-clinton-wins-third-presidential-debate-according-to-cnn-orc-poll/index.html
I’m not trolling Starmer, just reminding people that a boring LoTO doesn’t usually become PM, regardless of midterm VI and Leader ratings.
This place used to be full of analysis like that, now it’s just a partisan smart arse, point scoring fest, which is a shame
The State market was free money.
With respect I am not talking about visiting in England
My son in laws mother remains in hospital in a grave condition and neither he nor his sister are allowed to visit.
Furthermore their father is in care and they are not allowed to visit either.
This is morally indefensible and causing great family stress and all this under the Wales NHS
Although the person in the clip referring to February still raises the possibility it was filmed during the beginning of the crisis in March
The reason, I think, that they've not been approved is that they're being assessed as an alternative to PCR, which they're not. Properly used, they would do a different job - testing the asymptomatic, and picking up the majority of those with high enough viral loads to be infectious.
PCR doesn't have, and won't ever have, sufficient capacity to test large portions of the population regularly.
https://twitter.com/ons/status/1319519352874467328?s=21
There is already enough data from the Central Belt lockdown to show that.
Sold 'QAnon' on SPIN £5 @ 5, settled at 0
Sold 'Here's the deal' £5 @ 8, settled at 2.
Net Kerching!: +£55
Must dash.
So there you go.
PM, not LotO: Major, Brown, May, Johnson
both: [Thatcher], Blair, Cameron
unknown: Starmer
(did I miss anyone?)
I have to say, there's not a lot of data points there
The RSI Internet shows month-on-month growth of 13% in March, 17% in April, 16% in May, 14% in June, -10% in July, -5% in August and par in September. October will surely be up again. Compound all that together and you can see where the growth is.
There is also the big switch from catering - particularly workers eating out or getting takeaways at lunchtime, including in work canteens - to buying more food to be consumed at home.
Every single "runner" in the market was a massive sell as it turned out.
HTD got 2 mentions, ACB got 1, all others zero.
LotO>PM Thatcher, Blair, Cameron - all beat their rivals on personality
It's not an antigen test, though - it's a quicker and cheaper DNA/RNA amplification technology which does the same sort of thing as PCR far quicker and nearly as accurately.
So it would be ideal, though not of negligible cost, for the purpose you describe.
The antigen tests are intended to be much cheaper, and used on a much larger scale.
All three technologies have their place.
This is the thing. If Fox is mentioned, everyone goes "GOP bias". But everyone seems to treat the likes of CNN as completely non-partisan.
Rawlston is doing no such thing. What he's essentially saying is that you can't make any meaningful comparisons with what happened in previous years, because this election is unique. This time the state mailed out ballot papers to EVERY voter in the state. The Dems are overall still way ahead of where they were at the same time in 2016, but within that Dems have clearly been inclined to vote early by mail in huge numbers (Trump's comments about mail probably putting off Republicans) whereas Reps are still voting early in person. So is this a real or superficial improvement for the Dems? It's really hard to tell because all the comparisons are skewed.
By contrast, in previous years, it's been possible to draw conclusions from early voting in Nevada because the state has conducted early voting on a consistent basis year-by-year so if one party is further ahead after say 5 days of early voting than they were previously, you can reasonably conclude that there's been an overall swing to them. This year you'll be better looking to other states to draw early conclusions from early voting.
Aiui the price of the highest bandwidth machine is about £20k and the running costs are actually fairly low, I'm not sure that is an insurmountable cost for the government to provide one per trust and allow venues to start using them to screen people before entering.
1992 may also be an example but Major was seen as a nice guy and personally more charismatic than his spitting image puppet and his soap box oratory went down well, 2017 is also partly an example as May won most seats but then again she also lost her majority
Also, we're in the UK, it's Director of Operations, not Vice President of Operations.
Were we conquered by Les États Unis and nobody told me?
Neither the UK nor the EU have been impressive in this area at all.
But looking at some of Trump's wins in 2016, he won by tiny margins, I find it hard to believe he's gone forward in those states.
Ditto Grey John Major over Kinnock?
Separation of Covid patients in hospitals for infection control purposes
Control of staffing - no cross working on Covid and non Covid wards
Assessment of staff working on Covid wards - priority given to those who will not mix at home, less people at home to infect
Somebody described the old plague hospitals as being totally separated and that should be the aim even if that means paying full time wages to a cleaner porter even if not working full time hours
Similar measures as above at care homes.
My wife’s Grandma is very ill in a home. Visiting is normally banned but they have allowed both daughters to visit when she had a stroke and looked like she would die. She has improved since and now visiting is banned again, Pragmatic and sensitive treatment at end of life where risks to health are limited.
Enforce priority system for online grocery shopping for over 70s
Cover costs for pharmacies to undertake home delivery of medicines to those shielding
Encourage shielding only hours in retail
Free TV license / broadband for homes with shielding people
Fools the lot.
As somebody said downthread, to help control the virus Wales has banned buying socks and cornflakes at the same time.
Well that’s going to bring R crashing down isn’t it.
Trump is dragging the whole GOP down with him but the voters so disgusted with him and the GOP aren't showing up in either column in your table.
All your table shows is that there are some who back Trump who don't back the generic GOP which shouldn't be too surprising but those who've abandoned the GOP because of Trump aren't voting for either which is why a blue wave is coming.
What your table shows is very bad news for the GOP.
Also there is a pattern of PMs being chosen for the opposite of the key negative characteristics of the exiting PM
Thatcher divisive - Major uniting
Major dull - Blair inspiring
Blair big picture - Brown detail
Brown control freak - Cameron delegator
Cameron delegator - May control freak
May dull - Johnson inspiring
Johnson clown/divisive/incompetent - ........ serious/uniting/competent
In normal circumstances I think it carries some weight, but not sure being dull is even a negative in terms of who will replace Johnson.
I have just watched it and I reckon Trump edged it. However according to the Independent.........
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden did a better job in the final debate on Thursday than his rival Donald Trump, according to a number of snap reaction polls.
CNN’s poll, released shortly after the debate ended on Thursday night, found that 53 per cent of viewers felt Mr Biden had won the debate, compared to 39 per cent who believed Mr Trump had done a better job.
Similar numbers were seen in polls by YouGov America, which had Mr Biden on 54 per cent and Mr Trump on 35 per cent, and Data for Progress (Biden 52 per cent; Trump 41 per cent.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1319267387766689792?s=20