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
There's a lot of sense in there, but it doesn't address all of the issues, but I won't labour the point because I'm not trying to push towards any particular conclusion. Thanks for your response.
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
Well my response to your header on this topic was (and I quote) - "I hadn't considered that, interesting."
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.
The rule is stupid, will cause conflict (what’s “essential”?)
- I’d love to sell you that mop but the regulations won’t allow it, I think. -But my kitchen floor is dirty. - Well you’re going to have to live with it till Nov 9th. Dangerous things mops. A major cause of superspreading. - I’ll buy it on Amazon. - The regulations will stop that. Oh wait...
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.
It is a terrible plan. We get that. But we had exactly the same arguments six months ago when Boris sent armed police to Tesco when someone bought an Easter egg. Or something like that anyway. Not necessarily the same arguments from the same people but the same arguments. In England this time, in tier 3, shops stay open so it is more about whether you can have sex with someone down the road.
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
Yes, worth keeping Ms Rayner in the green as next PM. Her comment didn't go down well with the stuffed shirts, but played well to Labour activists. If Starmer falls (or is pushed) under a bus, she is next in line. No shortage of personality, passion or authenticity.
I would quite like PM Rayner, the pearl clutching by the metropolitan media would do wonders for popcorn sales.
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.
I’d like to know the legal basis for banning the sale of non-essential items in open shops. There was no such legal basis back in March despite all those officious policeman trying to inspect people’s shopping baskets.
Anyone who suggests Hungary could be suspended from the EU doesn't understand the EU.
It would require unanimous agreement to do it and there's enough other nations that would veto that. Especially other Visegrad nations won't allow one of their own to be picked off like that.
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.
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
Well my response to your header on this topic was (and I quote) - "I hadn't considered that, interesting."
However I sense a change. 3/11 will be a sign.
Boring LotOs don't become PMs but then surely most LotOs do not become PMs, at least not in the 21st Century. We had a run of Blair seeing off Tory LotOs, followed by a couple of duff Labour LotOs.
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.
Was there a maximum makeup though? If not, there was, in theory , a big possible liability if you got it wrong.
Yes, you'd need to be comfortable with that aspect. Joe's wires fusing as he repeatedly goes "Here's the deal" a propos of nothing. But this (like most novelty spread markets) was a "professional sell, amateur buy" affair. Framed to attract fun punters who would mostly buy. Bet SPIN did nicely out of it.
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.
I’d like to know the legal basis for banning the sale of non-essential items in open shops. There was no such legal basis back in March despite all those officious policeman trying to inspect people’s shopping baskets.
And a followup question, if I may: how widespread was the over-officious policing before it was reigned in? I know it was reported as happening, but it didn't happen to anyone I know. Indeed, I never see any police around here. Are we talking egregious but rare examples, or something more pernicious?
F1: late to this news, but Haas is dropping both its drivers. Apparently it's for financial reasons.
Yep, they don't bring enough sponsorship with them and the teams are all going to get paid a lot less then usual in prize money this year. Expect Perez to sign for Haas alongside another driver, possibly one of the F2 drivers, who can bring money to the team.
Great new track for this weekend, Portimāo in Portugual. Few of the F1 drivers have ever driven there, and it's a rare track for featuring huge undulations and blind corners.
The one advantage of the Welsh situation - assuming Bozo doesn't end up being pushed into copying it - is that down the line it will allow some statistical analysis of the difference it has made compared to the softer approach in England
This wont help the North v South debate on government business support.
In tier 2, councils will receive business grants from the government to support businesses allowed to stay open but severely impacted, so primarily hospitality. Thats great, however the amount is driven by rateable value:
LAs will receive a funding amount that will be the equivalent of: For properties with a rateable value of £15,000 or under, grants of £934 per month. For properties with a rateable value over £15,000 and below £51,000, grants of £1,400 per month. For properties with a rateable value of exactly £51,000 and over, grants of £2,100 per month.
Business rates are much higher in London than the rest of the country. You might think its justified to reflect business rates and rents costs, but that was covered in the earlier business grants in the spring - these are supposed to be helping protect jobs and should therefore be driven by headcount/wage bills not rates.
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
HYUFD - please don't reply to this post with Trafalgar did best last time because that is not going to be the question.
Do you believe Trafalgar is a pollster or pundit? I genuinely don't know, but @rcs1000 and @Alistair have both posted evidence that Trafalgar is not a pollster but a pundit. They may well be a very good pundit.
If Trafalgar is a pundit it should not be posting spoof polls. If it is a pollster how do you respond to @rcs1000 and @Alistair?
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.
The one advantage of the Welsh situation - assuming Bozo doesn't end up being pushed into copying it - is that down the line it will allow some statistical analysis of the difference it has made compared to the softer approach in England
The downside being it'll also allow some statistical cherry-picking, since we all know that the lockdown will create both positive and negative effects. You just know that most people with a strong view will come out of this feeling vindicated, no matter what happens.
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.
It's another day of the news cycle dominated by the lockdown argument, and no attention on different types of tests, increasing the proportion of the infectious who isolate, etc.
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"
CNN's group of 9 undecideds broke 7/0 for Biden with 2 still undecided.
So there you go.
Are those like those NBC "undecideds" who were actually Biden supporters?
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.
It does at least put greater emphasis on fact checking and referencing
Very selectively and their approach is to underplay a story that goes against their narrative.
Nevertheless you're trying to play the game of faux equivalence that has become popular with the crazy right nowadays. Driving around the US last year I heard some batshit crazy opinions being pumped out on various right wing radio stations and programmes. Just because someone has put money behind these doesnt make it a 50/50 call when up against the opinions of scientists and experts, based on real facts and real research.
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.
I’d like to know the legal basis for banning the sale of non-essential items in open shops. There was no such legal basis back in March despite all those officious policeman trying to inspect people’s shopping baskets.
And a followup question, if I may: how widespread was the over-officious policing before it was reigned in? I know it was reported as happening, but it didn't happen to anyone I know. Indeed, I never see any police around here. Are we talking egregious but rare examples, or something more pernicious?
A reasonable question and things must be in proportion, though even if very rare we do need those with the authority to either govern us or arrest/fine us to be correct when they are telling us we must not do something and could be punished for doing it. It's not the sort of thing where a certain level of being wrong is no big deal, particularly given how hard it can be to challenge them, and the temptation or laziness to go beyond the actual rules must always be resisted.
Liverpool FC’s community programme, Red Neighbours, will deliver food hampers to families in need during the upcoming half-term break as part of its ‘Breakfast Clubs to You’ initiative.
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Red Neighbours would have welcomed families to Anfield over the half-term break for breakfast clubs, involving a cooked meal, activities and live music. However, as a result of current restrictions, ‘Breakfast Clubs to You’ was launched to ensure that local families don’t miss out.
The Red Neighbours team will deliver 160 food parcels in the Anfield and Kirkby communities next week, each feeding a family of four for up to five days. Each parcel includes items such as bread, milk, eggs, cereal, fruit and much more.
As part of a seasonal twist, the Red Neighbours team has also included a Halloween pumpkin soup recipe - assembled by the chefs at Anfield - with the ingredients provided to help families cook together over the half-term holidays.
Forbes Duff, Red Neighbours senior manager, said: “We are delighted to continue the delivery of food parcels to those most in need in our local communities throughout the half-term holidays.
“We would have loved to welcome families into Anfield as usual for our half-term breakfast clubs but that’s unfortunately not an option at the moment due to the current government restrictions. Although we have had to adapt amidst the current pandemic, we are proud that we will help to feed over 600 people next week with our ‘Breakfast Clubs to You’ initiative.”
Aside from their support over half-term, the Red Neighbours team also continue to produce and deliver 1,000 meals per week to those in need in the local community as part of the club’s COVID-19 recovery response work. Since March, the team have delivered over 27,000 free meals to those living in food poverty throughout the local community.
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.
I’d like to know the legal basis for banning the sale of non-essential items in open shops. There was no such legal basis back in March despite all those officious policeman trying to inspect people’s shopping baskets.
And a followup question, if I may: how widespread was the over-officious policing before it was reigned in? I know it was reported as happening, but it didn't happen to anyone I know. Indeed, I never see any police around here. Are we talking egregious but rare examples, or something more pernicious?
If you remember, right at the beginning of the crisis there were a few reports - drones and the like being used to spy on people taking a walk and such. But the police were quickly told to adopt a lighter touch.
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"
CNN's group of 9 undecideds broke 7/0 for Biden with 2 still undecided.
So there you go.
Are those like those NBC "undecideds" who were actually Biden supporters?
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.
No, exactly. I was taking the piss out of CNN there. They are partisan. Course they are. It's a rather better class of bias than Fox though. It's like the Guardian vs the Sun.
Stayed up late finishing an Australian noir novel ("The Dry") so tuned into the debate. Trump better than last time - host did a superb job corralling him back onto the topic or shutting up. Biden occasionally hesitant (stutter?) but overall no major gaffes despite Trump thinking that wanting to end oil by 2050 was one. With a bit of luck this is the last time we'll see Trump on a national platform.
In other news, Welsh ministers getting into predictable mess over what's essential.....telling Kay Burley that while alcohol is "essential", hair dryers are not:
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?
@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.
It’s probably not in time. What’s their production capacity, and are there any constraints on the availability of reagents (one of the problems for PCR) ?
The antigen tests are more akin to the paper strip home pregnancy tests. Could be produced in the tens of millions - and if made on that scale, could be around £1 - £2 a time.
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
Except CNN is directly in line with the other 2 so I don't think your point holds water
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.
Those who back Trump but not the generic GOP are mainly in the rustbelt swing states and the South, those who have abandoned the GOP because of Trump are mainly in Hillary voting states in the West like California and Colorado eg Orange County California voted Democrat in 2016 for the first time since 1936
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
HYUFD - please don't reply to this post with Trafalgar did best last time because that is not going to be the question.
Do you believe Trafalgar is a pollster or pundit? I genuinely don't know, but @rcs1000 and @Alistair have both posted evidence that Trafalgar is not a pollster but a pundit. They may well be a very good pundit.
If Trafalgar is a pundit it should not be posting spoof polls. If it is a pollster how do you respond to @rcs1000 and @Alistair?
If Trump wins the EC again Trafalgar will definitely be a pollster and a goldstandard one at that, if Trump loses the EC it will just be a pundit, simple really!
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
Yes, worth keeping Ms Rayner in the green as next PM. Her comment didn't go down well with the stuffed shirts, but played well to Labour activists. If Starmer falls (or is pushed) under a bus, she is next in line. No shortage of personality, passion or authenticity.
I would quite like PM Rayner, the pearl clutching by the metropolitan media would do wonders for popcorn sales.
🍿🍿🍿😅
Jess Phillips is the halfway house. Not really that rebellious or left field, but the political classes safe version of it
There's still a chunk of the Romford population who moved here to get out of inner East London, and resent London catching up with them. And the desire to control one's own life is strong here- like with Brexit. And the whispered sense that, somehow, we're funding the terrible inner city and would have more cash if we kept it for ourselves.
But mostly, this is Rosser being a making a noise about a nothing, which he's very good at which is why he has a huge majority in Romford and has got nowhere in Parliament. And him sulking because he went for the Conservative Mayoral candidate for this round and didn't make the shortlist.
And St John's Wood, where Middlesex play cricket, is in Middlesex. Along with Enfield, Tottenham, and lots of other places.
So was Uxbridge in Middlesex but Londoners still think Uxbridge is part of London but not Havering, probably because Havering is so overwhelmingly pro Brexit and pro Boris and pro Tory (even more so than Boris' own Uxbridge seat) most Londoners would be glad to get rid of it and the feeling is mutual, most of Havering would rather be in Essex which it is culturally closer to than London.
Havering is a bit like the London version of State Island, Staten Island was the only borough of New York City to vote for Trump not Hillary in 2016
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.
Yes, I did wonder about simply selling all of them that were at 4 or more. It was a commendably mispriced market.
Me too. In fact sell the lot was my initial instinct. But sadly I didn't. Just did the favourite. And only for £3. Still, £18, pint and a packet of fags. Maybe some crisps too.
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.
Presumably, if anything, it worsens R (very slightly) if people now order from Amazon, and the items are delivered by delivery drivers.
The average Welsh politician is not very bright. And the stupidity is pretty much constant across all the political parties.
In fact, Mark Drakeford and Paul Davies don't even have any charisma, as well as not being pretty or smart.
Whereas, although I grew to dislike them, I could see that Carwyn had an oleaginous charm and Rhodri a rough-hewn amiability.
Why would it worsen R, comparted to going to a supermarket and being cooped up for some time with assorted other people? Our delivery drivers aren't allowed in - and we certainly don't open the door: I talk to them from my office window. And if you treat the packaging with caution there's little risk from fomites.
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
HYUFD - please don't reply to this post with Trafalgar did best last time because that is not going to be the question.
Do you believe Trafalgar is a pollster or pundit? I genuinely don't know, but @rcs1000 and @Alistair have both posted evidence that Trafalgar is not a pollster but a pundit. They may well be a very good pundit.
If Trafalgar is a pundit it should not be posting spoof polls. If it is a pollster how do you respond to @rcs1000 and @Alistair?
If Trump wins the EC again Trafalgar will definitely be a pollster and a goldstandard one at that, if Trump loses the EC it will just be a pundit, simple really!
Why would Trump winning or losing make them a pollster or not?
They are either engaging in legitimate polling or they are not.
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)".
Lol. A little standalone DLT drive on his desk to tape wrangle daily, probably, genuinely housed in a basement? VP, indeed!
Being on the systems admin side of the floor, I tend to be an occasional sellotape and string scripter rather than a serious coder using whatever language happens to be to hand for a few well chosen ines. However, one of the longest and most destruction tested scripts I ever produced was to correct and prompt men in vans and anticipate the multiple ways they could foul up ejecting tapes from different models of tape library. Fun times.
I have lived in Havering almost all my life and in that time my address has always contained "Essex", and never London. @Stuartinromford is right, most people moved here from London and don't want London following them. It is though. We are probably going to move out to Non London Essex in the next few years. Our son was born in Broomfield Hospital in Essex but had to go to Queens in Romford after 4 days -the contrast was striking, enough to make me realise I was happier in Essex than London.
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
Well my response to your header on this topic was (and I quote) - "I hadn't considered that, interesting."
However I sense a change. 3/11 will be a sign.
Boring LotOs don't become PMs but then surely most LotOs do not become PMs, at least not in the 21st Century. We had a run of Blair seeing off Tory LotOs, followed by a couple of duff Labour LotOs.
Yes, only those with more charisma than the PM become PM
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.
Presumably, if anything, it worsens R (very slightly) if people now order from Amazon, and the items are delivered by delivery drivers.
The average Welsh politician is not very bright. And the stupidity is pretty much constant across all the political parties.
In fact, Mark Drakeford and Paul Davies don't even have any charisma, as well as not being pretty or smart.
Whereas, although I grew to dislike them, I could see that Carwyn had an oleaginous charm and Rhodri a rough-hewn amiability.
Why would it worsen R, comparted to going to a supermarket and being cooped up for some time with assorted other people? Our delivery drivers aren't allowed in - and we certainly don't open the door: I talk to them from my office window. And if you treat the packaging with caution there's little risk from fomites.
Because you're going to the supermarket anyhow. In WelshOwl's picture, you are doing your food shopping (cornflakes) and buying clothing (socks). You have not made an extra trip to ASDA to just buy the socks.
There is little risk to you, in the scenario you sketch, but the delivery driver is making a number of deliveries & will encounter some people who are not so ultra-cautious.
Stayed up late finishing an Australian noir novel ("The Dry") so tuned into the debate. Trump better than last time - host did a superb job corralling him back onto the topic or shutting up. Biden occasionally hesitant (stutter?) but overall no major gaffes despite Trump thinking that wanting to end oil by 2050 was one. With a bit of luck this is the last time we'll see Trump on a national platform.
In other news, Welsh ministers getting into predictable mess over what's essential.....telling Kay Burley that while alcohol is "essential", hair dryers are not:
Of course the BIG unanswered question is "What are the Welsh government going to do in the 17 days to change things when the lockdown ends?"
I quite liked "The Dry", but continue in my so far largely fruitless quest for a really good crime/thriller writer. There is a heck of a lot of mediocrity out there which, for me, is masquerading as good stuff (e.g. Rankin, McDermid, Connelly).
The best crime book I`ve read is Crooked Letter, Crooked Letter by Tom Franklin. I also enjoyed Mystic River by Dennis Lehane (though I was disappointed by another of his books). Koontz`s "Watchers" good in parts. I like all of Gillian Flynn`s books very much.
Good for them but entirely logical, not simply charity.
When Daughter’s business reopened in July, she had a few ready-made frozen meals left over from her takeaway business, which she donated to a local charity. It seemed like the right thing to do and, yes, she got some useful publicity. But why not?
People remember acts of kindness and if it makes it more probable that people will come back or go to a place which treats people well, why not do it.
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
HYUFD - please don't reply to this post with Trafalgar did best last time because that is not going to be the question.
Do you believe Trafalgar is a pollster or pundit? I genuinely don't know, but @rcs1000 and @Alistair have both posted evidence that Trafalgar is not a pollster but a pundit. They may well be a very good pundit.
If Trafalgar is a pundit it should not be posting spoof polls. If it is a pollster how do you respond to @rcs1000 and @Alistair?
If Trump wins the EC again Trafalgar will definitely be a pollster and a goldstandard one at that, if Trump loses the EC it will just be a pundit, simple really!
Why would Trump winning or losing make them a pollster or not?
They are either engaging in legitimate polling or they are not.
If they get the correct result obviously a legitimate pollster, the whole point of polls is to forecast, correctly, election results and the views of the public otherwise they are worthless
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
HYUFD - please don't reply to this post with Trafalgar did best last time because that is not going to be the question.
Do you believe Trafalgar is a pollster or pundit? I genuinely don't know, but @rcs1000 and @Alistair have both posted evidence that Trafalgar is not a pollster but a pundit. They may well be a very good pundit.
If Trafalgar is a pundit it should not be posting spoof polls. If it is a pollster how do you respond to @rcs1000 and @Alistair?
If Trump wins the EC again Trafalgar will definitely be a pollster and a goldstandard one at that, if Trump loses the EC it will just be a pundit, simple really!
No. It has nothing to do with how good they are.
Pollsters carry out polls. Pundits don't.
Is Trafalgar a pollster?
If you think yes how do you respond to the evidence provided by Robert and Alistair?
If they are not then the arguments and evidence they provide is very valuable particularly as they have a track record, BUT if they haven't carried out a poll they should not be publishing figures saying they have.
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
HYUFD - please don't reply to this post with Trafalgar did best last time because that is not going to be the question.
Do you believe Trafalgar is a pollster or pundit? I genuinely don't know, but @rcs1000 and @Alistair have both posted evidence that Trafalgar is not a pollster but a pundit. They may well be a very good pundit.
If Trafalgar is a pundit it should not be posting spoof polls. If it is a pollster how do you respond to @rcs1000 and @Alistair?
If Trump wins the EC again Trafalgar will definitely be a pollster and a goldstandard one at that, if Trump loses the EC it will just be a pundit, simple really!
Why would Trump winning or losing make them a pollster or not?
They are either engaging in legitimate polling or they are not.
If they get the correct result obviously a legitimate pollster, the whole point of polls is to forecast, correctly, election results otherwise they are worthless
To be a pollster don’t you need to carry out polls?
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.
I said it's not impossible for the 2 to differ but I am highly sceptical about how "undecided" Luntz's "undecideds" actually are as they always seem to break in the direction that suits his political agenda
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 contacts would that translate to to track down?
I’m not sure how simple it might be for even a tenth that number.
The PCR system, at the very best, takes 24hrs to return a result. The vast majority of people aren’t tested until symptomatic, and we know that they are most infectious for two or three days before symptoms appear. And for 30/40% of infected, symptoms never appear at all, so they don’t get tested. So even if you get a result in a day, and for many it’s two or three days, there are a potentially quite large number on contacts.
Contact tracing isn’t getting all those who are reported infected, and even fewer of identified contacts - let alone unidentified contacts.
So it’s an impossible task even if it were being run efficiently at the local level. Instead of badly, and mainly centralised.
That’s why I’m an advocate of mass antigen testing - which would get around all of the above.
Great new track for this weekend, Portimāo in Portugual. Few of the F1 drivers have ever driven there, and it's a rare track for featuring huge undulations and blind corners.
It's great fun on a bike but a setup challenge in a car as it's a very low friction and has variable radius corners. I've done a 1:53 there in my 996 so I'll put that fucking Haas on the box for them if they're short of drivers.
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.
I’d like to know the legal basis for banning the sale of non-essential items in open shops. There was no such legal basis back in March despite all those officious policeman trying to inspect people’s shopping baskets.
And a followup question, if I may: how widespread was the over-officious policing before it was reigned in? I know it was reported as happening, but it didn't happen to anyone I know. Indeed, I never see any police around here. Are we talking egregious but rare examples, or something more pernicious?
The CPS had to throw out every single prosecution the police had tried to bring for breach of the regulations as there was no legal basis or evidence for them. So it was more than simply one or two cases.
“Essential” is impossible to define. A hairdryer, for instance, is essential if you have hair of any length. Try telling a mother of kids with long hair that they have to go round with wet hair.
F1: late to this news, but Haas is dropping both its drivers. Apparently it's for financial reasons.
Yep, they don't bring enough sponsorship with them and the teams are all going to get paid a lot less then usual in prize money this year. Expect Perez to sign for Haas alongside another driver, possibly one of the F2 drivers, who can bring money to the team.
Great new track for this weekend, Portimāo in Portugual. Few of the F1 drivers have ever driven there, and it's a rare track for featuring huge undulations and blind corners.
Blind corners?? Well I hope there's no traffic coming the other way!
Stayed up late finishing an Australian noir novel ("The Dry") so tuned into the debate. Trump better than last time - host did a superb job corralling him back onto the topic or shutting up. Biden occasionally hesitant (stutter?) but overall no major gaffes despite Trump thinking that wanting to end oil by 2050 was one. With a bit of luck this is the last time we'll see Trump on a national platform.
In other news, Welsh ministers getting into predictable mess over what's essential.....telling Kay Burley that while alcohol is "essential", hair dryers are not:
Of course the BIG unanswered question is "What are the Welsh government going to do in the 17 days to change things when the lockdown ends?"
Any other suggestions? They`ve got to be good.
In a similar vein I read Chris Hammer's Martin Scarsden trilogy, "Scrublands" / "Silver" / "Trust" - which I slightly preferred. https://chrishammerauthor.com/
And on TV the "Mystery Road" series/films are very good.
In this weather I prefer Aussie Noir to the gloomy Scandi variety!
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
HYUFD - please don't reply to this post with Trafalgar did best last time because that is not going to be the question.
Do you believe Trafalgar is a pollster or pundit? I genuinely don't know, but @rcs1000 and @Alistair have both posted evidence that Trafalgar is not a pollster but a pundit. They may well be a very good pundit.
If Trafalgar is a pundit it should not be posting spoof polls. If it is a pollster how do you respond to @rcs1000 and @Alistair?
If Trump wins the EC again Trafalgar will definitely be a pollster and a goldstandard one at that, if Trump loses the EC it will just be a pundit, simple really!
Why would Trump winning or losing make them a pollster or not?
They are either engaging in legitimate polling or they are not.
If they get the correct result obviously a legitimate pollster, the whole point of polls is to forecast, correctly, election results and the views of the public otherwise they are worthless
On the day that GE19 was called I forecast a Con majority of 60 to 80.
So why is "kinabalu" not on your list of respected pollsters?
@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.
Heathrow are using HiberGene Diagnostics test which is based on LAMP (which is an acronym for Loop-mediated Isothermal Amplification) technology. This is a single tube technique for the amplification of DNA. It provides a low cost alternative to PCR technology to detect certain diseases. Cost (at Heathrow) £80 ‘Slightly less sensitive than PCR’ Doesn't I think, need to ne £80, though. There's also what appears to be a good Canadian one, and Abbotts nave a similar, but much cheaper one, which they are using to and from Hawaii.
I have lived in Havering almost all my life and in that time my address has always contained "Essex", and never London. @Stuartinromford is right, most people moved here from London and don't want London following them. It is though. We are probably going to move out to Non London Essex in the next few years. Our son was born in Broomfield Hospital in Essex but had to go to Queens in Romford after 4 days -the contrast was striking, enough to make me realise I was happier in Essex than London.
Yes, but the irony is that this process will (and already is) make Havering more like the rest of East London
Stayed up late finishing an Australian noir novel ("The Dry") so tuned into the debate. Trump better than last time - host did a superb job corralling him back onto the topic or shutting up. Biden occasionally hesitant (stutter?) but overall no major gaffes despite Trump thinking that wanting to end oil by 2050 was one. With a bit of luck this is the last time we'll see Trump on a national platform.
In other news, Welsh ministers getting into predictable mess over what's essential.....telling Kay Burley that while alcohol is "essential", hair dryers are not:
Of course the BIG unanswered question is "What are the Welsh government going to do in the 17 days to change things when the lockdown ends?"
Any other suggestions? They`ve got to be good.
In a similar vein I read Chris Hammer's Martin Scarsden trilogy, "Scrublands" / "Silver" / "Trust" - which I slightly preferred. https://chrishammerauthor.com/
And on TV the "Mystery Road" series/films are very good.
In this weather I prefer Aussie Noir to the gloomy Scandi variety!
Thanks for that. I`ll check out Chris Hammer.
I`ve never heard of "Mystery Road" but see that I can view it on BBC iplayer.
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.
Presumably, if anything, it worsens R (very slightly) if people now order from Amazon, and the items are delivered by delivery drivers.
The average Welsh politician is not very bright. And the stupidity is pretty much constant across all the political parties.
In fact, Mark Drakeford and Paul Davies don't even have any charisma, as well as not being pretty or smart.
Whereas, although I grew to dislike them, I could see that Carwyn had an oleaginous charm and Rhodri a rough-hewn amiability.
Why would it worsen R, comparted to going to a supermarket and being cooped up for some time with assorted other people? Our delivery drivers aren't allowed in - and we certainly don't open the door: I talk to them from my office window. And if you treat the packaging with caution there's little risk from fomites.
Because you're going to the supermarket anyhow. In WelshOwl's picture, you are doing your food shopping (cornflakes) and buying clothing (socks). You have not made an extra trip to ASDA to just buy the socks.
There is little risk to you, in the scenario you sketch, but the delivery driver is making a number of deliveries & will encounter some people who are not so ultra-cautious.
Whatever, it is a small effect either way.
Exactly it’s no biggy either way.
It’s just so petty and plain idiotic. Let’s devise something that drives people to internet shopping, so they get into the habit and forget about using the local hardware store or Wilkos for that matter because Mr Bezos will sort it all out.
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.
I said it's not impossible for the 2 to differ but I am highly sceptical about how "undecided" Luntz's "undecideds" actually are as they always seem to break in the direction that suits his political agenda
Luntz did himself call out one of his "undecideds" for being a GOP hack in one of the earlier debates, possibly the VP debate. But certainly this morning gave the strong impression his respondents were all Trump-leaning, even if we take them at their word they were undecided for this election and were not GOP plants.
F1: late to this news, but Haas is dropping both its drivers. Apparently it's for financial reasons.
Yes. (a) their drivers are shit, (b) Haas aren't scoring enough points to generate sponsorship revenues from anyone who isn't a fraudster, so (c) hire better drivers
I have lived in Havering almost all my life and in that time my address has always contained "Essex", and never London. @Stuartinromford is right, most people moved here from London and don't want London following them. It is though. We are probably going to move out to Non London Essex in the next few years. Our son was born in Broomfield Hospital in Essex but had to go to Queens in Romford after 4 days -the contrast was striking, enough to make me realise I was happier in Essex than London.
Yes, but the irony is that this process will (and already is) make Havering more like the rest of East London
Yeah but if I don't live there anymore I don't care!
EastEnders demographic is Havering although it pretends to be East London. I happen to think this is kind of racist of the BBC, and my guess is that they dont think the rest of the country would believe it if they accurately represented Stratford/Walthamstow
An interesting meeting with the client over in Bucharest. Via Cisco Webex (what a hateful piece of shit platform that is!). The view of EU logistics firms regarding Brexit is that as we are unable to impose customs checks as threatened that they don't need to waste much time prepping for that as a scenario. A major UK logistics company I am speaking to as the receiving end of the process is saying pretty much the same thing.
So as we go into the final stages of the negotiation, remember that the counterparty knows fully well that our "we'll walk" threat isn't physically possible. So the negotiation will be which shade of lipstick Shagger wants to wear when he climbs into his pig costume to unveil his capitulation.
I have lived in Havering almost all my life and in that time my address has always contained "Essex", and never London. @Stuartinromford is right, most people moved here from London and don't want London following them. It is though. We are probably going to move out to Non London Essex in the next few years. Our son was born in Broomfield Hospital in Essex but had to go to Queens in Romford after 4 days -the contrast was striking, enough to make me realise I was happier in Essex than London.
Yes, but the irony is that this process will (and already is) make Havering more like the rest of East London
To a large extent, that's happened/is happening/will happen anyway. Unlike @isam, I grew up in the sticks (the rough end of Hampshire, for what it's worth) and only moved to Romford about a decade ago. Even then, it felt more London than not-London (mayor Boris, red buses, inside the M25...). Since then, the demographics have shifted away from Romford being massively different, and that process continues each time a house is bought or sold. You can tell the newcomers in my street; they do their houses up differently. Once Crossrail happens, that'll be the final nail in the coffin of that version of Romford, I reckon.
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.
Two thoughts, and I'm sure Big G had similar experiences. When my children were born I was shooed out of the labour ward; father's only arrived after the baby had been born and the mother cleaned up. I, and most of my age-group can tell tales of sitting outside, waiting for the midwife to appear and tell us what sex the child was. And when I was a student pubs closed at 10pm. We just started earlier!
I agree and it was only when my youngest was born in 1975, 9 years and 5 years after his elder brother and sister, that I was actually allowed to be present at his birth
I was present at the births of all my children in 1970, 1971, 1973 and 1975. I was a key part of the team as I was the only person my wife would listen to. I relayed the message "push now".
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.
It's another day of the news cycle dominated by the lockdown argument, and no attention on different types of tests, increasing the proportion of the infectious who isolate, etc.
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
HYUFD - please don't reply to this post with Trafalgar did best last time because that is not going to be the question.
Do you believe Trafalgar is a pollster or pundit? I genuinely don't know, but @rcs1000 and @Alistair have both posted evidence that Trafalgar is not a pollster but a pundit. They may well be a very good pundit.
If Trafalgar is a pundit it should not be posting spoof polls. If it is a pollster how do you respond to @rcs1000 and @Alistair?
If Trump wins the EC again Trafalgar will definitely be a pollster and a goldstandard one at that, if Trump loses the EC it will just be a pundit, simple really!
Why would Trump winning or losing make them a pollster or not?
They are either engaging in legitimate polling or they are not.
If they get the correct result obviously a legitimate pollster, the whole point of polls is to forecast, correctly, election results and the views of the public otherwise they are worthless
On the day that GE19 was called I forecast a Con majority of 60 to 80.
So why is "kinabalu" not on your list of respected pollsters?
Well you were more use than Comres whose final 2019 poll was just a 5% Tory lead, so on that basis I would happily make you a pollster
Stayed up late finishing an Australian noir novel ("The Dry") so tuned into the debate. Trump better than last time - host did a superb job corralling him back onto the topic or shutting up. Biden occasionally hesitant (stutter?) but overall no major gaffes despite Trump thinking that wanting to end oil by 2050 was one. With a bit of luck this is the last time we'll see Trump on a national platform.
In other news, Welsh ministers getting into predictable mess over what's essential.....telling Kay Burley that while alcohol is "essential", hair dryers are not:
Of course the BIG unanswered question is "What are the Welsh government going to do in the 17 days to change things when the lockdown ends?"
Any other suggestions? They`ve got to be good.
In a similar vein I read Chris Hammer's Martin Scarsden trilogy, "Scrublands" / "Silver" / "Trust" - which I slightly preferred. https://chrishammerauthor.com/
And on TV the "Mystery Road" series/films are very good.
In this weather I prefer Aussie Noir to the gloomy Scandi variety!
</blockquote The Dry's good. Although I don't know about Aussie ones, I seems to get the atmosphere of a small town well. Twists and turns.
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
HYUFD - please don't reply to this post with Trafalgar did best last time because that is not going to be the question.
Do you believe Trafalgar is a pollster or pundit? I genuinely don't know, but @rcs1000 and @Alistair have both posted evidence that Trafalgar is not a pollster but a pundit. They may well be a very good pundit.
If Trafalgar is a pundit it should not be posting spoof polls. If it is a pollster how do you respond to @rcs1000 and @Alistair?
If Trump wins the EC again Trafalgar will definitely be a pollster and a goldstandard one at that, if Trump loses the EC it will just be a pundit, simple really!
Why would Trump winning or losing make them a pollster or not?
They are either engaging in legitimate polling or they are not.
If they get the correct result obviously a legitimate pollster, the whole point of polls is to forecast, correctly, election results and the views of the public otherwise they are worthless
That's not how words work. That's not how anything works.
I have lived in Havering almost all my life and in that time my address has always contained "Essex", and never London. @Stuartinromford is right, most people moved here from London and don't want London following them. It is though. We are probably going to move out to Non London Essex in the next few years. Our son was born in Broomfield Hospital in Essex but had to go to Queens in Romford after 4 days -the contrast was striking, enough to make me realise I was happier in Essex than London.
Yes, but the irony is that this process will (and already is) make Havering more like the rest of East London
Havering voted 69.7% Leave while London voted 59.9% Remain, Havering is culturally far apart from the rest of London and far closer to Essex.
In fact Havering was even more pro Brexit than Epping Forest which was only 62.7% Leave
Great new track for this weekend, Portimāo in Portugual. Few of the F1 drivers have ever driven there, and it's a rare track for featuring huge undulations and blind corners.
It's great fun on a bike but a setup challenge in a car as it's a very low friction and has variable radius corners. I've done a 1:53 there in my 996 so I'll put that fucking Haas on the box for them if they're short of drivers.
Well after a quarter of an hour of free practice, the F1 cars are already more than half a minute faster than your 996!
Stayed up late finishing an Australian noir novel ("The Dry") so tuned into the debate. Trump better than last time - host did a superb job corralling him back onto the topic or shutting up. Biden occasionally hesitant (stutter?) but overall no major gaffes despite Trump thinking that wanting to end oil by 2050 was one. With a bit of luck this is the last time we'll see Trump on a national platform.
In other news, Welsh ministers getting into predictable mess over what's essential.....telling Kay Burley that while alcohol is "essential", hair dryers are not:
Of course the BIG unanswered question is "What are the Welsh government going to do in the 17 days to change things when the lockdown ends?"
I quite liked "The Dry", but continue in my so far largely fruitless quest for a really good crime/thriller writer. There is a heck of a lot of mediocrity out there which, for me, is masquerading as good stuff (e.g. Rankin, McDermid, Connelly).
The best crime book I`ve read is Crooked Letter, Crooked Letter by Tom Franklin. I also enjoyed Mystic River by Dennis Lehane (though I was disappointed by another of his books). Koontz`s "Watchers" good in parts. I like all of Gillian Flynn`s books very much.
Any other suggestions? They`ve got to be good.
"My Sister the Serial Killer"
Not exactly a whodunnit as a who's next, and very well written, with interesting and quite sympathetic characters in a modern Nigerian setting.
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
HYUFD - please don't reply to this post with Trafalgar did best last time because that is not going to be the question.
Do you believe Trafalgar is a pollster or pundit? I genuinely don't know, but @rcs1000 and @Alistair have both posted evidence that Trafalgar is not a pollster but a pundit. They may well be a very good pundit.
If Trafalgar is a pundit it should not be posting spoof polls. If it is a pollster how do you respond to @rcs1000 and @Alistair?
If Trump wins the EC again Trafalgar will definitely be a pollster and a goldstandard one at that, if Trump loses the EC it will just be a pundit, simple really!
Why would Trump winning or losing make them a pollster or not?
They are either engaging in legitimate polling or they are not.
If they get the correct result obviously a legitimate pollster, the whole point of polls is to forecast, correctly, election results and the views of the public otherwise they are worthless
On the day that GE19 was called I forecast a Con majority of 60 to 80.
So why is "kinabalu" not on your list of respected pollsters?
Well you were more use than Comres whose final 2019 poll was just a 5% Tory lead, so on that basis I would happily make you a pollster
I made toast this morning. I didn't burn it. I guess I'm a chef.
I have lived in Havering almost all my life and in that time my address has always contained "Essex", and never London. @Stuartinromford is right, most people moved here from London and don't want London following them. It is though. We are probably going to move out to Non London Essex in the next few years. Our son was born in Broomfield Hospital in Essex but had to go to Queens in Romford after 4 days -the contrast was striking, enough to make me realise I was happier in Essex than London.
Yes, but the irony is that this process will (and already is) make Havering more like the rest of East London
Havering voted 69.7% Leave while London voted 59.9% Remain, Havering is culturally far apart from the rest of London and far closer to Essex.
In fact Havering was even more pro Brexit than Epping Forest which was only 62.7% Leave
It is true though that Havering is becoming more like London and less like Essex. I would say Brentwood is going the same way too.
Good for them but entirely logical, not simply charity.
I thought Tories liked private sector solutions and charitable activity? You can't win with you people! Good on these guys for stepping up when our mean-spirited government won't.
Comments
'If you're ten points * down in the national polling average with ten days to go, you're fucked'.
.
.
.
* Yes, I know Trump is technically 9.9 points down at this moment.
F1: late to this news, but Haas is dropping both its drivers. Apparently it's for financial reasons.
However I sense a change. 3/11 will be a sign.
- I’d love to sell you that mop but the regulations won’t allow it, I think.
-But my kitchen floor is dirty.
- Well you’re going to have to live with it till Nov 9th. Dangerous things mops. A major cause of superspreading.
- I’ll buy it on Amazon.
- The regulations will stop that. Oh wait...
I would quite like PM Rayner, the pearl clutching by the metropolitan media would do wonders for popcorn sales.
🍿🍿🍿😅
https://twitter.com/AndrewRosindell/status/1319558257384587264?s=20
It would require unanimous agreement to do it and there's enough other nations that would veto that. Especially other Visegrad nations won't allow one of their own to be picked off like that.
Just tack it onto Essex. Sorted.
https://twitter.com/nrothers/status/1319567984659226625
Great new track for this weekend, Portimāo in Portugual. Few of the F1 drivers have ever driven there, and it's a rare track for featuring huge undulations and blind corners.
In tier 2, councils will receive business grants from the government to support businesses allowed to stay open but severely impacted, so primarily hospitality. Thats great, however the amount is driven by rateable value:
LAs will receive a funding amount that will be the equivalent of:
For properties with a rateable value of £15,000 or under, grants of £934 per month.
For properties with a rateable value over £15,000 and below £51,000, grants of £1,400 per month.
For properties with a rateable value of exactly £51,000 and over, grants of £2,100 per month.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/plan-for-jobs-chancellor-increases-financial-support-for-businesses-and-workers
Business rates are much higher in London than the rest of the country. You might think its justified to reflect business rates and rents costs, but that was covered in the earlier business grants in the spring - these are supposed to be helping protect jobs and should therefore be driven by headcount/wage bills not rates.
Do you believe Trafalgar is a pollster or pundit? I genuinely don't know, but @rcs1000 and @Alistair have both posted evidence that Trafalgar is not a pollster but a pundit. They may well be a very good pundit.
If Trafalgar is a pundit it should not be posting spoof polls. If it is a pollster how do you respond to @rcs1000 and @Alistair?
If not, then how do you explain their shiteness?
Or is it simply because they are French.
The average Welsh politician is not very bright. And the stupidity is pretty much constant across all the political parties.
In fact, Mark Drakeford and Paul Davies don't even have any charisma, as well as not being pretty or smart.
Whereas, although I grew to dislike them, I could see that Carwyn had an oleaginous charm and Rhodri a rough-hewn amiability.
Good for them but entirely logical, not simply charity.
https://twitter.com/ElectProject/status/1319477767528976384
Another day wasted.
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Red Neighbours would have welcomed families to Anfield over the half-term break for breakfast clubs, involving a cooked meal, activities and live music. However, as a result of current restrictions, ‘Breakfast Clubs to You’ was launched to ensure that local families don’t miss out.
The Red Neighbours team will deliver 160 food parcels in the Anfield and Kirkby communities next week, each feeding a family of four for up to five days. Each parcel includes items such as bread, milk, eggs, cereal, fruit and much more.
As part of a seasonal twist, the Red Neighbours team has also included a Halloween pumpkin soup recipe - assembled by the chefs at Anfield - with the ingredients provided to help families cook together over the half-term holidays.
Forbes Duff, Red Neighbours senior manager, said: “We are delighted to continue the delivery of food parcels to those most in need in our local communities throughout the half-term holidays.
“We would have loved to welcome families into Anfield as usual for our half-term breakfast clubs but that’s unfortunately not an option at the moment due to the current government restrictions. Although we have had to adapt amidst the current pandemic, we are proud that we will help to feed over 600 people next week with our ‘Breakfast Clubs to You’ initiative.”
Aside from their support over half-term, the Red Neighbours team also continue to produce and deliver 1,000 meals per week to those in need in the local community as part of the club’s COVID-19 recovery response work. Since March, the team have delivered over 27,000 free meals to those living in food poverty throughout the local community.
https://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/community/413132-red-neighbours-supports-families-in-need-with-half-term-food-parcels
In other news, Welsh ministers getting into predictable mess over what's essential.....telling Kay Burley that while alcohol is "essential", hair dryers are not:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8871385/Welsh-ministers-flounder-try-defend-new-shopping-rules.html
Of course the BIG unanswered question is "What are the Welsh government going to do in the 17 days to change things when the lockdown ends?"
The antigen tests are more akin to the paper strip home pregnancy tests. Could be produced in the tens of millions - and if made on that scale, could be around £1 - £2 a time.
Looks like the 17th of July based on the story on the tickertape
https://www.google.com/search?q=james+brokenshire+second+wave&rlz=1C1PRUI_enGB899GB899&oq=james+brokenshire+second+wave&aqs=chrome..69i57.4039j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
But mostly, this is Rosser being a making a noise about a nothing, which he's very good at which is why he has a huge majority in Romford and has got nowhere in Parliament. And him sulking because he went for the Conservative Mayoral candidate for this round and didn't make the shortlist.
Havering is a bit like the London version of State Island, Staten Island was the only borough of New York City to vote for Trump not Hillary in 2016
It is totally understand why Londoners want to claim the home of cricket as part of London.
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1319535121087811585?s=20
They are either engaging in legitimate polling or they are not.
Being on the systems admin side of the floor, I tend to be an occasional sellotape and string scripter rather than a serious coder using whatever language happens to be to hand for a few well chosen ines. However, one of the longest and most destruction tested scripts I ever produced was to correct and prompt men in vans and anticipate the multiple ways they could foul up ejecting tapes from different models of tape library. Fun times.
Okay, I called 2017 here right, I'm now a pollster. Thanks!
There is little risk to you, in the scenario you sketch, but the delivery driver is making a number of deliveries & will encounter some people who are not so ultra-cautious.
Whatever, it is a small effect either way.
The best crime book I`ve read is Crooked Letter, Crooked Letter by Tom Franklin. I also enjoyed Mystic River by Dennis Lehane (though I was disappointed by another of his books). Koontz`s "Watchers" good in parts. I like all of Gillian Flynn`s books very much.
Any other suggestions? They`ve got to be good.
People remember acts of kindness and if it makes it more probable that people will come back or go to a place which treats people well, why not do it.
Pollsters carry out polls. Pundits don't.
Is Trafalgar a pollster?
If you think yes how do you respond to the evidence provided by Robert and Alistair?
If they are not then the arguments and evidence they provide is very valuable particularly as they have a track record, BUT if they haven't carried out a poll they should not be publishing figures saying they have.
The PCR system, at the very best, takes 24hrs to return a result.
The vast majority of people aren’t tested until symptomatic, and we know that they are most infectious for two or three days before symptoms appear. And for 30/40% of infected, symptoms never appear at all, so they don’t get tested.
So even if you get a result in a day, and for many it’s two or three days, there are a potentially quite large number on contacts.
Contact tracing isn’t getting all those who are reported infected, and even fewer of identified contacts - let alone unidentified contacts.
So it’s an impossible task even if it were being run efficiently at the local level.
Instead of badly, and mainly centralised.
That’s why I’m an advocate of mass antigen testing - which would get around all of the above.
“Essential” is impossible to define. A hairdryer, for instance, is essential if you have hair of any length. Try telling a mother of kids with long hair that they have to go round with wet hair.
And on TV the "Mystery Road" series/films are very good.
In this weather I prefer Aussie Noir to the gloomy Scandi variety!
So why is "kinabalu" not on your list of respected pollsters?
Doesn't I think, need to ne £80, though. There's also what appears to be a good Canadian one, and Abbotts nave a similar, but much cheaper one, which they are using to and from Hawaii.
I`ve never heard of "Mystery Road" but see that I can view it on BBC iplayer.
Thanks.
It’s just so petty and plain idiotic. Let’s devise something that drives people to internet shopping, so they get into the habit and forget about using the local hardware store or Wilkos for that matter because Mr Bezos will sort it all out.
Please try Crooked Letter, Crooked Letter.
EastEnders demographic is Havering although it pretends to be East London. I happen to think this is kind of racist of the BBC, and my guess is that they dont think the rest of the country would believe it if they accurately represented Stratford/Walthamstow
http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.com/2014/11/is-eastenders-more-racist-than.html?m=1
So as we go into the final stages of the negotiation, remember that the counterparty knows fully well that our "we'll walk" threat isn't physically possible. So the negotiation will be which shade of lipstick Shagger wants to wear when he climbs into his pig costume to unveil his capitulation.
Once Crossrail happens, that'll be the final nail in the coffin of that version of Romford, I reckon.
In fact Havering was even more pro Brexit than Epping Forest which was only 62.7% Leave
Not exactly a whodunnit as a who's next, and very well written, with interesting and quite sympathetic characters in a modern Nigerian setting.
https://books.google.com/books/about/My_Sister_the_Serial_Killer.html?id=oTamDwAAQBAJ