The new English lockdown will be interesting for those of us in Wales given the First Minister and Counsel General have already briefed that gyms, hospitality will be reopening on pre firebreak terms on 9th November.
The expenses scandal revealed the mild-crookedness of many MPs, COVID-19 has revealed a large number of the members of parliament to be innumerate, lacking even basic scientific knowledge, and incapable of extrapolation and planning. To put it bluntly I would guess that at least half of all MPs are essentially useless.
And 90% of the other half are positively dangerous.
I'm not even joking, we live in an ever increasingly technological and scientifically driven world, and the people who legislate for and govern us are in many cases completely out of their depth.
Dare I say it: too many Oxbridge humanities graduates.
Too many Oxford graduates full stop.
Too many people who think alike, too many people driven by doctrine, and too many people unwilling to question their own side. Now I'm not saying a parliament full of free-thinkers would work — cat herding comes to mind — but listening to MPs endlessly trotting out the tripe that their party has decided is today's "thought" is wearying.
It's pathetic to stand for it whoever is behind it. Our PMs are pretty presidential thesedays, but have some dignity and demand the PM keep you in the loop if you are a Cabinet Minister. The job isn't worth that much if he sacks you for that reason.
Except a short circuit breaker wouldn't work and PHE had a go at test / trace and they were even shitter...and the reality is contact tracing can't work.
But this will be the disingenuous political argument, we could have had just 2 week lockdown, etc etc etc, when we wouldn't, we would still be locked down for many weeks.
People were better able to manage risks back then. Another national lockdown is a cure worse than the disease.
It's surely a bit more complex than that, because we can't do counterfactuals.
We don't know exactly what would have happened if the government had done absolutely nothing in response to Coronavirus.
What we do know is that a clear and consistent set of restrictions and guidelines, that is designed to be followed for a long period of time, causes less confusion and probably has greater levels of compliance.
Except a short circuit breaker wouldn't work and PHE had a go at test / trace and they were even shitter...and the reality is contact tracing can't work.
But this will be the disingenuous political argument, we could have had just 2 week lockdown, etc etc etc, when we wouldn't, we would still be locked down for many weeks.
Why is track and trace not a local thing?
Why does EVERYTHING in this country have to be centrally managed from London?
Guess what, the countries that are actually successful devolve powers, track and trace is just the latest and most obvious example of how this nations London centric way of operating utterly screws most of us over.
Except a short circuit breaker wouldn't work and PHE had a go at test / trace and they were even shitter...and the reality is contact tracing can't work.
But this will be the disingenuous political argument, we could have had just 2 week lockdown, etc etc etc, when we wouldn't, we would still be locked down for many weeks.
The idea that a two week lockdown is enough time to fix test and trace is simply nonsense. Which shows that Labour are great and pointing out the goverment's failings, but have no idea what to do instead. Neither do I for that matter, and I know one thing I would want to be trying to fix it in almost November, get cracking back in April would be a good first move if unfortunately now impossible.
It's bollocks tho. Other countries have tried short sharp "circuit breaker" lockdowns and they nearly all become long, laborious lockdowns.
Evidence: Israel.
They supposedly conquered the first wave, then had to get drastic on the second wave, and a hoped-for short sharp lockdown has dragged on, and on, and still they are only now considering maybe reopening some SCHOOLS
When they say closing “everything”, do they literally mean that: offices, businesses, electricians, plumbers, builders etc ie all work?
Or do they mean places where people congregate ie hospitality, shops etc?
Because the former is something akin to what we had in March. And without a furlough scheme of some kind, the economic pain would be pretty catastrophic.
If universities are one source of the spread since September why aren’t they being closed? Either we shut down those activities which have the greatest risk or we don’t, in which case shutting other things which are not so high risk is a bit pointless.
How many national lockdowns are we supposed to have before we realise they don't actually solve the problem?
Fortunately, we get to see in the US the different results of places with lockdowns (like California and New York), and without them (like Arizona, Georgia and Florida).
And the difference is...
Oh.
Bugger all.
Because when hospitals start filling and death tolls start rising, people lock themselves down.
Places without lockdowns just have a series of peaks and troughs as fear ebbs and flows. Now, that may very well be a better outcome than government mandated lockdowns. But the practical reality is that societies lockdown with or without government diktat.
When they say closing “everything”, do they literally mean that: offices, businesses, electricians, plumbers, builders etc ie all work?
Or do they mean places where people congregate ie hospitality, shops etc?
Because the former is something akin to what we had in March. And without a furlough scheme of some kind, the economic pain would be pretty catastrophic.
If universities are one source of the spread since September why aren’t they being closed? Either we shut down those activities which have the greatest risk or we don’t, in which case shutting other things which are not so high risk is a bit pointless.
Universities should be online only bar a limited number of courses like medicine that are both are highly important and require practical classes.
Schools should be open but we should look at moving older kids in non exam years to as much online learning as possible.
Both can be good for us in terms of long term changes to education anyway.
Lectures are already wholly online. There is no blended learning.
The problem with cooping all the students up at home is that some people have glorious sunny bedrooms in large houses with supportive parents. And some don't. They may not even get on with their parents, or their homes will be difficult to work in with Mum & Dad there all the time.
I believe in France, students typically do attend the closest university and do -- more often than in the UK -- live at home. It has not done them very much good. France is in a more dire state than us,
I don't like the fact that young people are routinely being made to make more & more sacrifices.
But this will be the disingenuous political argument, we could have had just 2 week lockdown, etc etc etc, when we wouldn't, we would still be locked down for many weeks.
The idea that a two week lockdown is enough time to fix test and trace is simply nonsense. Which shows that Labour are great and pointing out the goverment's failing, but have no idea what to do instead. Neither do I for that matter, and I know one thing I would want to be trying to fix it in almost November, get cracking back in April would be a good first move if unfortunately now impossible.
And without suggesting that SERCO have remotely done a good job, nor that huge amounts of money haven't been wasted, but Germany this week said that it was not possible to track and trace at the levels they are experiencing.
But this will be the disingenuous political argument, we could have had just 2 week lockdown, etc etc etc, when we wouldn't, we would still be locked down for many weeks.
The idea that a two week lockdown is enough time to fix test and trace is simply nonsense. Which shows that Labour are great and pointing out the goverment's failing, but have no idea what to do instead. Neither do I for that matter, and I know one thing I would want to be trying to fix it in almost November, get cracking back in April would be a good first move if unfortunately now impossible.
And without suggesting that SERCO have remotely done a good job, nor that huge amounts of money haven't been wasted, but Germany this week said that it was not possible to track and trace at the levels they are experiencing.
Due to the nature of the disease it is impossible to do manually, even low numbers you are always running behind and only possible to slow the spread a bit.
Problem is government over promised again, track and trace and an app will sort it....then it doesn't.
It would be useful if all the "circuit breaker lockdown" Starmer-was-right people could actually point to a country where a brisk fortnight of lockdown has actually WORKED
But this will be the disingenuous political argument, we could have had just 2 week lockdown, etc etc etc, when we wouldn't, we would still be locked down for many weeks.
The idea that a two week lockdown is enough time to fix test and trace is simply nonsense. Which shows that Labour are great and pointing out the goverment's failing, but have no idea what to do instead. Neither do I for that matter, and I know one thing I would want to be trying to fix it in almost November, get cracking back in April would be a good first move if unfortunately now impossible.
And without suggesting that SERCO have remotely done a good job, nor that huge amounts of money haven't been wasted, but Germany this week said that it was not possible to track and trace at the levels they are experiencing.
I thought that non-US PBers might be interested in seeing what an actual US (or at least Westchester County, New York) ballot paper looks like. This is a sample from the neighbouring village to mine of Tarrytown, NY, but the candidates are as per the real thing.
You vote for your candidate by filling in the oval by them in black ink, standardized test style. The ballot paper is scanned at the polling place and retained by the machine for audit if necessary.
A feature unique (I believe) to New York is "electoral fusion" whereby candidates can be nominated by more than one party. Biden-Harris you can see have been cross-nominated by the Working Families Party (social democrats), and Trump-Pence by the Conservative Party (paleoconservatives). It doesn't matter under which line you vote for your preferred ticket, all the votes get totted together. If the third-party gets enough votes it will remain on the ballot in future races, and may wish to run their own candidate(s) for some down-ballot races, as you can see the Conservatives doing for the House race.
At the very bottom is a write-in line, so we never have truly unopposed races here where no election is actually conducted as sometimes happens at local level in the UK.
Oregon also has fusion. It was introduced about a decade or so ago after strong lobbying by Working Families Party which is project of some within organized labor. Idea is that it give minor parties (read in this case labor) a bit of clout in dealing with major parties.
Note that in NY State (the birthplace of fusion; election of Fiorello La Guardia NY Mayor was & still fusion's proudest achievement) the requirements for retaining party status on the ballot were raised this year, to a much higher minimum vote in the previous presidential election. Which is a SERIOUS (and intentional) threat to their survival, orchestrated by Gov Andrew Cuomo.
As a result, the Greens ditched their presidential nominee and substituted Howie Hawkins, a prominent NY Green activist (if there is such a thing) in order to boost their ballot line at this critical juncture.
Which is THE reason why the Greens got knocked off the Pennsylvania presidential ballot - because they failed to met state legal requirements for substitution of presidential candidates by political parties.
Yeah, Cuomo has a beef against the NY Working Families Party for daring to nominate Cynthia Nixon against him back in 2018. He even astroturfed a "Womens' Equality Party" against them to try and knock them off the ballot back then, but it failed miserably. I voted for Nixon in the 2018 primary, but after his excellent COVID response I'll probably back Cuomo if he runs for gov again in 2022. Boy, he sure knows how to hold a grudge though! He hardly ever mentions Bill de Blasio by name, for instance, only every referring to him (usually in a criticism) as "the Mayor of New York City".
Re sample ballots, PBers should know that the ballot styles differ, not just from state to state, or even county to county, but often down to the precinct, or even sub-precinct level (in case of precincts split between two districts each with something on the ballot).
Sample ballots for wide variety of jurisdictions available via the web.
Only non-essential shops allowed to stay open, eh? Well, it's different from Wales.
Or a typo.
As you know, i mocking of Wales was the demands Tescos stops selling a wide range of goods, but they couldn't really decide what exactly counted, rather than the decision to ask certain stores to close. Then claiming it was done to protect small businesses, but you should go on Amazon and buys things instead.
When they say closing “everything”, do they literally mean that: offices, businesses, electricians, plumbers, builders etc ie all work?
Or do they mean places where people congregate ie hospitality, shops etc?
Because the former is something akin to what we had in March. And without a furlough scheme of some kind, the economic pain would be pretty catastrophic.
If universities are one source of the spread since September why aren’t they being closed? Either we shut down those activities which have the greatest risk or we don’t, in which case shutting other things which are not so high risk is a bit pointless.
Universities should be online only bar a limited number of courses like medicine that are both are highly important and require practical classes.
Schools should be open but we should look at moving older kids in non exam years to as much online learning as possible.
Both can be good for us in terms of long term changes to education anyway.
Lectures are already wholly online. There is no blended learning.
The problem with cooping all the students up at home is that some people have glorious sunny bedrooms in large houses with supportive parents. And some don't. They may not even get on with their parents, or their homes will be difficult to work in with Mum & Dad there all the time.
I believe in France, students typically do attend the closest university and do -- more often than in the UK -- live at home. It has not done them very much good. France is in a more dire state than us,
I don't like the fact that young people are routinely being made to make more & more sacrifices.
I dont like it either. We should be waiving all tuition fees for this year at a minimum to help re-balance things a little.
It's bollocks tho. Other countries have tried short sharp "circuit breaker" lockdowns and they nearly all become long, laborious lockdowns.
Evidence: Israel.
They supposedly conquered the first wave, then had to get drastic on the second wave, and a hoped-for short sharp lockdown has dragged on, and on, and still they are only now considering maybe reopening some SCHOOLS
Thats because they start them too late, as we will do. I was calling for regular 2 week lockdowns every 2 months back in the summer when rates were still very low. That would have pushed the spread back a couple of months or more by now.
When they say closing “everything”, do they literally mean that: offices, businesses, electricians, plumbers, builders etc ie all work?
Or do they mean places where people congregate ie hospitality, shops etc?
Because the former is something akin to what we had in March. And without a furlough scheme of some kind, the economic pain would be pretty catastrophic.
If universities are one source of the spread since September why aren’t they being closed? Either we shut down those activities which have the greatest risk or we don’t, in which case shutting other things which are not so high risk is a bit pointless.
Universities should be online only bar a limited number of courses like medicine that are both are highly important and require practical classes.
Schools should be open but we should look at moving older kids in non exam years to as much online learning as possible.
Both can be good for us in terms of long term changes to education anyway.
Lectures are already wholly online. There is no blended learning.
The problem with cooping all the students up at home is that some people have glorious sunny bedrooms in large houses with supportive parents. And some don't. They may not even get on with their parents, or their homes will be difficult to work in with Mum & Dad there all the time.
I believe in France, students typically do attend the closest university and do -- more often than in the UK -- live at home. It has not done them very much good. France is in a more dire state than us,
I don't like the fact that young people are routinely being made to make more & more sacrifices.
I dont like it either. We should be waiving all tuition fees for this year at a minimum to help re-balance things a little.
So. 6 weeks of Tier 2. Hard, hard, both economically and socially. Crippling restrictions which, with cooperation and good sense, the NE has finally achieved a plateauing. Unlike the rest of the country. Just in time for a national lockdown. Thanks guys. They wonder why we're becoming estranged from the South of England.
When they say closing “everything”, do they literally mean that: offices, businesses, electricians, plumbers, builders etc ie all work?
Or do they mean places where people congregate ie hospitality, shops etc?
Because the former is something akin to what we had in March. And without a furlough scheme of some kind, the economic pain would be pretty catastrophic.
If universities are one source of the spread since September why aren’t they being closed? Either we shut down those activities which have the greatest risk or we don’t, in which case shutting other things which are not so high risk is a bit pointless.
It's very odd, as there's evidence that both schools and universities are major spreaders. I can see why it's hard to close primary schools, but secondaries and universities should be able to semi-function online, and shouldn't be protected while almost everything else shuts down.
When they say closing “everything”, do they literally mean that: offices, businesses, electricians, plumbers, builders etc ie all work?
Or do they mean places where people congregate ie hospitality, shops etc?
Because the former is something akin to what we had in March. And without a furlough scheme of some kind, the economic pain would be pretty catastrophic.
If universities are one source of the spread since September why aren’t they being closed? Either we shut down those activities which have the greatest risk or we don’t, in which case shutting other things which are not so high risk is a bit pointless.
How many national lockdowns are we supposed to have before we realise they don't actually solve the problem?
Fortunately, we get to see in the US the different results of places with lockdowns (like California and New York), and without them (like Arizona, Georgia and Florida).
And the difference is...
Oh.
Bugger all.
Because when hospitals start filling and death tolls start rising, people lock themselves down.
Places without lockdowns just have a series of peaks and troughs as fear ebbs and flows. Now, that may very well be a better outcome than government mandated lockdowns. But the practical reality is that societies lockdown with or without government diktat.
I'm not sure the young would lock themselves down voluntarily now.
Because the hospitals aren't filling up with them.
When they say closing “everything”, do they literally mean that: offices, businesses, electricians, plumbers, builders etc ie all work?
Or do they mean places where people congregate ie hospitality, shops etc?
Because the former is something akin to what we had in March. And without a furlough scheme of some kind, the economic pain would be pretty catastrophic.
If universities are one source of the spread since September why aren’t they being closed? Either we shut down those activities which have the greatest risk or we don’t, in which case shutting other things which are not so high risk is a bit pointless.
It's very odd, as there's evidence that both schools and universities are major spreaders. I can see why it's hard to close primary schools, but secondaries and universities should be able to semi-function online, and shouldn't be protected while almost everything else shuts down.
Because kids at primary school can't be left at home on their own. The knock on effects of closing small people school is enormous and why so.many countries are doing everything to avoid it.
Ok, because of the kerfuffle I ran the cartoon past a professional cartoonist, who incidentally hadn't seen it before and wasn't aware of the AS concerns.
We concluded it's a good cartoon cartoon idea, but the execution is poor (no pun intended). The main trouble is that Starmer is unrecognisable. He looks more like Cameron! What's more, he's been made to look effete. The reason for this is unclear, and doesn't seem to serve any comedic or political purpose. (Corbyn is also a poor likeness but that matters less.)
This is a shame because the idea of Starmer decapitating metaphorically his adversary is a strong one, especially as real beheadings are very much in the news.
Is it anti-semitic? Not in a million years. There's no Jewish trope here, and no caricature that could be interpreted as such.
Like Foxy says, "The implication that the Jews wanted an innocent man's head on a plate."
So that's NOT anti-semitic? Sorry, but think you are wrong here. Trouble is not crap drawing but rather loaded, coded message.
Also, this cartoonist was "unaware of the anti-Semitic issue" and this is when he, or she, is judging a cartoon, which is all about a politician cashiered for anti-Semitism?
That's utterly ridiculous. Anti-Semitism is THE central issue here, it is the reason for the cartoon's existence. So if you are unaware of that you can't have any opinion on the image, as you are clueless of the vital context.
Aren't we praising the French for publishing religiously offensive cartoons?
No. We’re praising them for not censoring them.
+1
This is a crucially important point.
No-one on here (I hope) would suggest that Der Stürmer's portrayal of Jews in Germany was acceptable, and no-one should praise it. (Indeed, one would hope they would criticise it.)
But free speech includes free speech that is grossly offensive. That's them apples.
Exactly this.
The issue it seems to me is not cartoons etc but that parts of the Muslim world want to impose a de facto Islamic blasphemy law in countries where Muslims live, even where they are in a minority. And to determine what criticism, if any, can be made of Islam and how. And some states - like Turkey - are seeking to use economic measures to try to get their way.
This is completely unacceptable regardless of whether you are a secular state like France or one like ours or an Italy or whatever. France’s fight is ours, if we want to remain a free society. Offensive cartoons are a side issue - a symptom - of a clash between different views of freedom. It is a fight that the West has to win if its societies are to remain Western and free. I wish Britain was more robust in showing its support for France.
When they say closing “everything”, do they literally mean that: offices, businesses, electricians, plumbers, builders etc ie all work?
Or do they mean places where people congregate ie hospitality, shops etc?
Because the former is something akin to what we had in March. And without a furlough scheme of some kind, the economic pain would be pretty catastrophic.
If universities are one source of the spread since September why aren’t they being closed? Either we shut down those activities which have the greatest risk or we don’t, in which case shutting other things which are not so high risk is a bit pointless.
It's very odd, as there's evidence that both schools and universities are major spreaders. I can see why it's hard to close primary schools, but secondaries and universities should be able to semi-function online, and shouldn't be protected while almost everything else shuts down.
Because kids at primary school can't be left at home on their own.
Nick has no kids. He does not get it. Kids under 14-15 need childcare, even if it is light touch with the older ones.
That means millions of parents staying home, more or less.
When they say closing “everything”, do they literally mean that: offices, businesses, electricians, plumbers, builders etc ie all work?
Or do they mean places where people congregate ie hospitality, shops etc?
Because the former is something akin to what we had in March. And without a furlough scheme of some kind, the economic pain would be pretty catastrophic.
If universities are one source of the spread since September why aren’t they being closed? Either we shut down those activities which have the greatest risk or we don’t, in which case shutting other things which are not so high risk is a bit pointless.
How many national lockdowns are we supposed to have before we realise they don't actually solve the problem?
Fortunately, we get to see in the US the different results of places with lockdowns (like California and New York), and without them (like Arizona, Georgia and Florida).
And the difference is...
Oh.
Bugger all.
Because when hospitals start filling and death tolls start rising, people lock themselves down.
Places without lockdowns just have a series of peaks and troughs as fear ebbs and flows. Now, that may very well be a better outcome than government mandated lockdowns. But the practical reality is that societies lockdown with or without government diktat.
I'm not sure the young would lock themselves down voluntarily now.
Because the hospitals aren't filling up with them.
Well then, perhaps the young have the right idea and us older folk will just have to be d*mn careful
When they say closing “everything”, do they literally mean that: offices, businesses, electricians, plumbers, builders etc ie all work?
Or do they mean places where people congregate ie hospitality, shops etc?
Because the former is something akin to what we had in March. And without a furlough scheme of some kind, the economic pain would be pretty catastrophic.
If universities are one source of the spread since September why aren’t they being closed? Either we shut down those activities which have the greatest risk or we don’t, in which case shutting other things which are not so high risk is a bit pointless.
Universities should be online only bar a limited number of courses like medicine that are both are highly important and require practical classes.
Schools should be open but we should look at moving older kids in non exam years to as much online learning as possible.
Both can be good for us in terms of long term changes to education anyway.
Lectures are already wholly online. There is no blended learning.
The problem with cooping all the students up at home is that some people have glorious sunny bedrooms in large houses with supportive parents. And some don't. They may not even get on with their parents, or their homes will be difficult to work in with Mum & Dad there all the time.
I believe in France, students typically do attend the closest university and do -- more often than in the UK -- live at home. It has not done them very much good. France is in a more dire state than us,
I don't like the fact that young people are routinely being made to make more & more sacrifices.
I dont like it either. We should be waiving all tuition fees for this year at a minimum to help re-balance things a little.
Wonder how the Muslim population feels about "saving Christmas"? Given they're presumably about to be locked down for Diwali to save it.
What has Diwali got to do with muslims?
Oops. Sorry. Hindus.
"All them brown people look the same to me!"
What is the festival where folks throw colored water around? Here in Seattle area this is celebrated by local Hindus at a large park in Redmond, home base for Microsoft.
So. 6 weeks of Tier 2 hard, hard, economically and socially crippling restrictions which with cooperation and good sense, the NE has achieved a plateauing, unlike the rest of the country. Just in time for a national lockdown. Thanks guys. They wonder why we're becoming estranged from the South of England.
Depending on what paper you read, it might not be a national lockdown, instead an extra tier.
Please can we have a government who communicate with us by talking to us directly, perhaps even in parliament sometimes, rather than leaking to their shill journalists or providing commentary on their private whatsapp groups. Please!
It's very odd, as there's evidence that both schools and universities are major spreaders. I can see why it's hard to close primary schools, but secondaries and universities should be able to semi-function online, and shouldn't be protected while almost everything else shuts down.
Because the government has already committed to keeping them open come what may, even though the evidence now says we should close them first. Will the government change their mind? Probably not, they don't want to lose face or be attacked for another U-turn even if it would be the right thing to do, and if they do change their mind they will probably leave it so late that it won't be that effective.
I know people say "you can't run a country like a business" but you really would sack people who operate like this, you'd find a reason even if you have to invent one.
When they say closing “everything”, do they literally mean that: offices, businesses, electricians, plumbers, builders etc ie all work?
Or do they mean places where people congregate ie hospitality, shops etc?
Because the former is something akin to what we had in March. And without a furlough scheme of some kind, the economic pain would be pretty catastrophic.
If universities are one source of the spread since September why aren’t they being closed? Either we shut down those activities which have the greatest risk or we don’t, in which case shutting other things which are not so high risk is a bit pointless.
How many national lockdowns are we supposed to have before we realise they don't actually solve the problem?
Fortunately, we get to see in the US the different results of places with lockdowns (like California and New York), and without them (like Arizona, Georgia and Florida).
And the difference is...
Oh.
Bugger all.
Because when hospitals start filling and death tolls start rising, people lock themselves down.
Places without lockdowns just have a series of peaks and troughs as fear ebbs and flows. Now, that may very well be a better outcome than government mandated lockdowns. But the practical reality is that societies lockdown with or without government diktat.
I'm not sure the young would lock themselves down voluntarily now.
Because the hospitals aren't filling up with them.
Well then, perhaps the young have the right idea and us older folk will just have to be d*mn careful
How do older folk who need to catch the bus / tram to the shops for food act damn carefully ?
Please can we have a government who communicate with us by talking to us directly, perhaps even in parliament sometimes, rather than leaking to their shill journalists or providing commentary on their private whatsapp groups. Please!
When they say closing “everything”, do they literally mean that: offices, businesses, electricians, plumbers, builders etc ie all work?
Or do they mean places where people congregate ie hospitality, shops etc?
Because the former is something akin to what we had in March. And without a furlough scheme of some kind, the economic pain would be pretty catastrophic.
If universities are one source of the spread since September why aren’t they being closed? Either we shut down those activities which have the greatest risk or we don’t, in which case shutting other things which are not so high risk is a bit pointless.
Universities should be online only bar a limited number of courses like medicine that are both are highly important and require practical classes.
Schools should be open but we should look at moving older kids in non exam years to as much online learning as possible.
Both can be good for us in terms of long term changes to education anyway.
Lectures are already wholly online. There is no blended learning.
The problem with cooping all the students up at home is that some people have glorious sunny bedrooms in large houses with supportive parents. And some don't. They may not even get on with their parents, or their homes will be difficult to work in with Mum & Dad there all the time.
I believe in France, students typically do attend the closest university and do -- more often than in the UK -- live at home. It has not done them very much good. France is in a more dire state than us,
I don't like the fact that young people are routinely being made to make more & more sacrifices.
I dont like it either. We should be waiving all tuition fees for this year at a minimum to help re-balance things a little.
I got my £12,300 invoice today.
Can you use your legal skills to get it cancelled/reduced somehow?
When they say closing “everything”, do they literally mean that: offices, businesses, electricians, plumbers, builders etc ie all work?
Or do they mean places where people congregate ie hospitality, shops etc?
Because the former is something akin to what we had in March. And without a furlough scheme of some kind, the economic pain would be pretty catastrophic.
If universities are one source of the spread since September why aren’t they being closed? Either we shut down those activities which have the greatest risk or we don’t, in which case shutting other things which are not so high risk is a bit pointless.
Universities should be online only bar a limited number of courses like medicine that are both are highly important and require practical classes.
Schools should be open but we should look at moving older kids in non exam years to as much online learning as possible.
Both can be good for us in terms of long term changes to education anyway.
Lectures are already wholly online. There is no blended learning.
The problem with cooping all the students up at home is that some people have glorious sunny bedrooms in large houses with supportive parents. And some don't. They may not even get on with their parents, or their homes will be difficult to work in with Mum & Dad there all the time.
I believe in France, students typically do attend the closest university and do -- more often than in the UK -- live at home. It has not done them very much good. France is in a more dire state than us,
I don't like the fact that young people are routinely being made to make more & more sacrifices.
I dont like it either. We should be waiving all tuition fees for this year at a minimum to help re-balance things a little.
As a friend who lives in NL says... most students live at home. So they went to university, gave it to each other, then brought them back home. Whereas our student epidemic should be starting to burn itself out by now
Ok, because of the kerfuffle I ran the cartoon past a professional cartoonist, who incidentally hadn't seen it before and wasn't aware of the AS concerns.
We concluded it's a good cartoon cartoon idea, but the execution is poor (no pun intended). The main trouble is that Starmer is unrecognisable. He looks more like Cameron! What's more, he's been made to look effete. The reason for this is unclear, and doesn't seem to serve any comedic or political purpose. (Corbyn is also a poor likeness but that matters less.)
This is a shame because the idea of Starmer decapitating metaphorically his adversary is a strong one, especially as real beheadings are very much in the news.
Is it anti-semitic? Not in a million years. There's no Jewish trope here, and no caricature that could be interpreted as such.
Like Foxy says, "The implication that the Jews wanted an innocent man's head on a plate."
So that's NOT anti-semitic? Sorry, but think you are wrong here. Trouble is not crap drawing but rather loaded, coded message.
Also, this cartoonist was "unaware of the anti-Semitic issue" and this is when he, or she, is judging a cartoon, which is all about a politician cashiered for anti-Semitism?
That's utterly ridiculous. Anti-Semitism is THE central issue here, it is the reason for the cartoon's existence. So if you are unaware of that you can't have any opinion on the image, as you are clueless of the vital context.
Aren't we praising the French for publishing religiously offensive cartoons?
No. We’re praising them for not censoring them.
+1
This is a crucially important point.
No-one on here (I hope) would suggest that Der Stürmer's portrayal of Jews in Germany was acceptable, and no-one should praise it. (Indeed, one would hope they would criticise it.)
But free speech includes free speech that is grossly offensive. That's them apples.
Exactly this.
The issue it seems to me is not cartoons etc but that parts of the Muslim world want to impose a de facto Islamic blasphemy law in countries where Muslims live, even where they are in a minority. And to determine what criticism, if any, can be made of Islam and how. And some states - like Turkey - are seeking to use economic measures to try to get their way.
This is completely unacceptable regardless of whether you are a secular state like France or one like ours or an Italy or whatever. France’s fight is ours, if we want to remain a free society. Offensive cartoons are a side issue - a symptom - of a clash between different views of freedom. It is a fight that the West has to win if its societies are to remain Western and free. I wish Britain was more robust in showing its support for France.
I think a big problem is that after we "won" the Cold War (a victory which seems pyrrhic in some ways) a very large number of people in Western countries convinced themselves that their societies were rotten to the core, and not worth defending at all.
When they say closing “everything”, do they literally mean that: offices, businesses, electricians, plumbers, builders etc ie all work?
Or do they mean places where people congregate ie hospitality, shops etc?
Because the former is something akin to what we had in March. And without a furlough scheme of some kind, the economic pain would be pretty catastrophic.
If universities are one source of the spread since September why aren’t they being closed? Either we shut down those activities which have the greatest risk or we don’t, in which case shutting other things which are not so high risk is a bit pointless.
Universities should be online only bar a limited number of courses like medicine that are both are highly important and require practical classes.
Schools should be open but we should look at moving older kids in non exam years to as much online learning as possible.
Both can be good for us in terms of long term changes to education anyway.
Lectures are already wholly online. There is no blended learning.
The problem with cooping all the students up at home is that some people have glorious sunny bedrooms in large houses with supportive parents. And some don't. They may not even get on with their parents, or their homes will be difficult to work in with Mum & Dad there all the time.
I believe in France, students typically do attend the closest university and do -- more often than in the UK -- live at home. It has not done them very much good. France is in a more dire state than us,
I don't like the fact that young people are routinely being made to make more & more sacrifices.
I agree wholeheartedly with your final sentence.
One of my sons is meant to start a new job on Thursday. So pleased to get it. If there is a national lockdown there will likely be no job ........ 😢
Daughter has already prepared for closure of her business. She is in despair.
Other son has an essential job in food.
If everything is shut down again the economic pain for them will be appalling.
When they say closing “everything”, do they literally mean that: offices, businesses, electricians, plumbers, builders etc ie all work?
Or do they mean places where people congregate ie hospitality, shops etc?
Because the former is something akin to what we had in March. And without a furlough scheme of some kind, the economic pain would be pretty catastrophic.
If universities are one source of the spread since September why aren’t they being closed? Either we shut down those activities which have the greatest risk or we don’t, in which case shutting other things which are not so high risk is a bit pointless.
How many national lockdowns are we supposed to have before we realise they don't actually solve the problem?
Fortunately, we get to see in the US the different results of places with lockdowns (like California and New York), and without them (like Arizona, Georgia and Florida).
And the difference is...
Oh.
Bugger all.
Because when hospitals start filling and death tolls start rising, people lock themselves down.
Places without lockdowns just have a series of peaks and troughs as fear ebbs and flows. Now, that may very well be a better outcome than government mandated lockdowns. But the practical reality is that societies lockdown with or without government diktat.
I'm not sure the young would lock themselves down voluntarily now.
Because the hospitals aren't filling up with them.
Well then, perhaps the young have the right idea and us older folk will just have to be d*mn careful
How do older folk who need to catch the bus / tram to the shops for food act damn carefully ?
Speaking for myself, I do it as little as possible, and wear the best N98 mask in my possession.
And if some jackass gets on NOT wearing a mask - in spite of it being required - I move my seat as FAR away as possible.
Ok, because of the kerfuffle I ran the cartoon past a professional cartoonist, who incidentally hadn't seen it before and wasn't aware of the AS concerns.
We concluded it's a good cartoon cartoon idea, but the execution is poor (no pun intended). The main trouble is that Starmer is unrecognisable. He looks more like Cameron! What's more, he's been made to look effete. The reason for this is unclear, and doesn't seem to serve any comedic or political purpose. (Corbyn is also a poor likeness but that matters less.)
This is a shame because the idea of Starmer decapitating metaphorically his adversary is a strong one, especially as real beheadings are very much in the news.
Is it anti-semitic? Not in a million years. There's no Jewish trope here, and no caricature that could be interpreted as such.
Like Foxy says, "The implication that the Jews wanted an innocent man's head on a plate."
So that's NOT anti-semitic? Sorry, but think you are wrong here. Trouble is not crap drawing but rather loaded, coded message.
Also, this cartoonist was "unaware of the anti-Semitic issue" and this is when he, or she, is judging a cartoon, which is all about a politician cashiered for anti-Semitism?
That's utterly ridiculous. Anti-Semitism is THE central issue here, it is the reason for the cartoon's existence. So if you are unaware of that you can't have any opinion on the image, as you are clueless of the vital context.
Aren't we praising the French for publishing religiously offensive cartoons?
No. We’re praising them for not censoring them.
+1
This is a crucially important point.
No-one on here (I hope) would suggest that Der Stürmer's portrayal of Jews in Germany was acceptable, and no-one should praise it. (Indeed, one would hope they would criticise it.)
But free speech includes free speech that is grossly offensive. That's them apples.
Exactly this.
The issue it seems to me is not cartoons etc but that parts of the Muslim world want to impose a de facto Islamic blasphemy law in countries where Muslims live, even where they are in a minority. And to determine what criticism, if any, can be made of Islam and how. And some states - like Turkey - are seeking to use economic measures to try to get their way.
This is completely unacceptable regardless of whether you are a secular state like France or one like ours or an Italy or whatever. France’s fight is ours, if we want to remain a free society. Offensive cartoons are a side issue - a symptom - of a clash between different views of freedom. It is a fight that the West has to win if its societies are to remain Western and free. I wish Britain was more robust in showing its support for France.
I was talking about this w my gf earlier, she was reading on the bbc about the effigies of Macron, and heard myself saying ‘best we just shut up and leave them to it’, then realised that is exactly the wrong strategy - giving in. But it’s either that or some kind of civil war. I reckon in a generation or two there will be official Islamic enclaves in European countries, because it’s either that, civil war, or the state imposing itself over the Islamic population and the enclaves are the easy option
Perhaps he can tell us which European countries have a successful track and trace ?
Why only European countries?
Because its good to compare like with like.
Now perhaps China has an excellent track and trace but the authorities can be more persuasive there.
Well, naturally, China is not a model many would want to emulate. But you're kicking a straw man in response to a simple question. It obvious that some countries DO have effective test and trace, but you want to restrict the conversation to only European countries. Fair enough if you think that comparing like with like is important -- it can be -- but what is it about European countries that are alike that we can't say about, say, South Korea or New Zealand or other non-European countries?
When they say closing “everything”, do they literally mean that: offices, businesses, electricians, plumbers, builders etc ie all work?
Or do they mean places where people congregate ie hospitality, shops etc?
Because the former is something akin to what we had in March. And without a furlough scheme of some kind, the economic pain would be pretty catastrophic.
If universities are one source of the spread since September why aren’t they being closed? Either we shut down those activities which have the greatest risk or we don’t, in which case shutting other things which are not so high risk is a bit pointless.
Universities should be online only bar a limited number of courses like medicine that are both are highly important and require practical classes.
Schools should be open but we should look at moving older kids in non exam years to as much online learning as possible.
Both can be good for us in terms of long term changes to education anyway.
Lectures are already wholly online. There is no blended learning.
The problem with cooping all the students up at home is that some people have glorious sunny bedrooms in large houses with supportive parents. And some don't. They may not even get on with their parents, or their homes will be difficult to work in with Mum & Dad there all the time.
I believe in France, students typically do attend the closest university and do -- more often than in the UK -- live at home. It has not done them very much good. France is in a more dire state than us,
I don't like the fact that young people are routinely being made to make more & more sacrifices.
I dont like it either. We should be waiving all tuition fees for this year at a minimum to help re-balance things a little.
I got my £12,300 invoice today.
Can you use your legal skills to get it cancelled/reduced somehow?
When they say closing “everything”, do they literally mean that: offices, businesses, electricians, plumbers, builders etc ie all work?
Or do they mean places where people congregate ie hospitality, shops etc?
Because the former is something akin to what we had in March. And without a furlough scheme of some kind, the economic pain would be pretty catastrophic.
If universities are one source of the spread since September why aren’t they being closed? Either we shut down those activities which have the greatest risk or we don’t, in which case shutting other things which are not so high risk is a bit pointless.
It's very odd, as there's evidence that both schools and universities are major spreaders. I can see why it's hard to close primary schools, but secondaries and universities should be able to semi-function online, and shouldn't be protected while almost everything else shuts down.
Because kids at primary school can't be left at home on their own.
Nick has no kids. He does not get it. Kids under 14-15 need childcare, even if it is light touch with the older ones.
That means millions of parents staying home, more or less.
If the parents cannot work because everything is shut down, they’ll be at home anyway, no?
I don’t understand - does anyone? what “everything” means?
So. 6 weeks of Tier 2 hard, hard, economically and socially crippling restrictions which with cooperation and good sense, the NE has achieved a plateauing, unlike the rest of the country. Just in time for a national lockdown. Thanks guys. They wonder why we're becoming estranged from the South of England.
Depending on what paper you read, it might not be a national lockdown, instead an extra tier.
That would make much more sense. Which papers, do you know?
It's bollocks tho. Other countries have tried short sharp "circuit breaker" lockdowns and they nearly all become long, laborious lockdowns.
Evidence: Israel.
They supposedly conquered the first wave, then had to get drastic on the second wave, and a hoped-for short sharp lockdown has dragged on, and on, and still they are only now considering maybe reopening some SCHOOLS
Thats because they start them too late, as we will do. I was calling for regular 2 week lockdowns every 2 months back in the summer when rates were still very low. That would have pushed the spread back a couple of months or more by now.
When they say closing “everything”, do they literally mean that: offices, businesses, electricians, plumbers, builders etc ie all work?
Or do they mean places where people congregate ie hospitality, shops etc?
Because the former is something akin to what we had in March. And without a furlough scheme of some kind, the economic pain would be pretty catastrophic.
If universities are one source of the spread since September why aren’t they being closed? Either we shut down those activities which have the greatest risk or we don’t, in which case shutting other things which are not so high risk is a bit pointless.
How many national lockdowns are we supposed to have before we realise they don't actually solve the problem?
Fortunately, we get to see in the US the different results of places with lockdowns (like California and New York), and without them (like Arizona, Georgia and Florida).
And the difference is...
Oh.
Bugger all.
Because when hospitals start filling and death tolls start rising, people lock themselves down.
Places without lockdowns just have a series of peaks and troughs as fear ebbs and flows. Now, that may very well be a better outcome than government mandated lockdowns. But the practical reality is that societies lockdown with or without government diktat.
I'm not sure the young would lock themselves down voluntarily now.
Because the hospitals aren't filling up with them.
Well then, perhaps the young have the right idea and us older folk will just have to be d*mn careful
How do older folk who need to catch the bus / tram to the shops for food act damn carefully ?
Go before the students get up! Do your shopping before midday
Seriously though, the lockdown will not kill the virus off, it will still be there, still infecting people. And even during lockdown, there will still be people on the bus when you go to do your shopping.
So what are you going to do during lockdown? Starve? No, you will take your chances as carefully as can be managed
So. 6 weeks of Tier 2 hard, hard, economically and socially crippling restrictions which with cooperation and good sense, the NE has achieved a plateauing, unlike the rest of the country. Just in time for a national lockdown. Thanks guys. They wonder why we're becoming estranged from the South of England.
Depending on what paper you read, it might not be a national lockdown, instead an extra tier.
That would make much more sense. Which papers, do you know?
Mr Johnson is likely to summon ministers from his Cabinet coronavirus subcommittee over the next 48 hours and could hold a full meeting on Sunday if he decides he needs to act as soon as Monday. The alternative to a national lockdown would be a fourth tier of restrictions on top of the existing three tier system, but government scientists now believe even Tier 3 is not enough to stop the spread of infections.
It's very odd, as there's evidence that both schools and universities are major spreaders. I can see why it's hard to close primary schools, but secondaries and universities should be able to semi-function online, and shouldn't be protected while almost everything else shuts down.
Because the government has already committed to keeping them open come what may, even though the evidence now says we should close them first.
.
What evidence? The scientific picture is very confused (not unusual for a new disease). I have not seen any clear-cut evidence.
Ceredigion has two universities within its boundaries (Aberystwyth, Lampeter) & one of the lowest COVID rates in the UK. So, it is easy to find counter-examples.
When they say closing “everything”, do they literally mean that: offices, businesses, electricians, plumbers, builders etc ie all work?
Or do they mean places where people congregate ie hospitality, shops etc?
Because the former is something akin to what we had in March. And without a furlough scheme of some kind, the economic pain would be pretty catastrophic.
If universities are one source of the spread since September why aren’t they being closed? Either we shut down those activities which have the greatest risk or we don’t, in which case shutting other things which are not so high risk is a bit pointless.
Universities should be online only bar a limited number of courses like medicine that are both are highly important and require practical classes.
Schools should be open but we should look at moving older kids in non exam years to as much online learning as possible.
Both can be good for us in terms of long term changes to education anyway.
Lectures are already wholly online. There is no blended learning.
The problem with cooping all the students up at home is that some people have glorious sunny bedrooms in large houses with supportive parents. And some don't. They may not even get on with their parents, or their homes will be difficult to work in with Mum & Dad there all the time.
I believe in France, students typically do attend the closest university and do -- more often than in the UK -- live at home. It has not done them very much good. France is in a more dire state than us,
I don't like the fact that young people are routinely being made to make more & more sacrifices.
I agree wholeheartedly with your final sentence.
One of my sons is meant to start a new job on Thursday. So pleased to get it. If there is a national lockdown there will likely be no job ........ 😢
Daughter has already prepared for closure of her business. She is in despair.
Other son has an essential job in food.
If everything is shut down again the economic pain for them will be appalling.
One could almost think there is active malice towards people like your children.
I've borrowed about £40,000 to keep my business afloat, but that can't continue indefinitely.
When they say closing “everything”, do they literally mean that: offices, businesses, electricians, plumbers, builders etc ie all work?
Or do they mean places where people congregate ie hospitality, shops etc?
Because the former is something akin to what we had in March. And without a furlough scheme of some kind, the economic pain would be pretty catastrophic.
If universities are one source of the spread since September why aren’t they being closed? Either we shut down those activities which have the greatest risk or we don’t, in which case shutting other things which are not so high risk is a bit pointless.
Universities should be online only bar a limited number of courses like medicine that are both are highly important and require practical classes.
Schools should be open but we should look at moving older kids in non exam years to as much online learning as possible.
Both can be good for us in terms of long term changes to education anyway.
Lectures are already wholly online. There is no blended learning.
The problem with cooping all the students up at home is that some people have glorious sunny bedrooms in large houses with supportive parents. And some don't. They may not even get on with their parents, or their homes will be difficult to work in with Mum & Dad there all the time.
I believe in France, students typically do attend the closest university and do -- more often than in the UK -- live at home. It has not done them very much good. France is in a more dire state than us,
I don't like the fact that young people are routinely being made to make more & more sacrifices.
I dont like it either. We should be waiving all tuition fees for this year at a minimum to help re-balance things a little.
I got my £12,300 invoice today.
Demand a whopping great discount. You are certainly entitled to one IMO.
When they say closing “everything”, do they literally mean that: offices, businesses, electricians, plumbers, builders etc ie all work?
Or do they mean places where people congregate ie hospitality, shops etc?
Because the former is something akin to what we had in March. And without a furlough scheme of some kind, the economic pain would be pretty catastrophic.
If universities are one source of the spread since September why aren’t they being closed? Either we shut down those activities which have the greatest risk or we don’t, in which case shutting other things which are not so high risk is a bit pointless.
Universities should be online only bar a limited number of courses like medicine that are both are highly important and require practical classes.
Schools should be open but we should look at moving older kids in non exam years to as much online learning as possible.
Both can be good for us in terms of long term changes to education anyway.
Lectures are already wholly online. There is no blended learning.
The problem with cooping all the students up at home is that some people have glorious sunny bedrooms in large houses with supportive parents. And some don't. They may not even get on with their parents, or their homes will be difficult to work in with Mum & Dad there all the time.
I believe in France, students typically do attend the closest university and do -- more often than in the UK -- live at home. It has not done them very much good. France is in a more dire state than us,
I don't like the fact that young people are routinely being made to make more & more sacrifices.
I dont like it either. We should be waiving all tuition fees for this year at a minimum to help re-balance things a little.
I got my £12,300 invoice today.
Can you use your legal skills to get it cancelled/reduced somehow?
No, so clearly I'm not very good!
Presumably there is a contract nowadays if they are charging, have they really fulfilled all their obligations in full?
Perhaps he can tell us which European countries have a successful track and trace ?
Why only European countries?
Because its good to compare like with like.
Now perhaps China has an excellent track and trace but the authorities can be more persuasive there.
Well, naturally, China is not a model many would want to emulate. But you're kicking a straw man in response to a simple question. It obvious that some countries DO have effective test and trace, but you want to restrict the conversation to only European countries. Fair enough if you think that comparing like with like is important -- it can be -- but what is it about European countries that are alike that we can't say about, say, South Korea or New Zealand or other non-European countries?
South Korea spent 5 years building their surveillance system that enables efficient track and trace. Who else has one that works with any sort of case level? Germany says not possible. Some suggestion Japan does (but they have kept cases lowers through a range of over measures), China just weld millions in their homes and Australia / New Zealand go for Lockdown Harder with a Vengeance at the first sign of any COVID, rather than relying on any real track and trace.
So that's one country...one...that spent 5 years and spying on your every movement, every payment you make, every interaction you have.
Ok, because of the kerfuffle I ran the cartoon past a professional cartoonist, who incidentally hadn't seen it before and wasn't aware of the AS concerns.
We concluded it's a good cartoon cartoon idea, but the execution is poor (no pun intended). The main trouble is that Starmer is unrecognisable. He looks more like Cameron! What's more, he's been made to look effete. The reason for this is unclear, and doesn't seem to serve any comedic or political purpose. (Corbyn is also a poor likeness but that matters less.)
This is a shame because the idea of Starmer decapitating metaphorically his adversary is a strong one, especially as real beheadings are very much in the news.
Is it anti-semitic? Not in a million years. There's no Jewish trope here, and no caricature that could be interpreted as such.
Like Foxy says, "The implication that the Jews wanted an innocent man's head on a plate."
So that's NOT anti-semitic? Sorry, but think you are wrong here. Trouble is not crap drawing but rather loaded, coded message.
Also, this cartoonist was "unaware of the anti-Semitic issue" and this is when he, or she, is judging a cartoon, which is all about a politician cashiered for anti-Semitism?
That's utterly ridiculous. Anti-Semitism is THE central issue here, it is the reason for the cartoon's existence. So if you are unaware of that you can't have any opinion on the image, as you are clueless of the vital context.
Aren't we praising the French for publishing religiously offensive cartoons?
No. We’re praising them for not censoring them.
+1
This is a crucially important point.
No-one on here (I hope) would suggest that Der Stürmer's portrayal of Jews in Germany was acceptable, and no-one should praise it. (Indeed, one would hope they would criticise it.)
But free speech includes free speech that is grossly offensive. That's them apples.
Exactly this.
The issue it seems to me is not cartoons etc but that parts of the Muslim world want to impose a de facto Islamic blasphemy law in countries where Muslims live, even where they are in a minority. And to determine what criticism, if any, can be made of Islam and how. And some states - like Turkey - are seeking to use economic measures to try to get their way.
This is completely unacceptable regardless of whether you are a secular state like France or one like ours or an Italy or whatever. France’s fight is ours, if we want to remain a free society. Offensive cartoons are a side issue - a symptom - of a clash between different views of freedom. It is a fight that the West has to win if its societies are to remain Western and free. I wish Britain was more robust in showing its support for France.
I was talking about this w my gf earlier, she was reading on the bbc about the effigies of Macron, and heard myself saying ‘best we just shut up and leave them to it’, then realised that is exactly the wrong strategy - giving in. But it’s either that or some kind of civil war. I reckon in a generation or two there will be official Islamic enclaves in European countries, because it’s either that, civil war, or the state imposing itself over the Islamic population and the enclaves are the easy option
There are countries in Europe that majority Muslim. Not sure what this talk of enclaves really means in that context.
When they say closing “everything”, do they literally mean that: offices, businesses, electricians, plumbers, builders etc ie all work?
Or do they mean places where people congregate ie hospitality, shops etc?
Because the former is something akin to what we had in March. And without a furlough scheme of some kind, the economic pain would be pretty catastrophic.
If universities are one source of the spread since September why aren’t they being closed? Either we shut down those activities which have the greatest risk or we don’t, in which case shutting other things which are not so high risk is a bit pointless.
Universities should be online only bar a limited number of courses like medicine that are both are highly important and require practical classes.
Schools should be open but we should look at moving older kids in non exam years to as much online learning as possible.
Both can be good for us in terms of long term changes to education anyway.
Lectures are already wholly online. There is no blended learning.
The problem with cooping all the students up at home is that some people have glorious sunny bedrooms in large houses with supportive parents. And some don't. They may not even get on with their parents, or their homes will be difficult to work in with Mum & Dad there all the time.
I believe in France, students typically do attend the closest university and do -- more often than in the UK -- live at home. It has not done them very much good. France is in a more dire state than us,
I don't like the fact that young people are routinely being made to make more & more sacrifices.
I dont like it either. We should be waiving all tuition fees for this year at a minimum to help re-balance things a little.
I got my £12,300 invoice today.
Can you use your legal skills to get it cancelled/reduced somehow?
No, so clearly I'm not very good!
Know a fellow here in Seattle who just graduated from University of Washington Law School. And because of COVID, the WA State Bar exam was WAIVED for him and his fellows as requirement for admission to the WSBA. Sweet deal for him.
When they say closing “everything”, do they literally mean that: offices, businesses, electricians, plumbers, builders etc ie all work?
Or do they mean places where people congregate ie hospitality, shops etc?
Because the former is something akin to what we had in March. And without a furlough scheme of some kind, the economic pain would be pretty catastrophic.
If universities are one source of the spread since September why aren’t they being closed? Either we shut down those activities which have the greatest risk or we don’t, in which case shutting other things which are not so high risk is a bit pointless.
Universities should be online only bar a limited number of courses like medicine that are both are highly important and require practical classes.
Schools should be open but we should look at moving older kids in non exam years to as much online learning as possible.
Both can be good for us in terms of long term changes to education anyway.
Lectures are already wholly online. There is no blended learning.
The problem with cooping all the students up at home is that some people have glorious sunny bedrooms in large houses with supportive parents. And some don't. They may not even get on with their parents, or their homes will be difficult to work in with Mum & Dad there all the time.
I believe in France, students typically do attend the closest university and do -- more often than in the UK -- live at home. It has not done them very much good. France is in a more dire state than us,
I don't like the fact that young people are routinely being made to make more & more sacrifices.
I dont like it either. We should be waiving all tuition fees for this year at a minimum to help re-balance things a little.
As a friend who lives in NL says... most students live at home. So they went to university, gave it to each other, then brought them back home. Whereas our student epidemic should be starting to burn itself out by now
After widely dispersing it around the cities. Then to the outer suburbs and estates.
When they say closing “everything”, do they literally mean that: offices, businesses, electricians, plumbers, builders etc ie all work?
Or do they mean places where people congregate ie hospitality, shops etc?
Because the former is something akin to what we had in March. And without a furlough scheme of some kind, the economic pain would be pretty catastrophic.
If universities are one source of the spread since September why aren’t they being closed? Either we shut down those activities which have the greatest risk or we don’t, in which case shutting other things which are not so high risk is a bit pointless.
It's very odd, as there's evidence that both schools and universities are major spreaders. I can see why it's hard to close primary schools, but secondaries and universities should be able to semi-function online, and shouldn't be protected while almost everything else shuts down.
Because kids at primary school can't be left at home on their own.
Nick has no kids. He does not get it. Kids under 14-15 need childcare, even if it is light touch with the older ones.
That means millions of parents staying home, more or less.
If the parents cannot work because everything is shut down, they’ll be at home anyway, no?
I don’t understand - does anyone? what “everything” means?
Working from home like in March, presumably? My mates with kids found it utterly, utterly exhausting - they were ineffective parents and ineffective workers. If we are to have a lockdown, which I really hope we don't, keeping the schools open is very much worth the slightly increased risk, IMO.
I suspect most exemptions, not used in March, would be used fully this time. I stopped trading entirely for about a month; I won't be this time. Our online business will continue every single day.
It's very odd, as there's evidence that both schools and universities are major spreaders. I can see why it's hard to close primary schools, but secondaries and universities should be able to semi-function online, and shouldn't be protected while almost everything else shuts down.
Because the government has already committed to keeping them open come what may, even though the evidence now says we should close them first.
.
What evidence? The scientific picture is very confused (not unusual for a new disease). I have not seen any clear-cut evidence.
Ceredigion has two universities within its boundaries (Aberystwyth, Lampeter) & one of the lowest COVID rates in the UK. So, it is easy to find counter-examples.
I don't have anything to hand but there was a report this week that closing schools would have the largest effect for reducing transmission, it was larger than many of the things we are doing combined IIRC. I'm not saying it's any easy decision, but if you really do believe the NHS is a few weeks away from being swamped by cases it's maybe the single best intervention avaiable. All the early closing, take-away only, non-essentially shop shutting we are trying were small beer in comparison.
Ok, because of the kerfuffle I ran the cartoon past a professional cartoonist, who incidentally hadn't seen it before and wasn't aware of the AS concerns.
We concluded it's a good cartoon cartoon idea, but the execution is poor (no pun intended). The main trouble is that Starmer is unrecognisable. He looks more like Cameron! What's more, he's been made to look effete. The reason for this is unclear, and doesn't seem to serve any comedic or political purpose. (Corbyn is also a poor likeness but that matters less.)
This is a shame because the idea of Starmer decapitating metaphorically his adversary is a strong one, especially as real beheadings are very much in the news.
Is it anti-semitic? Not in a million years. There's no Jewish trope here, and no caricature that could be interpreted as such.
Like Foxy says, "The implication that the Jews wanted an innocent man's head on a plate."
So that's NOT anti-semitic? Sorry, but think you are wrong here. Trouble is not crap drawing but rather loaded, coded message.
Also, this cartoonist was "unaware of the anti-Semitic issue" and this is when he, or she, is judging a cartoon, which is all about a politician cashiered for anti-Semitism?
That's utterly ridiculous. Anti-Semitism is THE central issue here, it is the reason for the cartoon's existence. So if you are unaware of that you can't have any opinion on the image, as you are clueless of the vital context.
Aren't we praising the French for publishing religiously offensive cartoons?
No. We’re praising them for not censoring them.
+1
This is a crucially important point.
No-one on here (I hope) would suggest that Der Stürmer's portrayal of Jews in Germany was acceptable, and no-one should praise it. (Indeed, one would hope they would criticise it.)
But free speech includes free speech that is grossly offensive. That's them apples.
Exactly this.
The issue it seems to me is not cartoons etc but that parts of the Muslim world want to impose a de facto Islamic blasphemy law in countries where Muslims live, even where they are in a minority. And to determine what criticism, if any, can be made of Islam and how. And some states - like Turkey - are seeking to use economic measures to try to get their way.
This is completely unacceptable regardless of whether you are a secular state like France or one like ours or an Italy or whatever. France’s fight is ours, if we want to remain a free society. Offensive cartoons are a side issue - a symptom - of a clash between different views of freedom. It is a fight that the West has to win if its societies are to remain Western and free. I wish Britain was more robust in showing its support for France.
I was talking about this w my gf earlier, she was reading on the bbc about the effigies of Macron, and heard myself saying ‘best we just shut up and leave them to it’, then realised that is exactly the wrong strategy - giving in. But it’s either that or some kind of civil war. I reckon in a generation or two there will be official Islamic enclaves in European countries, because it’s either that, civil war, or the state imposing itself over the Islamic population and the enclaves are the easy option
You may be right. But enclaves are not an easy option. They simply postpone resolution of the problem.
In France there are de facto enclaves in some parts of the banlieues around Paris. It has not helped. Because this is not about Muslims wanting to be free to practise their religion in peace - something we can all agree with. But about wanting to control what non-Muslims think and say about Islam. Hence the attacks, the beheadings, the demos outside French shops in London, the calls for economic boycotts.
The sovereign’s writ has to run throughout the whole country. If it doesn’t you are no longer sovereign. You no longer have one country. And civil war - or some sort of trouble - is much more likely to happen in such a situation.
I very much hope I am wrong. But having got rid of a Christian Inquisition and rule by the Church here I am damned if I want to have an Islamic Inquisition and rule replacing it.
Perhaps he can tell us which European countries have a successful track and trace ?
Why only European countries?
Because its good to compare like with like.
Now perhaps China has an excellent track and trace but the authorities can be more persuasive there.
Well, naturally, China is not a model many would want to emulate. But you're kicking a straw man in response to a simple question. It obvious that some countries DO have effective test and trace, but you want to restrict the conversation to only European countries. Fair enough if you think that comparing like with like is important -- it can be -- but what is it about European countries that are alike that we can't say about, say, South Korea or New Zealand or other non-European countries?
Different countries have different systems and different mentalities.
You can't just say we'll be like X and be so.
And New Zealand shows the benefit not of track and trace but not allowing the virus to arrive to begin with.
Much more difficult in European countries and especially in a country as obsessed about foreign holidays as the UK.
Ok, because of the kerfuffle I ran the cartoon past a professional cartoonist, who incidentally hadn't seen it before and wasn't aware of the AS concerns.
We concluded it's a good cartoon cartoon idea, but the execution is poor (no pun intended). The main trouble is that Starmer is unrecognisable. He looks more like Cameron! What's more, he's been made to look effete. The reason for this is unclear, and doesn't seem to serve any comedic or political purpose. (Corbyn is also a poor likeness but that matters less.)
This is a shame because the idea of Starmer decapitating metaphorically his adversary is a strong one, especially as real beheadings are very much in the news.
Is it anti-semitic? Not in a million years. There's no Jewish trope here, and no caricature that could be interpreted as such.
Like Foxy says, "The implication that the Jews wanted an innocent man's head on a plate."
So that's NOT anti-semitic? Sorry, but think you are wrong here. Trouble is not crap drawing but rather loaded, coded message.
Also, this cartoonist was "unaware of the anti-Semitic issue" and this is when he, or she, is judging a cartoon, which is all about a politician cashiered for anti-Semitism?
That's utterly ridiculous. Anti-Semitism is THE central issue here, it is the reason for the cartoon's existence. So if you are unaware of that you can't have any opinion on the image, as you are clueless of the vital context.
Aren't we praising the French for publishing religiously offensive cartoons?
No. We’re praising them for not censoring them.
+1
This is a crucially important point.
No-one on here (I hope) would suggest that Der Stürmer's portrayal of Jews in Germany was acceptable, and no-one should praise it. (Indeed, one would hope they would criticise it.)
But free speech includes free speech that is grossly offensive. That's them apples.
Exactly this.
The issue it seems to me is not cartoons etc but that parts of the Muslim world want to impose a de facto Islamic blasphemy law in countries where Muslims live, even where they are in a minority. And to determine what criticism, if any, can be made of Islam and how. And some states - like Turkey - are seeking to use economic measures to try to get their way.
This is completely unacceptable regardless of whether you are a secular state like France or one like ours or an Italy or whatever. France’s fight is ours, if we want to remain a free society. Offensive cartoons are a side issue - a symptom - of a clash between different views of freedom. It is a fight that the West has to win if its societies are to remain Western and free. I wish Britain was more robust in showing its support for France.
I was talking about this w my gf earlier, she was reading on the bbc about the effigies of Macron, and heard myself saying ‘best we just shut up and leave them to it’, then realised that is exactly the wrong strategy - giving in. But it’s either that or some kind of civil war. I reckon in a generation or two there will be official Islamic enclaves in European countries, because it’s either that, civil war, or the state imposing itself over the Islamic population and the enclaves are the easy option
There are countries in Europe that majority Muslim. Not sure what this talk of enclaves really means in that context.
2 and ½ plus one unrecognized? Albania, Kosovo, the European part of Turkey, and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Any others?
When they say closing “everything”, do they literally mean that: offices, businesses, electricians, plumbers, builders etc ie all work?
Or do they mean places where people congregate ie hospitality, shops etc?
Because the former is something akin to what we had in March. And without a furlough scheme of some kind, the economic pain would be pretty catastrophic.
If universities are one source of the spread since September why aren’t they being closed? Either we shut down those activities which have the greatest risk or we don’t, in which case shutting other things which are not so high risk is a bit pointless.
It's very odd, as there's evidence that both schools and universities are major spreaders. I can see why it's hard to close primary schools, but secondaries and universities should be able to semi-function online, and shouldn't be protected while almost everything else shuts down.
Because kids at primary school can't be left at home on their own.
Nick has no kids. He does not get it. Kids under 14-15 need childcare, even if it is light touch with the older ones.
That means millions of parents staying home, more or less.
If the parents cannot work because everything is shut down, they’ll be at home anyway, no?
I don’t understand - does anyone? what “everything” means?
Working from home like in March, presumably? My mates with kids found it utterly, utterly exhausting - they were ineffective parents and ineffective workers. If we are to have a lockdown, which I really hope we don't, keeping the schools open is very much worth the slightly increased risk, IMO.
I suspect most exemptions, not used in March, would be used fully this time. I stopped trading entirely for about a month; I won't be this time. Our online business will continue every single day.
Not all businesses can work from home. Electricians? Builders? Etc.
Ok, because of the kerfuffle I ran the cartoon past a professional cartoonist, who incidentally hadn't seen it before and wasn't aware of the AS concerns.
We concluded it's a good cartoon cartoon idea, but the execution is poor (no pun intended). The main trouble is that Starmer is unrecognisable. He looks more like Cameron! What's more, he's been made to look effete. The reason for this is unclear, and doesn't seem to serve any comedic or political purpose. (Corbyn is also a poor likeness but that matters less.)
This is a shame because the idea of Starmer decapitating metaphorically his adversary is a strong one, especially as real beheadings are very much in the news.
Is it anti-semitic? Not in a million years. There's no Jewish trope here, and no caricature that could be interpreted as such.
Like Foxy says, "The implication that the Jews wanted an innocent man's head on a plate."
So that's NOT anti-semitic? Sorry, but think you are wrong here. Trouble is not crap drawing but rather loaded, coded message.
Also, this cartoonist was "unaware of the anti-Semitic issue" and this is when he, or she, is judging a cartoon, which is all about a politician cashiered for anti-Semitism?
That's utterly ridiculous. Anti-Semitism is THE central issue here, it is the reason for the cartoon's existence. So if you are unaware of that you can't have any opinion on the image, as you are clueless of the vital context.
Aren't we praising the French for publishing religiously offensive cartoons?
No. We’re praising them for not censoring them.
+1
This is a crucially important point.
No-one on here (I hope) would suggest that Der Stürmer's portrayal of Jews in Germany was acceptable, and no-one should praise it. (Indeed, one would hope they would criticise it.)
But free speech includes free speech that is grossly offensive. That's them apples.
Exactly this.
The issue it seems to me is not cartoons etc but that parts of the Muslim world want to impose a de facto Islamic blasphemy law in countries where Muslims live, even where they are in a minority. And to determine what criticism, if any, can be made of Islam and how. And some states - like Turkey - are seeking to use economic measures to try to get their way.
This is completely unacceptable regardless of whether you are a secular state like France or one like ours or an Italy or whatever. France’s fight is ours, if we want to remain a free society. Offensive cartoons are a side issue - a symptom - of a clash between different views of freedom. It is a fight that the West has to win if its societies are to remain Western and free. I wish Britain was more robust in showing its support for France.
I was talking about this w my gf earlier, she was reading on the bbc about the effigies of Macron, and heard myself saying ‘best we just shut up and leave them to it’, then realised that is exactly the wrong strategy - giving in. But it’s either that or some kind of civil war. I reckon in a generation or two there will be official Islamic enclaves in European countries, because it’s either that, civil war, or the state imposing itself over the Islamic population and the enclaves are the easy option
You may be right. But enclaves are not an easy option. They simply postpone resolution of the problem.
You've just hit on why it may well happen. Since it also postpones confrontation of the problem, and politicians will always choose that option.
So. 6 weeks of Tier 2 hard, hard, economically and socially crippling restrictions which with cooperation and good sense, the NE has achieved a plateauing, unlike the rest of the country. Just in time for a national lockdown. Thanks guys. They wonder why we're becoming estranged from the South of England.
Depending on what paper you read, it might not be a national lockdown, instead an extra tier.
That would make much more sense. Which papers, do you know?
Mr Johnson is likely to summon ministers from his Cabinet coronavirus subcommittee over the next 48 hours and could hold a full meeting on Sunday if he decides he needs to act as soon as Monday. The alternative to a national lockdown would be a fourth tier of restrictions on top of the existing three tier system, but government scientists now believe even Tier 3 is not enough to stop the spread of infections.
We all know Cummings has already decided and the cabinet will moan, leak to their own personal favourite shill journalists, and then eventually do what Cummings wants.
Ok, because of the kerfuffle I ran the cartoon past a professional cartoonist, who incidentally hadn't seen it before and wasn't aware of the AS concerns.
We concluded it's a good cartoon cartoon idea, but the execution is poor (no pun intended). The main trouble is that Starmer is unrecognisable. He looks more like Cameron! What's more, he's been made to look effete. The reason for this is unclear, and doesn't seem to serve any comedic or political purpose. (Corbyn is also a poor likeness but that matters less.)
This is a shame because the idea of Starmer decapitating metaphorically his adversary is a strong one, especially as real beheadings are very much in the news.
Is it anti-semitic? Not in a million years. There's no Jewish trope here, and no caricature that could be interpreted as such.
Like Foxy says, "The implication that the Jews wanted an innocent man's head on a plate."
So that's NOT anti-semitic? Sorry, but think you are wrong here. Trouble is not crap drawing but rather loaded, coded message.
Also, this cartoonist was "unaware of the anti-Semitic issue" and this is when he, or she, is judging a cartoon, which is all about a politician cashiered for anti-Semitism?
That's utterly ridiculous. Anti-Semitism is THE central issue here, it is the reason for the cartoon's existence. So if you are unaware of that you can't have any opinion on the image, as you are clueless of the vital context.
Aren't we praising the French for publishing religiously offensive cartoons?
No. We’re praising them for not censoring them.
+1
This is a crucially important point.
No-one on here (I hope) would suggest that Der Stürmer's portrayal of Jews in Germany was acceptable, and no-one should praise it. (Indeed, one would hope they would criticise it.)
But free speech includes free speech that is grossly offensive. That's them apples.
Exactly this.
The issue it seems to me is not cartoons etc but that parts of the Muslim world want to impose a de facto Islamic blasphemy law in countries where Muslims live, even where they are in a minority. And to determine what criticism, if any, can be made of Islam and how. And some states - like Turkey - are seeking to use economic measures to try to get their way.
This is completely unacceptable regardless of whether you are a secular state like France or one like ours or an Italy or whatever. France’s fight is ours, if we want to remain a free society. Offensive cartoons are a side issue - a symptom - of a clash between different views of freedom. It is a fight that the West has to win if its societies are to remain Western and free. I wish Britain was more robust in showing its support for France.
I was talking about this w my gf earlier, she was reading on the bbc about the effigies of Macron, and heard myself saying ‘best we just shut up and leave them to it’, then realised that is exactly the wrong strategy - giving in. But it’s either that or some kind of civil war. I reckon in a generation or two there will be official Islamic enclaves in European countries, because it’s either that, civil war, or the state imposing itself over the Islamic population and the enclaves are the easy option
You may be right. But enclaves are not an easy option. They simply postpone resolution of the problem.
In France there are de facto enclaves in some parts of the banlieues around Paris. It has not helped. Because this is not about Muslims wanting to be free to practise their religion in peace - something we can all agree with. But about wanting to control what non-Muslims think and say about Islam. Hence the attacks, the beheadings, the demos outside French shops in London, the calls for economic boycotts.
The sovereign’s writ has to run throughout the whole country. If it doesn’t you are no longer sovereign. You no longer have one country. And civil war - or some sort of trouble - is much more likely to happen in such a situation.
I very much hope I am wrong. But having got rid of a Christian Inquisition and rule by the Church here I am damned if I want to have an Islamic Inquisition and rule replacing it.
Some people were surprised when C S Lewis argued that the worst form of tyranny was not a political dictatorship, but a theocracy, where those in charge sincerely believing that they're acting for the good of the people they persecute.
When they say closing “everything”, do they literally mean that: offices, businesses, electricians, plumbers, builders etc ie all work?
Or do they mean places where people congregate ie hospitality, shops etc?
Because the former is something akin to what we had in March. And without a furlough scheme of some kind, the economic pain would be pretty catastrophic.
If universities are one source of the spread since September why aren’t they being closed? Either we shut down those activities which have the greatest risk or we don’t, in which case shutting other things which are not so high risk is a bit pointless.
Universities should be online only bar a limited number of courses like medicine that are both are highly important and require practical classes.
Schools should be open but we should look at moving older kids in non exam years to as much online learning as possible.
Both can be good for us in terms of long term changes to education anyway.
Lectures are already wholly online. There is no blended learning.
The problem with cooping all the students up at home is that some people have glorious sunny bedrooms in large houses with supportive parents. And some don't. They may not even get on with their parents, or their homes will be difficult to work in with Mum & Dad there all the time.
I believe in France, students typically do attend the closest university and do -- more often than in the UK -- live at home. It has not done them very much good. France is in a more dire state than us,
I don't like the fact that young people are routinely being made to make more & more sacrifices.
I dont like it either. We should be waiving all tuition fees for this year at a minimum to help re-balance things a little.
Both my sons are in their final undergraduate years at University. One has had a bill for £9250 and the other for £9000. Neither has physically been in the presence of a lecturer since mid March. In essence academic year 2019/20 lasted from October until mid March, and this one is so far fully online. One is also paying hall fees.
The Open University charges around £3000 for a superior level of tuition.
Perhaps he can tell us which European countries have a successful track and trace ?
Why only European countries?
Because its good to compare like with like.
Now perhaps China has an excellent track and trace but the authorities can be more persuasive there.
Well, naturally, China is not a model many would want to emulate. But you're kicking a straw man in response to a simple question. It obvious that some countries DO have effective test and trace, but you want to restrict the conversation to only European countries. Fair enough if you think that comparing like with like is important -- it can be -- but what is it about European countries that are alike that we can't say about, say, South Korea or New Zealand or other non-European countries?
South Korea spent 5 years building their surveillance system that enables efficient track and trace. Who else has one that works with any sort of case level? Germany says not possible. Some suggestion Japan does, China just weld millions in their homes and Australia / New Zealand go for Lockdown Harder with a Vengeance at the first sign of any COVID, rather than relying on any real track and trace.
Yeah, South Korea has taken the problem seriously, and their foresight has paid dividends. And some will say that Asia had a massive head start because they had the example of Sars to learn from. But this is precisely my point. We should not be looking only within our own region. The failure of a neighbour is not a laurel to rest upon. It is a baffling dearth of imagination to look at the UK response's, shrug, and point at France. Successive governments have failed to plan, and we ought to be holding them to a higher standard. Right now we seem content with just lumping us in with EU countries and noting that we're in the top 25. I thought our ambition was bigger than that.
Doesn't matter if that is the case. Other parts of the UK are locking down harder, places in Europe are all over the place, and the headline figures here look ghastly and out of control, and people support doing something harsh. Sure, they'll complain about the consequences of that harshness too, but when popular will and politics back it, it'd take a tougher government than this to resist, particularly when proving that not doing it will be better is nigh on impossible.
So that's one country...one...that spent 5 years and spying on your every movement, every payment you make, every interaction you have.
Given that the UK has lead the world in mass-surveillance in the past I'm sure we collect the data. GCHQ doesn't run "internet buffers" and tap hundreds of undersea cables, and have technical agreements with essentially all carriers and ISPs, and connect directly into airline and banking systems just for fun. But we like to pretend that none of this exists, so if it doesn't exist we can't use it to fight COVID-19.
Comments
Politically fascinating.
But this will be the disingenuous political argument, we could have had just 2 week lockdown, etc etc etc, when we wouldn't, we would still be locked down for many weeks.
We don't know exactly what would have happened if the government had done absolutely nothing in response to Coronavirus.
What we do know is that a clear and consistent set of restrictions and guidelines, that is designed to be followed for a long period of time, causes less confusion and probably has greater levels of compliance.
Why does EVERYTHING in this country have to be centrally managed from London?
Guess what, the countries that are actually successful devolve powers, track and trace is just the latest and most obvious example of how this nations London centric way of operating utterly screws most of us over.
https://twitter.com/yougov/status/1322213828600438785?s=21
But many oldies seem to be on a suicide mission and obese slobs are unwilling to improve their health.
Evidence: Israel.
They supposedly conquered the first wave, then had to get drastic on the second wave, and a hoped-for short sharp lockdown has dragged on, and on, and still they are only now considering maybe reopening some SCHOOLS
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/28/take-two-israel-tests-slow-cautious-exit-lockdown-avoid-another/
And the difference is...
Oh.
Bugger all.
Because when hospitals start filling and death tolls start rising, people lock themselves down.
Places without lockdowns just have a series of peaks and troughs as fear ebbs and flows. Now, that may very well be a better outcome than government mandated lockdowns. But the practical reality is that societies lockdown with or without government diktat.
The problem with cooping all the students up at home is that some people have glorious sunny bedrooms in large houses with supportive parents. And some don't. They may not even get on with their parents, or their homes will be difficult to work in with Mum & Dad there all the time.
I believe in France, students typically do attend the closest university and do -- more often than in the UK -- live at home. It has not done them very much good. France is in a more dire state than us,
I don't like the fact that young people are routinely being made to make more & more sacrifices.
Problem is government over promised again, track and trace and an app will sort it....then it doesn't.
Because, on God's green earth, I cannot see one
Genuine lol. Much needed
Or a typo.
Sample ballots for wide variety of jurisdictions available via the web.
Now perhaps China has an excellent track and trace but the authorities can be more persuasive there.
Just in time for a national lockdown.
Thanks guys.
They wonder why we're becoming estranged from the South of England.
Because the hospitals aren't filling up with them.
The issue it seems to me is not cartoons etc but that parts of the Muslim world want to impose a de facto Islamic blasphemy law in countries where Muslims live, even where they are in a minority. And to determine what criticism, if any, can be made of Islam and how. And some states - like Turkey - are seeking to use economic measures to try to get their way.
This is completely unacceptable regardless of whether you are a secular state like France or one like ours or an Italy or whatever. France’s fight is ours, if we want to remain a free society. Offensive cartoons are a side issue - a symptom - of a clash between different views of freedom. It is a fight that the West has to win if its societies are to remain Western and free. I wish Britain was more robust in showing its support for France.
That means millions of parents staying home, more or less.
I know people say "you can't run a country like a business" but you really would sack people who operate like this, you'd find a reason even if you have to invent one.
https://twitter.com/lavanguardia/status/1322309040597274625?s=21
Figures contradict recent data from Imperial College, which showed nearly 100,000 new coronavirus infections a day in England" (£)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/30/covid-19-rates-not-surging-reveals-kings-college-research/
One of my sons is meant to start a new job on Thursday. So pleased to get it. If there is a national lockdown there will likely be no job ........ 😢
Daughter has already prepared for closure of her business. She is in despair.
Other son has an essential job in food.
If everything is shut down again the economic pain for them will be appalling.
And if some jackass gets on NOT wearing a mask - in spite of it being required - I move my seat as FAR away as possible.
But you're kicking a straw man in response to a simple question. It obvious that some countries DO have effective test and trace, but you want to restrict the conversation to only European countries. Fair enough if you think that comparing like with like is important -- it can be -- but what is it about European countries that are alike that we can't say about, say, South Korea or New Zealand or other non-European countries?
I don’t understand - does anyone? what “everything” means?
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3602004
Seriously though, the lockdown will not kill the virus off, it will still be there, still infecting people. And even during lockdown, there will still be people on the bus when you go to do your shopping.
So what are you going to do during lockdown? Starve? No, you will take your chances as carefully as can be managed
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/10/30/fourth-tier-covid-restrictions-beckons-scientists-pressure-boris/
"Train to Busan" is on Film4!
Ceredigion has two universities within its boundaries (Aberystwyth, Lampeter) & one of the lowest COVID rates in the UK. So, it is easy to find counter-examples.
I've borrowed about £40,000 to keep my business afloat, but that can't continue indefinitely.
So that's one country...one...that spent 5 years and spying on your every movement, every payment you make, every interaction you have.
I also don't like the way to get publicity is to make the most extreme prediction possible and for it to be accepted without question.
I suspect most exemptions, not used in March, would be used fully this time. I stopped trading entirely for about a month; I won't be this time. Our online business will continue every single day.
In France there are de facto enclaves in some parts of the banlieues around Paris. It has not helped. Because this is not about Muslims wanting to be free to practise their religion in peace - something we can all agree with. But about wanting to control what non-Muslims think and say about Islam. Hence the attacks, the beheadings, the demos outside French shops in London, the calls for economic boycotts.
The sovereign’s writ has to run throughout the whole country. If it doesn’t you are no longer sovereign. You no longer have one country. And civil war - or some sort of trouble - is much more likely to happen in such a situation.
I very much hope I am wrong. But having got rid of a Christian Inquisition and rule by the Church here I am damned if I want to have an Islamic Inquisition and rule replacing it.
You can't just say we'll be like X and be so.
And New Zealand shows the benefit not of track and trace but not allowing the virus to arrive to begin with.
Much more difficult in European countries and especially in a country as obsessed about foreign holidays as the UK.
The Open University charges around £3000 for a superior level of tuition.
Sold down the river, or what?
The failure of a neighbour is not a laurel to rest upon.
It is a baffling dearth of imagination to look at the UK response's, shrug, and point at France. Successive governments have failed to plan, and we ought to be holding them to a higher standard. Right now we seem content with just lumping us in with EU countries and noting that we're in the top 25.
I thought our ambition was bigger than that.