Once again, nobody has explained what lockdown 2 is going to solve. We're run by a government of c***s. Absolutely fucking clueless and they're going to destroy what's left of the economy and we will be back where we are today a few weeks after it ends or in a more realistic scenario it doesn't end in 4 weeks, it ends in April because the government haven't got a clue.
We all know what "lockdown 2" is going to solve, just as we all knew what a circuit-breaker would have solved. Implying that it's hard to understand sounds a bit like the blinkered Tories on here who were pretending that circuit-breakers were a bad idea because they weren't a permanent solution, when the real reason they objected to the idea was because Starmer supported it.
The government has certainly made plenty of mistakes, some of which are understandable because of the scale of the crisis, but others which a competent government would not have made. However, we are where we are and if they introduce much tougher measures than are currently in place, they are doing the right thing.
That said, I do hope they finally recognise that enabling people to plan ahead on this (e.g. 4 week lockdown now; expect another one on Nth January) will do far less harm than unpredictably bouncing in and out of lockdown, or near-lockdown.
This is what I'm expecting , a lockdown until start of December , allow Xmas to be as 'normal' as is possible, perhaps in a kind of Tier 2 level of restrictions, then most likely another lockdown in the New Year (unless my some great fortune R is consistently back under 1 somehow) Until we get a vaccine we are going to have this kind of messy mix of things, trying to balance health against the economy again.
The difference this time will be schools and colleges will stay open unless things get much much worse, though perhaps a longer Xmas break of maybe 3 weeks is possible I guess as opposed to the usual 2.
Except nobody really knows the impact that lockdown will have while schools stay open. We could end up shutting down huge areas of the economy that only have peripheral impact on the spread of the virus, whilst leaving a gaping hole in the middle of it. There is a reason why people were suggesting a "circuit breaker" over half term.
And does shutting "non-essential shops" actually help? How often are "non-essential" shops particularly crowded? Or does it just result in greater overcrowding in the "essential" ones?
I'm looking at a betvictor market. Trump EV total. 200-249. 4/1.
The minimum I think Biden is likely to get is 2016 plus Az, Mi, Wi and Pa. Which rather neatly takes Trump down to 249, just in the target window.
The next two most likely to fall, according to the betting at least I think, are SC and Fl. If Biden takes both of these Trump is down to 205 but we're still in the money. Any more then we're sunk but i think Dems are 11/8 and bigger for those.
My gut feeling is 4/1 is value but plenty of other permutations could see it win or lose so hard to be sure.
Also, Betvictor's o/u handicap line is Trump +81.5 which falls almost exactly in the middle of the band.
I think you may have meant NC and FL, not SC, despite how well Bidens doing nationally he has no chance in SC, NC is certainly a swing state similar to FL. I actually think he has more chance in NC than FL so the 4/1 with the 4 you listed plus SC sounds a fair bet
Ah yes. I meant NC thank you.
Does this site load images really slowly for everyone or just me?
I agree - it's a misunderstanding of the word "populism".
It's rather glib - how are you going to "shut down the virus" without restrictions on freedom and economic consequences, Joe? But it isn't "populist" in the ordinary meaning of the word as it relates to politics.
Isn't it populist in the sense of "Quote me happy, not realistic" politics?
It's semantic, but "populist" generally means framing as Elite vs People.
Simply offering to do things you can't in practice achieve, or that will have hidden bad consequences, in order to appeal to voters is reprehensible, but isn't really what is meant by the term when used by political scientists etc.
The lockdown-sceptic position is framed as Elite vs People in a more visceral way than any other political argument of recent times.
Suggesting that Biden gets a free pass because he's the good guy and trying to distance himself from others doesn't cut it. You could have said the same about David Cameron in the lead up to the EU referendum.
Is Scotland performing better than England? It would be reassuring to me if it were, as I will soon be returning to Scotland after eight months in Ireland.
Deaths seem like the most reliable measure, as case numbers will depend on testing rates. Taking the seven day period centred on 23rd October, we get these figures.
Scotland - 116 deaths - 2.1 deaths per 100k England - 1220 deaths - 2.2 deaths per 100k
The Scottish figure is certainly lower than the English figure, but not by enough to signify any practical difference. For the sake of completeness, these are the figures for Northern Ireland and Wales
Wales - 89 deaths - 2.8 deaths per 100k Northern Ireland - 43 deaths - 2.3 deaths per 100k
It is, perhaps, not surprising that Drakeford imposed his "firebreak" before the rest of the UK.
Not sure where you get your numbers but if I look at yesterday , the best region in England had as many cases as whole of Scotland, rate overall was about 18 times that of Scotland and deaths over 9 times. Unless you are going to Lanarkshire you will be miles safer in Scotland.
I took my numbers from here: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/deaths I used the date of death figures. I used Google to find population numbers to work out the per 100k figures.
A very considerable number of people in America believe that if everyone wore a mask & distancing was enforced, the virus would rapidly die out, without lockdowns.
Isn't that what Europe has mostly been doing in the last few months?
Yes - but, remember, in America you've had Donald Fucking Trump sneering at masks and recommending bleach.
Just wearing masks and staying 2m apart seems doable, sensible and 1000x better.
When you add in the economic precariousness for people - lose your job *and* your healthcare - well, nearly no one wants lockdowns.
Yes, it is not enough.
Yes but my point was that wearing masks and keeping 2m apart hasn't stopped the virus coming back again in Europe.
The point about the (worsening) case numbers etc in USA isn't as a direct indication of whether Trump has done a good job or not. It is that he is wandering around the country telling everyone that the pandemic is effectively 'over' and nothing to worry about any more.
The other point about the US is that people misrepresent how Trump has failed in response to the virus. In many ways he has little direct influence over how to combat the pandemic. The primary response comes from state governors. Those who point that out are not wrong. However, what is true is that at every stage he has undermined state efforts and contradicted the advice that he scientists are trying to send out. Where he should be leading, pushing best practice, and encouraging States to work together and learn from each other, he has... not.
In a way, perhaps his biggest political mistake came from wanting to be the centre of attention. If he had kept a lower profile earlier in the year instead of doing daily press conferences he might be poised for reelection.
A very considerable number of people in America believe that if everyone wore a mask & distancing was enforced, the virus would rapidly die out, without lockdowns.
Isn't that what Europe has mostly been doing in the last few months?
Yes - but, remember, in America you've had Donald Fucking Trump sneering at masks and recommending bleach.
Just wearing masks and staying 2m apart seems doable, sensible and 1000x better.
When you add in the economic precariousness for people - lose your job *and* your healthcare - well, nearly no one wants lockdowns.
Yes, it is not enough.
Yes but my point was that wearing masks and keeping 2m apart hasn't stopped the virus coming back again in Europe.
As I said - "Yes, it is not enough."
However, the political climate in America has resulted in many people believing that all that is required to beat COVID is the list of measures above.
I'm looking at a betvictor market. Trump EV total. 200-249. 4/1.
The minimum I think Biden is likely to get is 2016 plus Az, Mi, Wi and Pa. Which rather neatly takes Trump down to 249, just in the target window.
The next two most likely to fall, according to the betting at least I think, are SC and Fl. If Biden takes both of these Trump is down to 205 but we're still in the money. Any more then we're sunk but i think Dems are 11/8 and bigger for those.
My gut feeling is 4/1 is value but plenty of other permutations could see it win or lose so hard to be sure.
Also, Betvictor's o/u handicap line is Trump +81.5 which falls almost exactly in the middle of the band.
I think you may have meant NC and FL, not SC, despite how well Bidens doing nationally he has no chance in SC, NC is certainly a swing state similar to FL. I actually think he has more chance in NC than FL so the 4/1 with the 4 you listed plus SC sounds a fair bet
Ah yes. I meant NC thank you.
Does this site load images really slowly for everyone or just me?
Missouri - Remington Research - C- rated - 1010 LV - 26/29 Oct
Biden 45 .. Trump 50
Good lord, Trump won Missouri by nearly 20 in 2016.
That's very double-edged for Biden supporters. He doesn't want to be piling up votes uselessly in Red States he isn't going to win.
"Piling up" is a misleading image, though, isn't it? Provided you are not expending resources on useless votes. It isn't, as they say, a zero-sum game - one useless vote here doesn't cost a valuable vote there - and poll leads anywhere may be helpful in building momentum.
A very considerable number of people in America believe that if everyone wore a mask & distancing was enforced, the virus would rapidly die out, without lockdowns.
Isn't that what Europe has mostly been doing in the last few months?
Yes - but, remember, in America you've had Donald Fucking Trump sneering at masks and recommending bleach.
Just wearing masks and staying 2m apart seems doable, sensible and 1000x better.
When you add in the economic precariousness for people - lose your job *and* your healthcare - well, nearly no one wants lockdowns.
Yes, it is not enough.
Yes but my point was that wearing masks and keeping 2m apart hasn't stopped the virus coming back again in Europe.
Maybe because majority did not bother and plenty halfwits not wearing correctly. You can still walk down a street go through asupermarket and loads are not wearing masks. The country is full of uneducated thick knuckle draggers.
The point about the (worsening) case numbers etc in USA isn't as a direct indication of whether Trump has done a good job or not. It is that he is wandering around the country telling everyone that the pandemic is effectively 'over' and nothing to worry about any more.
The other point about the US is that people misrepresent how Trump has failed in response to the virus. In many ways he has little direct influence over how to combat the pandemic. The primary response comes from state governors. Those who point that out are not wrong. However, what is true is that at every stage he has undermined state efforts and contradicted the advice that he scientists are trying to send out. Where he should be leading, pushing best practice, and encouraging States to work together and learn from each other, he has... not.
In a way, perhaps his biggest political mistake came from wanting to be the centre of attention. If he had kept a lower profile earlier in the year instead of doing daily press conferences he might be poised for reelection.
The mistake was worse than that. If he had accepted advice from the outset and campaigned actively against the virus he would have received near universal support. The USA would have been one of the better examples of how to tackle the pandemic, like its neighbour Canada, and Trump would have been hailed as a hero. A second term would have been a formality. He'd be looking at a landslide win now.
There is also the small matter of savings the lives of tens of thousands of Americans, but compared to the massaging of his ego that's a trifle.
Is Scotland performing better than England? It would be reassuring to me if it were, as I will soon be returning to Scotland after eight months in Ireland.
Deaths seem like the most reliable measure, as case numbers will depend on testing rates. Taking the seven day period centred on 23rd October, we get these figures.
Scotland - 116 deaths - 2.1 deaths per 100k England - 1220 deaths - 2.2 deaths per 100k
The Scottish figure is certainly lower than the English figure, but not by enough to signify any practical difference. For the sake of completeness, these are the figures for Northern Ireland and Wales
Wales - 89 deaths - 2.8 deaths per 100k Northern Ireland - 43 deaths - 2.3 deaths per 100k
It is, perhaps, not surprising that Drakeford imposed his "firebreak" before the rest of the UK.
Not sure where you get your numbers but if I look at yesterday , the best region in England had as many cases as whole of Scotland, rate overall was about 18 times that of Scotland and deaths over 9 times. Unless you are going to Lanarkshire you will be miles safer in Scotland.
I took my numbers from here: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/deaths I used the date of death figures. I used Google to find population numbers to work out the per 100k figures.
Once again, nobody has explained what lockdown 2 is going to solve. We're run by a government of c***s. Absolutely fucking clueless and they're going to destroy what's left of the economy and we will be back where we are today a few weeks after it ends or in a more realistic scenario it doesn't end in 4 weeks, it ends in April because the government haven't got a clue.
We all know what "lockdown 2" is going to solve, just as we all knew what a circuit-breaker would have solved. Implying that it's hard to understand sounds a bit like the blinkered Tories on here who were pretending that circuit-breakers were a bad idea because they weren't a permanent solution, when the real reason they objected to the idea was because Starmer supported it.
The government has certainly made plenty of mistakes, some of which are understandable because of the scale of the crisis, but others which a competent government would not have made. However, we are where we are and if they introduce much tougher measures than are currently in place, they are doing the right thing.
That said, I do hope they finally recognise that enabling people to plan ahead on this (e.g. 4 week lockdown now; expect another one on Nth January) will do far less harm than unpredictably bouncing in and out of lockdown, or near-lockdown.
This is what I'm expecting , a lockdown until start of December , allow Xmas to be as 'normal' as is possible, perhaps in a kind of Tier 2 level of restrictions, then most likely another lockdown in the New Year (unless my some great fortune R is consistently back under 1 somehow) Until we get a vaccine we are going to have this kind of messy mix of things, trying to balance health against the economy again.
The difference this time will be schools and colleges will stay open unless things get much much worse, though perhaps a longer Xmas break of maybe 3 weeks is possible I guess as opposed to the usual 2.
Except nobody really knows the impact that lockdown will have while schools stay open. We could end up shutting down huge areas of the economy that only have peripheral impact on the spread of the virus, whilst leaving a gaping hole in the middle of it. There is a reason why people were suggesting a "circuit breaker" over half term.
And does shutting "non-essential shops" actually help? How often are "non-essential" shops particularly crowded? Or does it just result in greater overcrowding in the "essential" ones?
Yeah, while I think Mal557 is probably about right about what *will* happen, leaving schools open is a huge problem.
Again, this is something that could have been addressed with planning. In normal times, schools are closed for a quarter of the year, much of it concentrated in August. Making that quarter a third or so, and distributing it differently, around planned circuit-breakers (which hopefully aren't needed but were always likely to be) and concentrated more in winter, would have been a good idea.
In fairness, I don't know of any country that has done this. But still, the experts (and anyone who is scientifically literate) were anticipating that the winter was going to be very hard as long ago as spring. It reflects badly on our political class that they were not even discussing ideas like that.
The Muhlenberg College (Rated A+) poll for PA posted earlier is interesting, cross tabs show Trump actually losing slightly with the over 65s in PA. Again it shows his losses with women are hurting him badly. It also shows how the Covid crisis is what is going to sink him most likely, As has been mentioned by others, this poll again indicates the economy is the most important single thing to voters (though not much more than health and Covid) and that more people feel better off under Trump than worse off. Overall the +5 lead for Biden sounds about right to me , Trump has a chance but not much of one there. And it will be his position and response to Covid which will cost him. https://www.muhlenberg.edu/media/contentassets/pdf/about/polling/surveys/pennsylvania/FINAL_PA_ELEC2020_LATE_OCT_REPORT (1) (1).pdf
I'm looking at a betvictor market. Trump EV total. 200-249. 4/1.
The minimum I think Biden is likely to get is 2016 plus Az, Mi, Wi and Pa. Which rather neatly takes Trump down to 249, just in the target window.
The next two most likely to fall, according to the betting at least I think, are SC and Fl. If Biden takes both of these Trump is down to 205 but we're still in the money. Any more then we're sunk but i think Dems are 11/8 and bigger for those.
My gut feeling is 4/1 is value but plenty of other permutations could see it win or lose so hard to be sure.
Also, Betvictor's o/u handicap line is Trump +81.5 which falls almost exactly in the middle of the band.
I think you may have meant NC and FL, not SC, despite how well Bidens doing nationally he has no chance in SC, NC is certainly a swing state similar to FL. I actually think he has more chance in NC than FL so the 4/1 with the 4 you listed plus SC sounds a fair bet
Ah yes. I meant NC thank you.
Does this site load images really slowly for everyone or just me?
Utterly predictable we would end up in national lockdown. Boris has wasted weeks dithering and kidding himself all would be fine.
Not sure Drakeford is wise either to promise what will happen post- firebreak.
At some point politicians need to understand - the virus sets the timetable, not them.
Yep Drakeford is trying to get political "credit" for acting early. But come next week Wales is going to be on a par, at best, with middle of the road English regions. So quite why they will be in a position to say a decisive "no" to a longer lockdown, as England enters one, isn't clear.
Sturgeon also seems to be claiming that she might not need to follow England because "the signs are that transmission in Scotland is coming down". Well exactly the same is true in England on their published data. R number falling. Almost below 1 in the North West - the area with the harshest restrictions. Quite why we are publishing data in England when the scientists seems to dismiss everything it is saying in favour of their own models, who knows?
I agree - it's a misunderstanding of the word "populism".
It's rather glib - how are you going to "shut down the virus" without restrictions on freedom and economic consequences, Joe? But it isn't "populist" in the ordinary meaning of the word as it relates to politics.
Isn't it populist in the sense of "Quote me happy, not realistic" politics?
It's semantic, but "populist" generally means framing as Elite vs People.
Simply offering to do things you can't in practice achieve, or that will have hidden bad consequences, in order to appeal to voters is reprehensible, but isn't really what is meant by the term when used by political scientists etc.
The lockdown-sceptic position is framed as Elite vs People in a more visceral way than any other political argument of recent times.
Suggesting that Biden gets a free pass because he's the good guy and trying to distance himself from others doesn't cut it. You could have said the same about David Cameron in the lead up to the EU referendum.
I'm not suggesting Biden gets a free pass, and indeed I called his comment "glib". What I am saying is simply that it isn't "populist" in the usual meaning of the word.
What Biden is doing is directly contradicting Trump's point that the economy would be crashed and civil liberties crushed under the Democrats. He's doing so by claiming he can beat the virus with pretty minimal economic hardship or restrictions on liberties by doing unspecified things. That's quite a big and dubious claim. But it isn't an "elites versus people" claim - it's denying or diminishing the importance of a trade-off.
The point about the (worsening) case numbers etc in USA isn't as a direct indication of whether Trump has done a good job or not. It is that he is wandering around the country telling everyone that the pandemic is effectively 'over' and nothing to worry about any more.
The other point about the US is that people misrepresent how Trump has failed in response to the virus. In many ways he has little direct influence over how to combat the pandemic. The primary response comes from state governors. Those who point that out are not wrong. However, what is true is that at every stage he has undermined state efforts and contradicted the advice that he scientists are trying to send out. Where he should be leading, pushing best practice, and encouraging States to work together and learn from each other, he has... not.
In a way, perhaps his biggest political mistake came from wanting to be the centre of attention. If he had kept a lower profile earlier in the year instead of doing daily press conferences he might be poised for reelection.
Perhaps but I'm not sure the words 'keep a lower profile' are in Trumps vocabulary.
I agree - it's a misunderstanding of the word "populism".
It's rather glib - how are you going to "shut down the virus" without restrictions on freedom and economic consequences, Joe? But it isn't "populist" in the ordinary meaning of the word as it relates to politics.
Isn't it populist in the sense of "Quote me happy, not realistic" politics?
It's semantic, but "populist" generally means framing as Elite vs People.
Simply offering to do things you can't in practice achieve, or that will have hidden bad consequences, in order to appeal to voters is reprehensible, but isn't really what is meant by the term when used by political scientists etc.
The lockdown-sceptic position is framed as Elite vs People in a more visceral way than any other political argument of recent times.
Suggesting that Biden gets a free pass because he's the good guy and trying to distance himself from others doesn't cut it. You could have said the same about David Cameron in the lead up to the EU referendum.
I'm not suggesting Biden gets a free pass, and indeed I called his comment "glib". What I am saying is simply that it isn't "populist" in the usual meaning of the word.
What Biden is doing is directly contradicting Trump's point that the economy would be crashed and civil liberties crushed under the Democrats. He's doing so by claiming he can beat the virus with pretty minimal economic hardship or restrictions on liberties by doing unspecified things. That's quite a big and dubious claim. But it isn't an "elites versus people" claim - it's denying or diminishing the importance of a trade-off.
Take that logic one step further. If Biden is denying or diminishing the importance of a trade-off, what does it imply about people who say that painful trade-offs are unavoidable?
A very considerable number of people in America believe that if everyone wore a mask & distancing was enforced, the virus would rapidly die out, without lockdowns.
Isn't that what Europe has mostly been doing in the last few months?
Yes - but, remember, in America you've had Donald Fucking Trump sneering at masks and recommending bleach.
Just wearing masks and staying 2m apart seems doable, sensible and 1000x better.
When you add in the economic precariousness for people - lose your job *and* your healthcare - well, nearly no one wants lockdowns.
Yes, it is not enough.
Yes but my point was that wearing masks and keeping 2m apart hasn't stopped the virus coming back again in Europe.
Maybe because majority did not bother and plenty halfwits not wearing correctly. You can still walk down a street go through asupermarket and loads are not wearing masks. The country is full of uneducated thick knuckle draggers.
A very considerable number of people in America believe that if everyone wore a mask & distancing was enforced, the virus would rapidly die out, without lockdowns.
Isn't that what Europe has mostly been doing in the last few months?
Yes - but, remember, in America you've had Donald Fucking Trump sneering at masks and recommending bleach.
Just wearing masks and staying 2m apart seems doable, sensible and 1000x better.
When you add in the economic precariousness for people - lose your job *and* your healthcare - well, nearly no one wants lockdowns.
Yes, it is not enough.
Yes but my point was that wearing masks and keeping 2m apart hasn't stopped the virus coming back again in Europe.
Maybe because majority did not bother and plenty halfwits not wearing correctly. You can still walk down a street go through asupermarket and loads are not wearing masks. The country is full of uneducated thick knuckle draggers.
Blimey Scotland sounds absolutely dreadful.
Same story here in my part of England. Morons everywhere.
Missouri - Remington Research - C- rated - 1010 LV - 26/29 Oct
Biden 45 .. Trump 50
Good lord, Trump won Missouri by nearly 20 in 2016.
That's very double-edged for Biden supporters. He doesn't want to be piling up votes uselessly in Red States he isn't going to win.
"Piling up" is a misleading image, though, isn't it? Provided you are not expending resources on useless votes. It isn't, as they say, a zero-sum game - one useless vote here doesn't cost a valuable vote there - and poll leads anywhere may be helpful in building momentum.
Missouri - Remington Research - C- rated - 1010 LV - 26/29 Oct
Biden 45 .. Trump 50
Good lord, Trump won Missouri by nearly 20 in 2016.
That's very double-edged for Biden supporters. He doesn't want to be piling up votes uselessly in Red States he isn't going to win.
"Piling up" is a misleading image, though, isn't it? Provided you are not expending resources on useless votes. It isn't, as they say, a zero-sum game - one useless vote here doesn't cost a valuable vote there - and poll leads anywhere may be helpful in building momentum.
It was Trump's very strong performance in rural virginia that led an analyst on CNN to note Michigan might be in trouble for Clinton in 2016
I am pretty pissed off about the impending lockdown for winter.
I was willing to accept that we'd been caught unprepared in the spring, and though that wasn't good we just had to deal with how things were. But this time.. what has the government been doing? This lockdown, and all the deaths from Covid that are precipitating it, are the fault of government incompetence.
I agree - it's a misunderstanding of the word "populism".
It's rather glib - how are you going to "shut down the virus" without restrictions on freedom and economic consequences, Joe? But it isn't "populist" in the ordinary meaning of the word as it relates to politics.
Isn't it populist in the sense of "Quote me happy, not realistic" politics?
It's semantic, but "populist" generally means framing as Elite vs People.
Simply offering to do things you can't in practice achieve, or that will have hidden bad consequences, in order to appeal to voters is reprehensible, but isn't really what is meant by the term when used by political scientists etc.
The lockdown-sceptic position is framed as Elite vs People in a more visceral way than any other political argument of recent times.
Suggesting that Biden gets a free pass because he's the good guy and trying to distance himself from others doesn't cut it. You could have said the same about David Cameron in the lead up to the EU referendum.
I'm not suggesting Biden gets a free pass, and indeed I called his comment "glib". What I am saying is simply that it isn't "populist" in the usual meaning of the word.
What Biden is doing is directly contradicting Trump's point that the economy would be crashed and civil liberties crushed under the Democrats. He's doing so by claiming he can beat the virus with pretty minimal economic hardship or restrictions on liberties by doing unspecified things. That's quite a big and dubious claim. But it isn't an "elites versus people" claim - it's denying or diminishing the importance of a trade-off.
Take that logic one step further. If Biden is denying or diminishing the importance of a trade-off, what does it imply about people who say that painful trade-offs are unavoidable?
It implies that they are wrong.
You are, I think, confusing disagreeing with majority expert opinion with populism. The populist account isn't merely that important and influential people are wrong about stuff (because that's kind of the definition of not being in power and wanting to be in power). It's that there is a group (the "Elite") who are pursuing an agenda for the advancement of the Elite at the expense of the "People" (who the populist claims to represent).
Missouri - Remington Research - C- rated - 1010 LV - 26/29 Oct
Biden 45 .. Trump 50
Good lord, Trump won Missouri by nearly 20 in 2016.
That's very double-edged for Biden supporters. He doesn't want to be piling up votes uselessly in Red States he isn't going to win.
It's not atypical, though. Polls in both Kansas and Oklahoma have suggested a 7% swing from 2016 to Biden and in West Virginia it's more like 10%.
Trump's strength remains in parts of the south (Arkansas, Alabama and Louisiana) and presumably in the Rockies such as Idaho, Wyoming and North Dakota.
Missouri - Remington Research - C- rated - 1010 LV - 26/29 Oct
Biden 45 .. Trump 50
Good lord, Trump won Missouri by nearly 20 in 2016.
That's very double-edged for Biden supporters. He doesn't want to be piling up votes uselessly in Red States he isn't going to win.
"Piling up" is a misleading image, though, isn't it? Provided you are not expending resources on useless votes. It isn't, as they say, a zero-sum game - one useless vote here doesn't cost a valuable vote there - and poll leads anywhere may be helpful in building momentum.
The other thing about this is that Biden is clearly flipping lots of Republicans, hence his position increasing the most where there are lots of Republicans to flip. That means that where there are GOP vs Dem registration tallies that people are anxiously comparing to 2016, a decent chunk of those GOP votes are for Biden.
Here's a question Peston and co might like to ask today:
Can you tell me how many in the 0-19 age group have died in English hospitals during the last month ?
The answer is zero.
And a total of one during the last four months.
If they ask it, they'll deserve a contemptuous response. By now, any journalist should understand that you can be a vector of a deadly disease even if you don't die from it yourself.
How would you feel if Boris Johnson used those words at 4pm today?
I'd feel they were totally justified - if Keir Starmer had spent the last few weeks relentlessly chanting without a shred of evidence that he (BJ) was planning to shut down the country and the economy and induce with great relish a 1920s style Great Depression.
Utterly predictable we would end up in national lockdown. Boris has wasted weeks dithering and kidding himself all would be fine.
Not sure Drakeford is wise either to promise what will happen post- firebreak.
At some point politicians need to understand - the virus sets the timetable, not them.
Yep Drakeford is trying to get political "credit" for acting early. But come next week Wales is going to be on a par, at best, with middle of the road English regions. So quite why they will be in a position to say a decisive "no" to a longer lockdown, as England enters one, isn't clear.
Sturgeon also seems to be claiming that she might not need to follow England because "the signs are that transmission in Scotland is coming down". Well exactly the same is true in England on their published data. R number falling. Almost below 1 in the North West - the area with the harshest restrictions. Quite why we are publishing data in England when the scientists seems to dismiss everything it is saying in favour of their own models, who knows?
Drakeford deserves a bit of credit for recognising the obvious a few weeks earlier than Boris (or Sturgeon...)
I suspect the firebreak will have a big impact and will reduce infections substantially. Time will tell.
Unless Drakeford has data to back him up we haven't seen, it's foolish to promise what he will do after the firebreak.
Here's a question Peston and co might like to ask today:
Can you tell me how many in the 0-19 age group have died in English hospitals during the last month ?
The answer is zero.
And a total of one during the last four months.
OK that's deaths, but how many schoolchildren and students have got the virus, show very few symptoms but then spread among themselves then to their parents who go to work and spread it to their colleagues who then spread it to others and so on?
A very considerable number of people in America believe that if everyone wore a mask & distancing was enforced, the virus would rapidly die out, without lockdowns.
Isn't that what Europe has mostly been doing in the last few months?
Yes - but, remember, in America you've had Donald Fucking Trump sneering at masks and recommending bleach.
Just wearing masks and staying 2m apart seems doable, sensible and 1000x better.
When you add in the economic precariousness for people - lose your job *and* your healthcare - well, nearly no one wants lockdowns.
Yes, it is not enough.
Yes but my point was that wearing masks and keeping 2m apart hasn't stopped the virus coming back again in Europe.
Maybe because majority did not bother and plenty halfwits not wearing correctly. You can still walk down a street go through asupermarket and loads are not wearing masks. The country is full of uneducated thick knuckle draggers.
I am pretty pissed off about the impending lockdown for winter.
I was willing to accept that we'd been caught unprepared in the spring, and though that wasn't good we just had to deal with how things were. But this time.. what has the government been doing? This lockdown, and all the deaths from Covid that are precipitating it, are the fault of government incompetence.
A very considerable number of people in America believe that if everyone wore a mask & distancing was enforced, the virus would rapidly die out, without lockdowns.
Isn't that what Europe has mostly been doing in the last few months?
Yes - but, remember, in America you've had Donald Fucking Trump sneering at masks and recommending bleach.
Just wearing masks and staying 2m apart seems doable, sensible and 1000x better.
When you add in the economic precariousness for people - lose your job *and* your healthcare - well, nearly no one wants lockdowns.
Yes, it is not enough.
Yes but my point was that wearing masks and keeping 2m apart hasn't stopped the virus coming back again in Europe.
Maybe because majority did not bother and plenty halfwits not wearing correctly. You can still walk down a street go through asupermarket and loads are not wearing masks. The country is full of uneducated thick knuckle draggers.
Blimey Scotland sounds absolutely dreadful.
Same story here in my part of England. Morons everywhere.
Really? I'd say 95% of people are wearing masks inside here.
Even if it's not everyone, you'd think it would help keep the virus numbers down a bit.
Take that logic one step further. If Biden is denying or diminishing the importance of a trade-off, what does it imply about people who say that painful trade-offs are unavoidable?
It implies that they are wrong.
You are, I think, confusing disagreeing with majority expert opinion with populism. The populist account isn't merely that important and influential people are wrong about stuff (because that's kind of the definition of not being in power and wanting to be in power). It's that there is a group (the "Elite") who are pursuing an agenda for the advancement of the Elite at the expense of the "People" (who the populist claims to represent).
I think you are wilfully ignoring the context of this particular debate in which policies to prevent the spread of the virus are being widely framed as an elite conspiracy against the people, whether as a means to implement the "Great Reset", or as a way to profit in some way, or simply as a way of exerting control over people.
Here's a question Peston and co might like to ask today:
Can you tell me how many in the 0-19 age group have died in English hospitals during the last month ?
The answer is zero.
And a total of one during the last four months.
If they ask it, they'll deserve a contemptuous response. By now, any journalist should understand that you can be a vector of a deadly disease even if you don't die from it yourself.
So the young are to have their future destroyed to keep sick oldies alive a few more months and so that obese slobs can have their risks reduced slightly.
Lockdown the young now because we allowed holidays to Spain in July.
Hmm, looks like kinabalu was right and I was wrong about the severity of the consequences of Corbyn's suspension.
We'll see. I'd rather you were right. And the power of the Left in the party does tend to get overstated these days.
The statement from the Unions is bizarre. It was Corbyn who was undermining party unity and the opportunity to move forward and solve the antisemitism issue by releasing his statement that minimised the scale of the problem. The breach can only be healed once Corbyn admits to that error.
I'm reminded of Harry Potter's invitation to Lord Voldemort to feel some remorse. If Corbyn can feel more remorse for the victims of antisemitism within the Labour party than he does for his own treatment then there is a way forward. But, just as with Trump, it's all about Corbyn in his eyes.
The government's fatal flaw - seen across much of Europe - has been propagating for too long the message that things could return to normal with minimal change to behaviour. "Eat out in restaurants, not takeaway", "go back to the office to help Pret", "save the travel industry", "back to normal by Christmas". It was all incredibly short sighted and has now backfired.
It is this, combined with an inadequate track and trace system back when case numbers were more manageable, which has resulted in the lockdown we are facing.
100%...I think it comes down to the behavioural insight people continuing saying thar people won't stick to restrictions for more than a few weeks, so the messaging has always been please just stick with this for a month, then it will be good. Do lockdown, you can have you summer hols. Stick to Tiers, you can have Christmas. We will have a vaccine in September, October, Christmas, Spring...
In reality, the Swedish message from the start has been the honest one. We are stukck with this for at least 2 years, we need a new normal and you will have to learn to live with these restrictions throughout.
I think its impossible to make the young stick to restrictions now they know they're not at risk.
Sadly it's their own economic future they are wrecking
Here's a question Peston and co might like to ask today:
Can you tell me how many in the 0-19 age group have died in English hospitals during the last month ?
The answer is zero.
And a total of one during the last four months.
If they ask it, they'll deserve a contemptuous response. By now, any journalist should understand that you can be a vector of a deadly disease even if you don't die from it yourself.
So the young are to have their future destroyed to keep sick oldies alive a few more months and so that obese slobs can have their risks reduced slightly.
Lockdown the young now because we allowed holidays to Spain in July.
Florida: According to the electprojects early voting stats, 8,294,115 voters have already voted. That's already a turnout of 57.4% of the 14,441,869 registered voters.
The 2016 turnout of 75% in FL should be easily exceeded. But even so, probably 2/3rds of the vote is now in.
Utterly predictable we would end up in national lockdown. Boris has wasted weeks dithering and kidding himself all would be fine.
Not sure Drakeford is wise either to promise what will happen post- firebreak.
At some point politicians need to understand - the virus sets the timetable, not them.
Yep Drakeford is trying to get political "credit" for acting early. But come next week Wales is going to be on a par, at best, with middle of the road English regions. So quite why they will be in a position to say a decisive "no" to a longer lockdown, as England enters one, isn't clear.
Sturgeon also seems to be claiming that she might not need to follow England because "the signs are that transmission in Scotland is coming down". Well exactly the same is true in England on their published data. R number falling. Almost below 1 in the North West - the area with the harshest restrictions. Quite why we are publishing data in England when the scientists seems to dismiss everything it is saying in favour of their own models, who knows?
Drakeford deserves a bit of credit for recognising the obvious a few weeks earlier than Boris (or Sturgeon...)
I suspect the firebreak will have a big impact and will reduce infections substantially. Time will tell.
Unless Drakeford has data to back him up we haven't seen, it's foolish to promise what he will do after the firebreak.
And then what? We stay in those measures forever because as soon as they are relaxed we're back to where we are now in a few short weeks.
Here's a question Peston and co might like to ask today:
Can you tell me how many in the 0-19 age group have died in English hospitals during the last month ?
The answer is zero.
And a total of one during the last four months.
If they ask it, they'll deserve a contemptuous response. By now, any journalist should understand that you can be a vector of a deadly disease even if you don't die from it yourself.
So the young are to have their future destroyed to keep sick oldies alive a few more months and so that obese slobs can have their risks reduced slightly.
Lockdown the young now because we allowed holidays to Spain in July.
Missouri - Remington Research - C- rated - 1010 LV - 26/29 Oct
Biden 45 .. Trump 50
Good lord, Trump won Missouri by nearly 20 in 2016.
That's very double-edged for Biden supporters. He doesn't want to be piling up votes uselessly in Red States he isn't going to win.
"Piling up" is a misleading image, though, isn't it? Provided you are not expending resources on useless votes. It isn't, as they say, a zero-sum game - one useless vote here doesn't cost a valuable vote there - and poll leads anywhere may be helpful in building momentum.
The other thing about this is that Biden is clearly flipping lots of Republicans, hence his position increasing the most where there are lots of Republicans to flip. That means that where there are GOP vs Dem registration tallies that people are anxiously comparing to 2016, a decent chunk of those GOP votes are for Biden.
That's a good point.
This can also be seen by looking at strong Democrat states. If you look at Presidential polls in California, Biden is typically leading by a shade under 30%, and Clinton won by almost exactly 30%. So no swing (although we'll see on Tuesday if he does a little better than Clinton there - he may well do as there will be more Democratic activity across the state in House races and so on). Similar patterns can be seen elsewhere. Trump was starting from a very low base in such states, and Biden is just fishing in a much smaller pool of potential converts.
Broadly, you'd expect, if there is a swing to Biden, that this would be below average in very blue states, above average in very red ones, and about average in swing states.
The point about the (worsening) case numbers etc in USA isn't as a direct indication of whether Trump has done a good job or not. It is that he is wandering around the country telling everyone that the pandemic is effectively 'over' and nothing to worry about any more.
The other point about the US is that people misrepresent how Trump has failed in response to the virus. In many ways he has little direct influence over how to combat the pandemic. The primary response comes from state governors. Those who point that out are not wrong. However, what is true is that at every stage he has undermined state efforts and contradicted the advice that he scientists are trying to send out. Where he should be leading, pushing best practice, and encouraging States to work together and learn from each other, he has... not.
In a way, perhaps his biggest political mistake came from wanting to be the centre of attention. If he had kept a lower profile earlier in the year instead of doing daily press conferences he might be poised for reelection.
Spot on. All Donald Trump had to do to secure a 2nd term was to not be Donald Trump.
Here's a question Peston and co might like to ask today:
Can you tell me how many in the 0-19 age group have died in English hospitals during the last month ?
The answer is zero.
And a total of one during the last four months.
If they ask it, they'll deserve a contemptuous response. By now, any journalist should understand that you can be a vector of a deadly disease even if you don't die from it yourself.
So the young are to have their future destroyed to keep sick oldies alive a few more months and so that obese slobs can have their risks reduced slightly.
Lockdown the young now because we allowed holidays to Spain in July.
I wish trolls would learn just a bit of subtlety.
You'd best make a start then.
No, really. You almost succeeded in annoying me at one point then, But then "sick oldies" and "obese slobs"?
When you're so ridiculous, you don't annoy people. They just find you funny and/or feel sorry for you.
The Barcelona City Council will report to the Public Prosecutor's Office for hate crimes the graffiti that appeared in the center of the city against the Jews, in the space where the riots led by violent groups linked to the extreme right took place last night. In which he attacks the Jews and also against the measures to stop the pandemic, in addition to calling for a "stop to the New Order", a common complaint and complaint among groups that deny the epidemic. This was announced by Marc Serra, councilor for Citizenship and Participation Law, according to Efe.
Here's a question Peston and co might like to ask today:
Can you tell me how many in the 0-19 age group have died in English hospitals during the last month ?
The answer is zero.
And a total of one during the last four months.
If they ask it, they'll deserve a contemptuous response. By now, any journalist should understand that you can be a vector of a deadly disease even if you don't die from it yourself.
So the young are to have their future destroyed to keep sick oldies alive a few more months and so that obese slobs can have their risks reduced slightly.
Lockdown the young now because we allowed holidays to Spain in July.
Wrong. Most of those admitted to hospital with covid are in their fifties or younger. The overwhelming majority of these had no serious co-morbidities. In addition, the majority were not obese.
Of the children unfortunate enough to be admitted to hospital with covid, the majority had no co-morbidities, and the most common co-morbidity out of those who did have one was asthma.
That's hardly "keeping sick oldies alive a few more months." Nor "... obese slobs can have their risks reduced slightly."
Here's a question Peston and co might like to ask today:
Can you tell me how many in the 0-19 age group have died in English hospitals during the last month ?
The answer is zero.
And a total of one during the last four months.
How many of their parents and grandparents have died?
Perhaps its the parents and grandparents who need to take some responsibility.
So - should parents and grandparents all stay away from their children? Require their children to wear masks at all times at home. One might wonder what you sweep up in the statement "take some responsibility."
A very considerable number of people in America believe that if everyone wore a mask & distancing was enforced, the virus would rapidly die out, without lockdowns.
Isn't that what Europe has mostly been doing in the last few months?
Yes - but, remember, in America you've had Donald Fucking Trump sneering at masks and recommending bleach.
Just wearing masks and staying 2m apart seems doable, sensible and 1000x better.
When you add in the economic precariousness for people - lose your job *and* your healthcare - well, nearly no one wants lockdowns.
Yes, it is not enough.
Yes but my point was that wearing masks and keeping 2m apart hasn't stopped the virus coming back again in Europe.
Maybe because majority did not bother and plenty halfwits not wearing correctly. You can still walk down a street go through asupermarket and loads are not wearing masks. The country is full of uneducated thick knuckle draggers.
Blimey Scotland sounds absolutely dreadful.
Same story here in my part of England. Morons everywhere.
I beleive some have even got through PB's strict lockdown policy.
The point about the (worsening) case numbers etc in USA isn't as a direct indication of whether Trump has done a good job or not. It is that he is wandering around the country telling everyone that the pandemic is effectively 'over' and nothing to worry about any more.
The other point about the US is that people misrepresent how Trump has failed in response to the virus. In many ways he has little direct influence over how to combat the pandemic. The primary response comes from state governors. Those who point that out are not wrong. However, what is true is that at every stage he has undermined state efforts and contradicted the advice that he scientists are trying to send out. Where he should be leading, pushing best practice, and encouraging States to work together and learn from each other, he has... not.
With Trump, everything is about himself.
He’s had the virus (we can only assume), and therefore, for him, it is ‘over’. At least as long as he has immunity. Worrying about everyone else has never been his thing.
Hmm, looks like kinabalu was right and I was wrong about the severity of the consequences of Corbyn's suspension.
We'll see. I'd rather you were right. And the power of the Left in the party does tend to get overstated these days.
The statement from the Unions is bizarre. It was Corbyn who was undermining party unity and the opportunity to move forward and solve the antisemitism issue by releasing his statement that minimised the scale of the problem. The breach can only be healed once Corbyn admits to that error.
I'm reminded of Harry Potter's invitation to Lord Voldemort to feel some remorse. If Corbyn can feel more remorse for the victims of antisemitism within the Labour party than he does for his own treatment then there is a way forward. But, just as with Trump, it's all about Corbyn in his eyes.
In terms of the politics of it, I can see the logic of the unions' statement as a tactic. Like big funders of any political party who are doing it partly to get the policies they want, it's worth reminding the leadership from time to time that your support is not unconditional - flex your muscles a bit.
The underlying aim may well not be to help Corbyn, who is yesterday's man. It may simply be trying to get bought off in policy terms and in advancement for favoured sons and daughters.
Not a particularly nice truth, but a truth nonetheless.
A very considerable number of people in America believe that if everyone wore a mask & distancing was enforced, the virus would rapidly die out, without lockdowns.
Isn't that what Europe has mostly been doing in the last few months?
Yes - but, remember, in America you've had Donald Fucking Trump sneering at masks and recommending bleach.
Just wearing masks and staying 2m apart seems doable, sensible and 1000x better.
When you add in the economic precariousness for people - lose your job *and* your healthcare - well, nearly no one wants lockdowns.
Yes, it is not enough.
Yes but my point was that wearing masks and keeping 2m apart hasn't stopped the virus coming back again in Europe.
Maybe because majority did not bother and plenty halfwits not wearing correctly. You can still walk down a street go through asupermarket and loads are not wearing masks. The country is full of uneducated thick knuckle draggers.
Blimey Scotland sounds absolutely dreadful.
Same story here in my part of England. Morons everywhere.
Really? I'd say 95% of people are wearing masks inside here.
Even if it's not everyone, you'd think it would help keep the virus numbers down a bit.
We can compare the rate of increase of deaths in the run-up to the first peak with now. The UK date of death figures on the dashboard start on 29th February, so the first 7-day total is for 29/2 - 6/3 and was 6 deaths. Three weeks later, for the period ending 27/3, there were a total of 1,777 deaths. So the number of deaths rose very quickly.
This time, for the one week periods ending on the dates given, three weeks apart, we have these totals. 6/9: 60 deaths 27/9: 274 deaths 18/10: 963 deaths
So the number of deaths is increasing, but at a much lower speed than in the spring. This must be due to a variety of factors, of which masks are probably one, and all the various local restrictions and residual national restrictions are others.
Here's a question Peston and co might like to ask today:
Can you tell me how many in the 0-19 age group have died in English hospitals during the last month ?
The answer is zero.
And a total of one during the last four months.
If they ask it, they'll deserve a contemptuous response. By now, any journalist should understand that you can be a vector of a deadly disease even if you don't die from it yourself.
So the young are to have their future destroyed to keep sick oldies alive a few more months and so that obese slobs can have their risks reduced slightly.
Lockdown the young now because we allowed holidays to Spain in July.
I wish trolls would learn just a bit of subtlety.
You'd best make a start then.
No, really. You almost succeeded in annoying me at one point then, But then "sick oldies" and "obese slobs"?
When you're so ridiculous, you don't annoy people. They just find you funny and/or feel sorry for you.
It really is sick oldies and obese slobs though isn't it.
So the young are to have their future destroyed to keep sick oldies alive a few more months and so that obese slobs can have their risks reduced slightly.
Lockdown the young now because we allowed holidays to Spain in July.
Not everyone who is older and has died had pre-existing health issues and while obesity carries a risk, there are people with no weight issues who have succumbed.
It's just lazy thinking to demonise "sick oldies" and "obese slobs" but that makes it easy. doesn't it? Instead of asking why people can't follow some simple guidelines, we get vitriolic hyperbole about "futures being destroyed" and finger-pointing and victimising of others.
And then what? We stay in those measures forever because as soon as they are relaxed we're back to where we are now in a few short weeks.
What's scary about where we are now is where the trajectory is heading. A firebreak sets the trajectory back. After a while, it returns and you need another firebreak.
That's why I've been arguing for some time that we should have two-week lockdowns every two months, preplanned so people can organise their lives and businesses around them. Even if you really suffer in lockdowns, they won't feel so awful if you know their duration and regularity. It'd be far better then our current approach of telling people it'll probably be all right, then doing a panicky lockdown for a bit, then relaxing for a bit, etc.
Utterly predictable we would end up in national lockdown. Boris has wasted weeks dithering and kidding himself all would be fine.
Not sure Drakeford is wise either to promise what will happen post- firebreak.
At some point politicians need to understand - the virus sets the timetable, not them.
Yep Drakeford is trying to get political "credit" for acting early. But come next week Wales is going to be on a par, at best, with middle of the road English regions. So quite why they will be in a position to say a decisive "no" to a longer lockdown, as England enters one, isn't clear.
Sturgeon also seems to be claiming that she might not need to follow England because "the signs are that transmission in Scotland is coming down". Well exactly the same is true in England on their published data. R number falling. Almost below 1 in the North West - the area with the harshest restrictions. Quite why we are publishing data in England when the scientists seems to dismiss everything it is saying in favour of their own models, who knows?
Drakeford deserves a bit of credit for recognising the obvious a few weeks earlier than Boris (or Sturgeon...)
I suspect the firebreak will have a big impact and will reduce infections substantially. Time will tell.
Unless Drakeford has data to back him up we haven't seen, it's foolish to promise what he will do after the firebreak.
As far as I can tell, Drakeford acted earlier in a temporal sense in Wales because the virus had also moved earlier there than elsewhere in the UK. If you measure his response time relative to the spread of the virus, he maybe didn't act any earlier.
So then you're effectively giving him credit for losing control of the virus more quickly. Which is a bit weird.
Here's a question Peston and co might like to ask today:
Can you tell me how many in the 0-19 age group have died in English hospitals during the last month ?
The answer is zero.
And a total of one during the last four months.
If they ask it, they'll deserve a contemptuous response. By now, any journalist should understand that you can be a vector of a deadly disease even if you don't die from it yourself.
So the young are to have their future destroyed to keep sick oldies alive a few more months and so that obese slobs can have their risks reduced slightly.
Lockdown the young now because we allowed holidays to Spain in July.
Utterly predictable we would end up in national lockdown. Boris has wasted weeks dithering and kidding himself all would be fine.
Not sure Drakeford is wise either to promise what will happen post- firebreak.
At some point politicians need to understand - the virus sets the timetable, not them.
Yep Drakeford is trying to get political "credit" for acting early. But come next week Wales is going to be on a par, at best, with middle of the road English regions. So quite why they will be in a position to say a decisive "no" to a longer lockdown, as England enters one, isn't clear.
Sturgeon also seems to be claiming that she might not need to follow England because "the signs are that transmission in Scotland is coming down". Well exactly the same is true in England on their published data. R number falling. Almost below 1 in the North West - the area with the harshest restrictions. Quite why we are publishing data in England when the scientists seems to dismiss everything it is saying in favour of their own models, who knows?
Drakeford deserves a bit of credit for recognising the obvious a few weeks earlier than Boris (or Sturgeon...)
I suspect the firebreak will have a big impact and will reduce infections substantially. Time will tell.
Unless Drakeford has data to back him up we haven't seen, it's foolish to promise what he will do after the firebreak.
And then what? We stay in those measures forever because as soon as they are relaxed we're back to where we are now in a few short weeks.
Look at the graph of UK Covid deaths* on, say, Worldometer:
The up-curve of each wave is steep, the down-curve is shallow, the valley bottom was broad. For the UK those stages were approximately 3 weeks, 10 weeks and 10 weeks. One week's increase takes approximately 3 weeks to remove.
It therefore makes sense to apply lock-down very early in the rise of each wave, since it can be applied for less time. Each week earlier a lockdown is applied, saves three weeks of lockdown.
Of course, we have missed that chance in wave 2 despite the scientists proposing it.
(*Sadly, deaths are more useful here than cases because case numbers are afftected by testing levels.)
A very considerable number of people in America believe that if everyone wore a mask & distancing was enforced, the virus would rapidly die out, without lockdowns.
Isn't that what Europe has mostly been doing in the last few months?
Yes - but, remember, in America you've had Donald Fucking Trump sneering at masks and recommending bleach.
Just wearing masks and staying 2m apart seems doable, sensible and 1000x better.
When you add in the economic precariousness for people - lose your job *and* your healthcare - well, nearly no one wants lockdowns.
Yes, it is not enough.
Yes but my point was that wearing masks and keeping 2m apart hasn't stopped the virus coming back again in Europe.
Maybe because majority did not bother and plenty halfwits not wearing correctly. You can still walk down a street go through asupermarket and loads are not wearing masks. The country is full of uneducated thick knuckle draggers.
Blimey Scotland sounds absolutely dreadful.
Same story here in my part of England. Morons everywhere.
Same here. It is no use posters like Nerys and Contrarian bleating on about masks and distancing not working, We have never had above 75% compliance with either. I have little sympathy with Boris's bumbling administration but to be honest we are back in lockdown, as are the rest of Europe, because a sufficient number of numpties can't be arsed to even take the simplest precautions.
We also stupidly allow people to get away with no masks by simply claiming they are "exempt". Frankly if you can neither wear a mask nor a visor during a worldwide pandemic then you should damn well stay away from people. You do not have a god-given right to go put other people's health and lives at risk. It's not all about you.
Here's a question Peston and co might like to ask today:
Can you tell me how many in the 0-19 age group have died in English hospitals during the last month ?
The answer is zero.
And a total of one during the last four months.
If they ask it, they'll deserve a contemptuous response. By now, any journalist should understand that you can be a vector of a deadly disease even if you don't die from it yourself.
So the young are to have their future destroyed to keep sick oldies alive a few more months and so that obese slobs can have their risks reduced slightly.
Lockdown the young now because we allowed holidays to Spain in July.
Presumably the young weren't among those taking advantage of being allowed to take holidays to Spain in July so are absolved of all responsibility.
How would you feel if Boris Johnson used those words at 4pm today?
I'd feel they were totally justified - if Keir Starmer had spent the last few weeks relentlessly chanting without a shred of evidence that he (BJ) was planning to shut down the country and the economy and induce with great relish a 1920s style Great Depression.
A very considerable number of people in America believe that if everyone wore a mask & distancing was enforced, the virus would rapidly die out, without lockdowns.
Isn't that what Europe has mostly been doing in the last few months?
Yes - but, remember, in America you've had Donald Fucking Trump sneering at masks and recommending bleach.
Just wearing masks and staying 2m apart seems doable, sensible and 1000x better.
When you add in the economic precariousness for people - lose your job *and* your healthcare - well, nearly no one wants lockdowns.
Yes, it is not enough.
Yes but my point was that wearing masks and keeping 2m apart hasn't stopped the virus coming back again in Europe.
Maybe because majority did not bother and plenty halfwits not wearing correctly. You can still walk down a street go through asupermarket and loads are not wearing masks. The country is full of uneducated thick knuckle draggers.
Blimey Scotland sounds absolutely dreadful.
Same story here in my part of England. Morons everywhere.
Same here. It is no use posters like Nerys and Contrarian bleating on about masks and distancing not working, We have never had above 75% compliance with either. I have little sympathy with Boris's bumbling administration but to be honest we are back in lockdown, as are the rest of Europe, because a sufficient number of numpties can't be arsed to even take the simplest precautions.
We also stupidly allow people to get away with no masks by simply claiming they are "exempt". Frankly if you can neither wear a mask nor a visor during a worldwide pandemic then you should damn well stay away from people. You do not have a god-given right to go put other people's health and lives at risk. It's not all about you.
Utterly predictable we would end up in national lockdown. Boris has wasted weeks dithering and kidding himself all would be fine.
Not sure Drakeford is wise either to promise what will happen post- firebreak.
At some point politicians need to understand - the virus sets the timetable, not them.
Yep Drakeford is trying to get political "credit" for acting early. But come next week Wales is going to be on a par, at best, with middle of the road English regions. So quite why they will be in a position to say a decisive "no" to a longer lockdown, as England enters one, isn't clear.
Sturgeon also seems to be claiming that she might not need to follow England because "the signs are that transmission in Scotland is coming down". Well exactly the same is true in England on their published data. R number falling. Almost below 1 in the North West - the area with the harshest restrictions. Quite why we are publishing data in England when the scientists seems to dismiss everything it is saying in favour of their own models, who knows?
Drakeford deserves a bit of credit for recognising the obvious a few weeks earlier than Boris (or Sturgeon...)
I suspect the firebreak will have a big impact and will reduce infections substantially. Time will tell.
Unless Drakeford has data to back him up we haven't seen, it's foolish to promise what he will do after the firebreak.
And then what? We stay in those measures forever because as soon as they are relaxed we're back to where we are now in a few short weeks.
If we can get cases down to the point where track, trace, isolate can cope, then we can control the epidemic and we won't need more lockdowns.
In addition - more time gives us chance to improve TTI system, gets us closer to a vaccine and better treatments, AND prevents the inevitable Christmas increase in contacts from being quite so devastating.
Here's a question Peston and co might like to ask today:
Can you tell me how many in the 0-19 age group have died in English hospitals during the last month ?
The answer is zero.
And a total of one during the last four months.
If they ask it, they'll deserve a contemptuous response. By now, any journalist should understand that you can be a vector of a deadly disease even if you don't die from it yourself.
So the young are to have their future destroyed to keep sick oldies alive a few more months and so that obese slobs can have their risks reduced slightly.
Lockdown the young now because we allowed holidays to Spain in July.
I wish trolls would learn just a bit of subtlety.
You'd best make a start then.
No, really. You almost succeeded in annoying me at one point then, But then "sick oldies" and "obese slobs"?
When you're so ridiculous, you don't annoy people. They just find you funny and/or feel sorry for you.
It really is sick oldies and obese slobs though isn't it.
Covid is not an equal opportunities killer.
That's the reality and you have to deal with it.
Did you choose your avatar with care? It suits you so well.
Utterly predictable we would end up in national lockdown. Boris has wasted weeks dithering and kidding himself all would be fine.
Not sure Drakeford is wise either to promise what will happen post- firebreak.
At some point politicians need to understand - the virus sets the timetable, not them.
Yep Drakeford is trying to get political "credit" for acting early. But come next week Wales is going to be on a par, at best, with middle of the road English regions. So quite why they will be in a position to say a decisive "no" to a longer lockdown, as England enters one, isn't clear.
Sturgeon also seems to be claiming that she might not need to follow England because "the signs are that transmission in Scotland is coming down". Well exactly the same is true in England on their published data. R number falling. Almost below 1 in the North West - the area with the harshest restrictions. Quite why we are publishing data in England when the scientists seems to dismiss everything it is saying in favour of their own models, who knows?
Drakeford deserves a bit of credit for recognising the obvious a few weeks earlier than Boris (or Sturgeon...)
I suspect the firebreak will have a big impact and will reduce infections substantially. Time will tell.
Unless Drakeford has data to back him up we haven't seen, it's foolish to promise what he will do after the firebreak.
And then what? We stay in those measures forever because as soon as they are relaxed we're back to where we are now in a few short weeks.
If we can get cases down to the point where track, trace, isolate can cope, then we can control the epidemic and we won't need more lockdowns.
In addition - more time gives us chance to improve TTI system, gets us closer to a vaccine and better treatments, AND prevents the inevitable Christmas increase in contacts from being quite so devastating.
Cancel Christmas apart from things that can be done within the current max restrictions.
And then what? We stay in those measures forever because as soon as they are relaxed we're back to where we are now in a few short weeks.
What's scary about where we are now is where the trajectory is heading. A firebreak sets the trajectory back. After a while, it returns and you need another firebreak.
That's why I've been arguing for some time that we should have two-week lockdowns every two months, preplanned so people can organise their lives and businesses around them. Even if you really suffer in lockdowns, they won't feel so awful if you know their duration and regularity. It'd be far better then our current approach of telling people it'll probably be all right, then doing a panicky lockdown for a bit, then relaxing for a bit, etc.
Nick, can I ask if you've ever run a business?
It doesn't work with such regularity as the public sector. Lots of fortuitous purchases in retail, leisure etc. In some sectors it isn't possible to keep running up and down for long periods. EG Pubs, restaurants. And that is before the problem of public reluctance to shop/spend/eat out is taken into account.
I am aghast at the notion of a national lockdown. It simply wont be well observed. How fair is it for the good folk of Dorset to be locked down because Manchester has a problem?
The Muhlenberg College (Rated A+) poll for PA posted earlier is interesting, cross tabs show Trump actually losing slightly with the over 65s in PA. Again it shows his losses with women are hurting him badly. It also shows how the Covid crisis is what is going to sink him most likely, As has been mentioned by others, this poll again indicates the economy is the most important single thing to voters (though not much more than health and Covid) and that more people feel better off under Trump than worse off. Overall the +5 lead for Biden sounds about right to me , Trump has a chance but not much of one there. And it will be his position and response to Covid which will cost him. https://www.muhlenberg.edu/media/contentassets/pdf/about/polling/surveys/pennsylvania/FINAL_PA_ELEC2020_LATE_OCT_REPORT (1) (1).pdf
The odd thing is that his laissez-faire handling of the pandemic was completely unnecessary even from his point of view. It didn't benefit him politically or financially. It didn't assist Republican policies. It hasn't paid off for Russia. It hasn't even helped white supremacists. It wass just a straightforward unforced error, repeated over months for no reason whatever that I can see.
And then what? We stay in those measures forever because as soon as they are relaxed we're back to where we are now in a few short weeks.
What's scary about where we are now is where the trajectory is heading. A firebreak sets the trajectory back. After a while, it returns and you need another firebreak.
That's why I've been arguing for some time that we should have two-week lockdowns every two months, preplanned so people can organise their lives and businesses around them. Even if you really suffer in lockdowns, they won't feel so awful if you know their duration and regularity. It'd be far better then our current approach of telling people it'll probably be all right, then doing a panicky lockdown for a bit, then relaxing for a bit, etc.
Yes, I'm surprised that that idea hasn't been more widely discussed or (as far as I know) implemented anywhere.
Utterly predictable we would end up in national lockdown. Boris has wasted weeks dithering and kidding himself all would be fine.
Not sure Drakeford is wise either to promise what will happen post- firebreak.
At some point politicians need to understand - the virus sets the timetable, not them.
Yep Drakeford is trying to get political "credit" for acting early. But come next week Wales is going to be on a par, at best, with middle of the road English regions. So quite why they will be in a position to say a decisive "no" to a longer lockdown, as England enters one, isn't clear.
Sturgeon also seems to be claiming that she might not need to follow England because "the signs are that transmission in Scotland is coming down". Well exactly the same is true in England on their published data. R number falling. Almost below 1 in the North West - the area with the harshest restrictions. Quite why we are publishing data in England when the scientists seems to dismiss everything it is saying in favour of their own models, who knows?
Drakeford deserves a bit of credit for recognising the obvious a few weeks earlier than Boris (or Sturgeon...)
I suspect the firebreak will have a big impact and will reduce infections substantially. Time will tell.
Unless Drakeford has data to back him up we haven't seen, it's foolish to promise what he will do after the firebreak.
And then what? We stay in those measures forever because as soon as they are relaxed we're back to where we are now in a few short weeks.
If we can get cases down to the point where track, trace, isolate can cope, then we can control the epidemic and we won't need more lockdowns.
In addition - more time gives us chance to improve TTI system, gets us closer to a vaccine and better treatments, AND prevents the inevitable Christmas increase in contacts from being quite so devastating.
I fear that TTI and the vaccine are rather like El Dorado, always just out of reach.
Any update from the boffins in Oxford? I thought we would have seen the end of the phase 3 trials by now at least.
Agreed - progress as regards signing-off the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine appears to have come to a dead stop, accompanied by a recent period of total silence. In view of the terrible fate seemingly awaiting many teens of thousands, plus a likely collapse of our economy, let's hope that the delays in approving the vaccine aren't simply a matter of red tape. Time is of the essence here.
Utterly predictable we would end up in national lockdown. Boris has wasted weeks dithering and kidding himself all would be fine.
Not sure Drakeford is wise either to promise what will happen post- firebreak.
At some point politicians need to understand - the virus sets the timetable, not them.
Yep Drakeford is trying to get political "credit" for acting early. But come next week Wales is going to be on a par, at best, with middle of the road English regions. So quite why they will be in a position to say a decisive "no" to a longer lockdown, as England enters one, isn't clear.
Sturgeon also seems to be claiming that she might not need to follow England because "the signs are that transmission in Scotland is coming down". Well exactly the same is true in England on their published data. R number falling. Almost below 1 in the North West - the area with the harshest restrictions. Quite why we are publishing data in England when the scientists seems to dismiss everything it is saying in favour of their own models, who knows?
Drakeford deserves a bit of credit for recognising the obvious a few weeks earlier than Boris (or Sturgeon...)
I suspect the firebreak will have a big impact and will reduce infections substantially. Time will tell.
Unless Drakeford has data to back him up we haven't seen, it's foolish to promise what he will do after the firebreak.
And then what? We stay in those measures forever because as soon as they are relaxed we're back to where we are now in a few short weeks.
If we can get cases down to the point where track, trace, isolate can cope, then we can control the epidemic and we won't need more lockdowns.
In addition - more time gives us chance to improve TTI system, gets us closer to a vaccine and better treatments, AND prevents the inevitable Christmas increase in contacts from being quite so devastating.
Getting track and trace to work is the new unicorn poo. Two week break to "sort it", is horseshit. The reality is it isn't possible to do this manually. The way the disease is, by the time you have a test, its been 4-5 days of infecting other people, then a day to get the results, then at least another day to start to try and work out who you spent any time with over the past week, and you won't know the people you sat next to on the Tube, its easy to forget your neighbour popped round for a quick chat, who that person who was in the gym getting changed next to you.
And nobody is suggesting we do much more than change from a central system to a local run by local authorities involving door knocking, which maybe be better at actually contacting some people, but is even slower to go on foot door to door. And evidence so far, the likes of PHE were the worst at trying to organize testing.
A working test, track and trace system capable of reacting to this required 5 years of development in South Korea, one if not the most technologically advanced nations on earth.
Any update from the boffins in Oxford? I thought we would have seen the end of the phase 3 trials by now at least.
Agreed - progress as regards signing-off the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine appears to have come to a dead stop, accompanied by a recent period of total silence. In view of the terrible fate seemingly awaiting many teens of thousands, plus a likely collapse of our economy, let's hope that the delays in approving the vaccine aren't simply a matter of red tape. Time is of the essence here.
Utterly predictable we would end up in national lockdown. Boris has wasted weeks dithering and kidding himself all would be fine.
Not sure Drakeford is wise either to promise what will happen post- firebreak.
At some point politicians need to understand - the virus sets the timetable, not them.
Yep Drakeford is trying to get political "credit" for acting early. But come next week Wales is going to be on a par, at best, with middle of the road English regions. So quite why they will be in a position to say a decisive "no" to a longer lockdown, as England enters one, isn't clear.
Sturgeon also seems to be claiming that she might not need to follow England because "the signs are that transmission in Scotland is coming down". Well exactly the same is true in England on their published data. R number falling. Almost below 1 in the North West - the area with the harshest restrictions. Quite why we are publishing data in England when the scientists seems to dismiss everything it is saying in favour of their own models, who knows?
Drakeford deserves a bit of credit for recognising the obvious a few weeks earlier than Boris (or Sturgeon...)
I suspect the firebreak will have a big impact and will reduce infections substantially. Time will tell.
Unless Drakeford has data to back him up we haven't seen, it's foolish to promise what he will do after the firebreak.
And then what? We stay in those measures forever because as soon as they are relaxed we're back to where we are now in a few short weeks.
Look at the graph of UK Covid deaths* on, say, Worldometer:
The up-curve of each wave is steep, the down-curve is shallow, the valley bottom was broad. For the UK those stages were approximately 3 weeks, 10 weeks and 10 weeks. One week's increase takes approximately 3 weeks to remove.
It therefore makes sense to apply lock-down very early in the rise of each wave, since it can be applied for less time. Each week earlier a lockdown is applied, saves three weeks of lockdown.
Of course, we have missed that chance in wave 2 despite the scientists proposing it.
(*Sadly, deaths are more useful here than cases because case numbers are afftected by testing levels.)
Well, the earlier you apply a new lockdown the less time you have spent out of lockdown. The earlier you impose a new lockdown the closer you get to being in lockdown all the time.
And, in any case, it's not like we were able to enjoy life out of lockdown in between. We didn't have mass spectator sport back as they do in Australia and New Zealand. What proportion of the time do you think we'd have to spend in lockdown?
I just don't see it as a sustainable plan. The longer it goes on the more wild the excesses will be in the windows between lockdown, and the faster a new lockdown would have to be imposed.
Isolate the infectious instead of isolating everyone.
Here's a question Peston and co might like to ask today:
Can you tell me how many in the 0-19 age group have died in English hospitals during the last month ?
The answer is zero.
And a total of one during the last four months.
If they ask it, they'll deserve a contemptuous response. By now, any journalist should understand that you can be a vector of a deadly disease even if you don't die from it yourself.
So the young are to have their future destroyed to keep sick oldies alive a few more months and so that obese slobs can have their risks reduced slightly.
Lockdown the young now because we allowed holidays to Spain in July.
Presumably the young weren't among those taking advantage of being allowed to take holidays to Spain in July so are absolved of all responsibility.
I don't condemn people for holidaying in Spain, or Greece. Both countries have had a really torrid time in recent years. I was astonished to learn just how important British tourism is to each of their economies (the absence of foreign holidays has been a big factor in the UK trade surplus).
Here's a question Peston and co might like to ask today:
Can you tell me how many in the 0-19 age group have died in English hospitals during the last month ?
The answer is zero.
And a total of one during the last four months.
If they ask it, they'll deserve a contemptuous response. By now, any journalist should understand that you can be a vector of a deadly disease even if you don't die from it yourself.
So the young are to have their future destroyed to keep sick oldies alive a few more months and so that obese slobs can have their risks reduced slightly.
Lockdown the young now because we allowed holidays to Spain in July.
Presumably the young weren't among those taking advantage of being allowed to take holidays to Spain in July so are absolved of all responsibility.
I don't condemn people for holidaying in Spain, or Greece. Both countries have had a really torrid time in recent years. I was astonished to learn just how important British tourism is to each of their economies (the absence of foreign holidays has been a big factor in the UK trade surplus).
I dunno. To take a foreign holiday in the middle of a global pandemic is pretty dumb.
Another thing on which talk seems to have gone quiet is long covid.
Is that because it was revealed that the young hardly ever get that either ?
The CDC, NICE and medical scientists in every country on the planet are actively studying it, if it had "gone quiet" it would not have been for that reason, it is really not all one huge conspiracy, and what is your point about the young? It was one thing to say OK, the old die of it, but that's fine cos they were going to die anyway, so very little net loss. We are now discussing a hypothesis where they live on, but in severe pain. Is that also OK cos they is old?
How would you feel if Boris Johnson used those words at 4pm today?
I'd feel they were totally justified - if Keir Starmer had spent the last few weeks relentlessly chanting without a shred of evidence that he (BJ) was planning to shut down the country and the economy and induce with great relish a 1920s style Great Depression.
Note the presser has been pushed back to 5pm
Because he's starting it one hour late it will now have to last 3 hours longer to have the required effect.
Comments
And does shutting "non-essential shops" actually help? How often are "non-essential" shops particularly crowded? Or does it just result in greater overcrowding in the "essential" ones?
Does this site load images really slowly for everyone or just me?
Suggesting that Biden gets a free pass because he's the good guy and trying to distance himself from others doesn't cut it. You could have said the same about David Cameron in the lead up to the EU referendum.
I used the date of death figures.
I used Google to find population numbers to work out the per 100k figures.
However, the political climate in America has resulted in many people believing that all that is required to beat COVID is the list of measures above.
Not sure Drakeford is wise either to promise what will happen post- firebreak.
At some point politicians need to understand - the virus sets the timetable, not them.
There is also the small matter of savings the lives of tens of thousands of Americans, but compared to the massaging of his ego that's a trifle.
it does it all for you and if you do UK version it does comparisons of the 4 UK nations. Scotland version is excellent as well.
Again, this is something that could have been addressed with planning. In normal times, schools are closed for a quarter of the year, much of it concentrated in August. Making that quarter a third or so, and distributing it differently, around planned circuit-breakers (which hopefully aren't needed but were always likely to be) and concentrated more in winter, would have been a good idea.
In fairness, I don't know of any country that has done this. But still, the experts (and anyone who is scientifically literate) were anticipating that the winter was going to be very hard as long ago as spring. It reflects badly on our political class that they were not even discussing ideas like that.
It also shows how the Covid crisis is what is going to sink him most likely, As has been mentioned by others, this poll again indicates the economy is the most important single thing to voters (though not much more than health and Covid) and that more people feel better off under Trump than worse off.
Overall the +5 lead for Biden sounds about right to me , Trump has a chance but not much of one there. And it will be his position and response to Covid which will cost him.
https://www.muhlenberg.edu/media/contentassets/pdf/about/polling/surveys/pennsylvania/FINAL_PA_ELEC2020_LATE_OCT_REPORT (1) (1).pdf
Sturgeon also seems to be claiming that she might not need to follow England because "the signs are that transmission in Scotland is coming down". Well exactly the same is true in England on their published data. R number falling. Almost below 1 in the North West - the area with the harshest restrictions. Quite why we are publishing data in England when the scientists seems to dismiss everything it is saying in favour of their own models, who knows?
What Biden is doing is directly contradicting Trump's point that the economy would be crashed and civil liberties crushed under the Democrats. He's doing so by claiming he can beat the virus with pretty minimal economic hardship or restrictions on liberties by doing unspecified things. That's quite a big and dubious claim. But it isn't an "elites versus people" claim - it's denying or diminishing the importance of a trade-off.
https://twitter.com/DamCou/status/1322542345401913345
Can you tell me how many in the 0-19 age group have died in English hospitals during the last month ?
The answer is zero.
And a total of one during the last four months.
I was willing to accept that we'd been caught unprepared in the spring, and though that wasn't good we just had to deal with how things were. But this time.. what has the government been doing? This lockdown, and all the deaths from Covid that are precipitating it, are the fault of government incompetence.
You are, I think, confusing disagreeing with majority expert opinion with populism. The populist account isn't merely that important and influential people are wrong about stuff (because that's kind of the definition of not being in power and wanting to be in power). It's that there is a group (the "Elite") who are pursuing an agenda for the advancement of the Elite at the expense of the "People" (who the populist claims to represent).
Trump's strength remains in parts of the south (Arkansas, Alabama and Louisiana) and presumably in the Rockies such as Idaho, Wyoming and North Dakota.
I suspect the firebreak will have a big impact and will reduce infections substantially. Time will tell.
Unless Drakeford has data to back him up we haven't seen, it's foolish to promise what he will do after the firebreak.
Apparently he's now a Binfluencer. It sounds a bit too much like a posh name for a dustbin-man to take seriously ...
Even if it's not everyone, you'd think it would help keep the virus numbers down a bit.
Lockdown the young now because we allowed holidays to Spain in July.
I'm reminded of Harry Potter's invitation to Lord Voldemort to feel some remorse. If Corbyn can feel more remorse for the victims of antisemitism within the Labour party than he does for his own treatment then there is a way forward. But, just as with Trump, it's all about Corbyn in his eyes.
The 2016 turnout of 75% in FL should be easily exceeded. But even so, probably 2/3rds of the vote is now in.
This can also be seen by looking at strong Democrat states. If you look at Presidential polls in California, Biden is typically leading by a shade under 30%, and Clinton won by almost exactly 30%. So no swing (although we'll see on Tuesday if he does a little better than Clinton there - he may well do as there will be more Democratic activity across the state in House races and so on). Similar patterns can be seen elsewhere. Trump was starting from a very low base in such states, and Biden is just fishing in a much smaller pool of potential converts.
Broadly, you'd expect, if there is a swing to Biden, that this would be below average in very blue states, above average in very red ones, and about average in swing states.
No, really. You almost succeeded in annoying me at one point then, But then "sick oldies" and "obese slobs"?
When you're so ridiculous, you don't annoy people. They just find you funny and/or feel sorry for you.
Is that because it was revealed that the young hardly ever get that either ?
The Barcelona City Council will report to the Public Prosecutor's Office for hate crimes the graffiti that appeared in the center of the city against the Jews, in the space where the riots led by violent groups linked to the extreme right took place last night. In which he attacks the Jews and also against the measures to stop the pandemic, in addition to calling for a "stop to the New Order", a common complaint and complaint among groups that deny the epidemic. This was announced by Marc Serra, councilor for Citizenship and Participation Law, according to Efe.
Most of those admitted to hospital with covid are in their fifties or younger.
The overwhelming majority of these had no serious co-morbidities.
In addition, the majority were not obese.
Of the children unfortunate enough to be admitted to hospital with covid, the majority had no co-morbidities, and the most common co-morbidity out of those who did have one was asthma.
That's hardly "keeping sick oldies alive a few more months."
Nor "... obese slobs can have their risks reduced slightly."
So why would you claim it is?
So - should parents and grandparents all stay away from their children? Require their children to wear masks at all times at home. One might wonder what you sweep up in the statement "take some responsibility."
He’s had the virus (we can only assume), and therefore, for him, it is ‘over’. At least as long as he has immunity. Worrying about everyone else has never been his thing.
The underlying aim may well not be to help Corbyn, who is yesterday's man. It may simply be trying to get bought off in policy terms and in advancement for favoured sons and daughters.
Not a particularly nice truth, but a truth nonetheless.
This time, for the one week periods ending on the dates given, three weeks apart, we have these totals.
6/9: 60 deaths
27/9: 274 deaths
18/10: 963 deaths
So the number of deaths is increasing, but at a much lower speed than in the spring. This must be due to a variety of factors, of which masks are probably one, and all the various local restrictions and residual national restrictions are others.
Covid is not an equal opportunities killer.
That's the reality and you have to deal with it.
It's just lazy thinking to demonise "sick oldies" and "obese slobs" but that makes it easy. doesn't it? Instead of asking why people can't follow some simple guidelines, we get vitriolic hyperbole about "futures being destroyed" and finger-pointing and victimising of others.
Classy.
https://twitter.com/SICPCommissaire/status/1321585754351566849
Things are getting out of hand there.
That's why I've been arguing for some time that we should have two-week lockdowns every two months, preplanned so people can organise their lives and businesses around them. Even if you really suffer in lockdowns, they won't feel so awful if you know their duration and regularity. It'd be far better then our current approach of telling people it'll probably be all right, then doing a panicky lockdown for a bit, then relaxing for a bit, etc.
So then you're effectively giving him credit for losing control of the virus more quickly. Which is a bit weird.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-54760265
Perhaps it was three trainee Trafalgar pollsters looking for Trump supporters....
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/
The up-curve of each wave is steep, the down-curve is shallow, the valley bottom was broad. For the UK those stages were approximately 3 weeks, 10 weeks and 10 weeks. One week's increase takes approximately 3 weeks to remove.
It therefore makes sense to apply lock-down very early in the rise of each wave, since it can be applied for less time. Each week earlier a lockdown is applied, saves three weeks of lockdown.
Of course, we have missed that chance in wave 2 despite the scientists proposing it.
(*Sadly, deaths are more useful here than cases because case numbers are afftected by testing levels.)
We also stupidly allow people to get away with no masks by simply claiming they are "exempt". Frankly if you can neither wear a mask nor a visor during a worldwide pandemic then you should damn well stay away from people. You do not have a god-given right to go put other people's health and lives at risk. It's not all about you.
In addition - more time gives us chance to improve TTI system, gets us closer to a vaccine and better treatments, AND prevents the inevitable Christmas increase in contacts from being quite so devastating.
Did you choose your avatar with care? It suits you so well.
It doesn't work with such regularity as the public sector. Lots of fortuitous purchases in retail, leisure etc. In some sectors it isn't possible to keep running up and down for long periods. EG Pubs, restaurants. And that is before the problem of public reluctance to shop/spend/eat out is taken into account.
I am aghast at the notion of a national lockdown. It simply wont be well observed. How fair is it for the good folk of Dorset to be locked down because Manchester has a problem?
And nobody is suggesting we do much more than change from a central system to a local run by local authorities involving door knocking, which maybe be better at actually contacting some people, but is even slower to go on foot door to door. And evidence so far, the likes of PHE were the worst at trying to organize testing.
A working test, track and trace system capable of reacting to this required 5 years of development in South Korea, one if not the most technologically advanced nations on earth.
And, in any case, it's not like we were able to enjoy life out of lockdown in between. We didn't have mass spectator sport back as they do in Australia and New Zealand. What proportion of the time do you think we'd have to spend in lockdown?
I just don't see it as a sustainable plan. The longer it goes on the more wild the excesses will be in the windows between lockdown, and the faster a new lockdown would have to be imposed.
Isolate the infectious instead of isolating everyone.
https://twitter.com/J_CD_T/status/1321842067694358532