There was always going to be a second wave. Maybe even a third. Spanish flu told us that. We have saved lives, saved jobs in the first wave. We'll do the same in the second. What's the alternative - just let it rip?
It's just madness. A huge number of those will have zero impact on containing spread of the virus. It's the Government just not wanting to pick winners and losers.
There was always going to be a second wave. Maybe even a third. Spanish flu told us that. We have saved lives, saved jobs in the first wave. We'll do the same in the second. What's the alternative - just let it rip?
Funny how they have shut up about Germany now....they certainly done much better than UK, France, Italy, but over 500k cases now and record daily totals.
I think, on reflection, what makes me really angry about the Scientist's and Government approach is the complete lack of nuance, or analysis of the effect of options. They are basically giving up and saying they don't have a clue.
It's all just "things are bad, something must be done, shut everything". Damn the economy, damn businesses, who cares? No doubt the modelling isn't easy. But it needs to be done. If some things can stay open at minimal risk then they should be able to. And the scientists owe it to them to prove that the risk avoidance justifies the cost.
I think that is the core of the problem.
For the scientists, there is no absolutely no downside in being ultra-cautious. They will be judged on the number of deaths during the pandemic, which they accordingly wish to minimise at all costs.
That indeed is the problem. For the scientists, there is no downside at all to forecasting the direst outcomes and demanding the most draconian solutions. Their livelihoods are not on the line, after all. Damn everyone else.
Yes, like you indicate for two main reasons: (1) there's no reward for them in taking risks with their advice on the us.
A scientist cannot advise definitively whether it's worth putting a person out of business in order to ensure that .
I slightly disagree with that actually. NICE do explicit determination of cost–benefit boundaries, and assess costs per quality-adjusted life year for NHS treatments. I think it'd be a small step from that to including some economists in SAGE who could provide the data you describe and the options with pros and cons.
But, it would be up to politicians to make the decisions as you say.
The answer then is to include economists, and philosophers, as part of SAGE.
Yes.
No need, I can do the philosophy for you. People just aren't utilitarians, however much you would like them to be or think they should be. Most people would not kill someone if offered the deal "either you kill x, or I will kill x and y and z" and most people also regard "save life" as an absolute moral imperative. They won't accept the trade off "let this 80 year old preventably die, because the figures show that prevents two cancer deaths and a suicide in the next year" and they won't let politicos make that trade off for them. Perhaps they ought to, but politics is the art of the possible.
People might not like to confront the trolley problem, but they would still make a choice if they had no option. It's what we do in war, or on lifeboats, after all.
In the trolley problem the outcomes are equally immediate. If it is actual death now vs hypothetical deaths later people will always give all the weight to the immediate and concrete.
But, not an option that is available to people in positions of civil or military leadership.
They've shut the zoos again. That could destroy them for ever, at huge long term cost for the conservation projects they fund/support/maintain around the world.
Must be rigorously operated though - I’m unhappy with drive through voting to be honest.
That's a completely different argument though. To attempt to invalidate after the fact is something else completely.
If the vote was cast illegally then it is right to throw it out. The county should also write to everyone who’s vote was thrown out and invite them to recast their vote
Write to them? Are you having a laugh? You are aware that the US election is on Tuesday, aren't you? Not a month on Tuesday?
I realised that shortly after posting. I clearly meant communicate with them. Take out adverts if you need to.
Come on Charles that is nonsense.
If it is illegal then the votes are invalid. No ifs or buts.
But the electoral authorities should make all the efforts possible to contact the individuals to give them the opportunity to cast their vote again
Charles this is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. The method was ruled legal by the Texas Supreme Court. Take it to a Federal court to prevent more drive in voting, sure. But invalidating cast votes is preposterous.
It's just madness. A huge number of those will have zero impact on containing spread of the virus. It's the Government just not wanting to pick winners and losers.
Golf has to be the safest sport to.play. its outside, you only play in max groups of 4, never need to be near one another, don't share kit and the only thing you could possibly touch is the flag (which can be avoided).
Its safer to do that for 4hrs than going anywhere near a shop or even going to the park.
Must be rigorously operated though - I’m unhappy with drive through voting to be honest.
That's a completely different argument though. To attempt to invalidate after the fact is something else completely.
If the vote was cast illegally then it is right to throw it out. The county should also write to everyone who’s vote was thrown out and invite them to recast their vote
The Texas Supreme Court ruled it was legal.
Then clearly there is nothing to worry about from the latest case.
Did they actually say that what Harris is doing is legal or did they only say that curbaude voting is legal?
Keep up Charles. The Republican dominated State Supreme Court ruled it legal. The GOP have appealed to the Federal Courts. The judge assigned is a very well known partisan Republican. The Right wing judges on SCOTUS have recently hinted that they believe that electoral law is set by State legislatures and cannot be over-ruled by State courts, however reasonable the actions taken. This interpretation of the constitution like this may well result in these ballots being declared illegal. At a hearing on Monday. The day before the election
Furthermore these types of ballots are cast all over the state. But the GOP are only seeking their disqualification in heavily Democrat voting Harris County. In strong Republican areas... not a peep.
The way that Harris’s actions were described do seem to stretch the definitions permitted and come close to facilitating something which is explicitly illegal
If the GOP are permitted to appeal they should be allowed to do so
And they don’t have some public service obligation to undertake legal cases that are not to their benefit. Presumably the Dems could easily use the result to get emergency injunctions in other counties
There was always going to be a second wave. Maybe even a third. Spanish flu told us that. We have saved lives, saved jobs in the first wave. We'll do the same in the second. What's the alternative - just let it rip?
Spanish flu is different type of virus.
"Making absolute statements of certainty about ‘ second waves’ is unwise, given the current substantial uncertainties and novelty of the evidence."
Must be rigorously operated though - I’m unhappy with drive through voting to be honest.
That's a completely different argument though. To attempt to invalidate after the fact is something else completely.
If the vote was cast illegally then it is right to throw it out. The county should also write to everyone who’s vote was thrown out and invite them to recast their vote
The Texas Supreme Court ruled it was legal.
Then clearly there is nothing to worry about from the latest case.
Did they actually say that what Harris is doing is legal or did they only say that curbaude voting is legal?
Keep up Charles. The Republican dominated State Supreme Court ruled it legal. The GOP have appealed to the Federal Courts. The judge assigned is a very well known partisan Republican. The Right wing judges on SCOTUS have recently hinted that they believe that electoral law is set by State legislatures and cannot be over-ruled by State courts, however reasonable the actions taken. This interpretation of the constitution like this may well result in these ballots being declared illegal. At a hearing on Monday. The day before the election
Furthermore these types of ballots are cast all over the state. But the GOP are only seeking their disqualification in heavily Democrat voting Harris County. In strong Republican areas... not a peep.
The way that Harris’s actions were described do seem to stretch the definitions permitted and come close to facilitating something which is explicitly illegal
If the GOP are permitted to appeal they should be allowed to do so
And they don’t have some public service obligation to undertake legal cases that are not to their benefit. Presumably the Dems could easily use the result to get emergency injunctions in other counties
The Republicans have only a 5% advantage in MT, and high turnout favours the Dems. Biden worth a nibble here at 9.2 at BFx IMO.
Perhaps more significant is Montana’s single House seat, which is looking a tad shaky. If the GOP lose it, and don’t pick up any seats elsewhere that might give them the majority of a state’s House seats that they don’t already have, then in the new House neither party will control a majority of state delegations. That means should the Electoral College tie 269-269, the new House would be deadlocked and unable to conduct a contingent election of the President. Unless somebody crosses party lines.
IF there is an EV tie, then the lame duck House - not the newly elected House - will make the decision. Provided they do it before Jan 2 when the new House is sworn in.
I read that the new House is sworn in prior to the role call of the Electoral College.
Kate Bingham, First class degree, Biochemistry, University of Oxford, Harvard MBA, has been involved in Biotech for 27 years, on the face of it, a good background for this taskforce.
The Sunday Times article mentions that she had been talking to venture capitalists, investors about CV19 vaccines. How far should eyebrows be raised, but it might have been wiser if she had turned down the invitation given her new role.
The first relaxation of the previous lockdown affecting recreation came I believe with this announcement: “From Wednesday May 13, the government will also allow outdoor sports facilities – such as tennis and basketball courts, golf courses and bowling greens – to open, but you should only use these alone, with members of your household, or with one other person from outside your household, while keeping two metres apart at all times.”
So if they are back to banning all outdoor sports it really is back to the situation in March/April. 8 months of going around in circles and getting nowhere.
The North is quickly running out of reasons to ever trust the Tories again, perhaps it will be another generation before the Red Wall splinters again
You couldn’t do something g different for one part of the country. It wouldn’t have been fair
So why not have all northern cities in tier 3 on 80% furlough ?
What has changed now that means that what was offered to Manchester is not the right approach for the whole country ?
The ONLY difference is London is now in severe lockdown and the government will therefore be more interested in protecting the businesses and population.
Because the other cities had agreed the lower amount was sufficient. So why would a prudent government spend more?
The Republicans have only a 5% advantage in MT, and high turnout favours the Dems. Biden worth a nibble here at 9.2 at BFx IMO.
Perhaps more significant is Montana’s single House seat, which is looking a tad shaky. If the GOP lose it, and don’t pick up any seats elsewhere that might give them the majority of a state’s House seats that they don’t already have, then in the new House neither party will control a majority of state delegations. That means should the Electoral College tie 269-269, the new House would be deadlocked and unable to conduct a contingent election of the President. Unless somebody crosses party lines.
IF there is an EV tie, then the lame duck House - not the newly elected House - will make the decision. Provided they do it before Jan 2 when the new House is sworn in.
I read that the new House is sworn in prior to the role call of the Electoral College.
YOU ARE CORRECT, YOURS TRULY WAS WRONG.
Source I just checked says House receives and tallies EVs for 2020 Presidential on January 6, 2021.
Must be rigorously operated though - I’m unhappy with drive through voting to be honest.
That's a completely different argument though. To attempt to invalidate after the fact is something else completely.
If the vote was cast illegally then it is right to throw it out. The county should also write to everyone who’s vote was thrown out and invite them to recast their vote
The Texas Supreme Court ruled it was legal.
Then clearly there is nothing to worry about from the latest case.
Did they actually say that what Harris is doing is legal or did they only say that curbaude voting is legal?
Keep up Charles. The Republican dominated State Supreme Court ruled it legal. The GOP have appealed to the Federal Courts. The judge assigned is a very well known partisan Republican. The Right wing judges on SCOTUS have recently hinted that they believe that electoral law is set by State legislatures and cannot be over-ruled by State courts, however reasonable the actions taken. This interpretation of the constitution like this may well result in these ballots being declared illegal. At a hearing on Monday. The day before the election
Furthermore these types of ballots are cast all over the state. But the GOP are only seeking their disqualification in heavily Democrat voting Harris County. In strong Republican areas... not a peep.
The way that Harris’s actions were described do seem to stretch the definitions permitted and come close to facilitating something which is explicitly illegal
If the GOP are permitted to appeal they should be allowed to do so
And they don’t have some public service obligation to undertake legal cases that are not to their benefit. Presumably the Dems could easily use the result to get emergency injunctions in other counties
Charles you are being preposterous.
No he isn't. If the Republicans get a Republican judge to rule 1 day before the election that all the votes cast for the Democrats were illegal, then thats the law. Absolutely nothing dodgy about that...
I think, on reflection, what makes me really angry about the Scientist's and Government approach is the complete lack of nuance, or analysis of the effect of options. They are basically giving up and saying they don't have a clue.
It's all just "things are bad, something must be done, shut everything". Damn the economy, damn businesses, who cares? No doubt the modelling isn't easy. But it needs to be done. If some things can stay open at minimal risk then they should be able to. And the scientists owe it to them to prove that the risk avoidance justifies the cost.
I think that is the core of the problem.
For the scientists, there is no absolutely no downside in being ultra-cautious. They will be judged on the number of deaths during the pandemic, which they accordingly wish to minimise at all costs.
That indeed is the problem. For the scientists, there is no downside at all to forecasting the direst outcomes and demanding the most draconian solutions. Their livelihoods are not on the line, after all. Damn everyone else.
Yes, like you indicate for two main reasons: (1) there's no reward for them in taking risks with their advice on the us.
A scientist cannot advise definitively whether it's worth putting a person out of business in order to ensure that .
I slightly disagree with that actually. NICE do explicit determination of cost–benefit boundaries, and assess costs per quality-adjusted life year for NHS treatments. I think it'd be a small step from that to including some economists in SAGE who could provide the data you describe and the options with pros and cons.
But, it would be up to politicians to make the decisions as you say.
The answer then is to include economists, and philosophers, as part of SAGE.
Yes.
No need, I can do the philosophy for you. People just aren't utilitarians, however much you would like them to be or think they should be. Most people would not kill someone if offered the deal "either you kill x, or I will kill x and y and z" and most people also regard "save life" as an absolute moral imperative. They won't accept the trade off "let this 80 year old preventably die, because the figures show that prevents two cancer deaths and a suicide in the next year" and they won't let politicos make that trade off for them. Perhaps they ought to, but politics is the art of the possible.
People might not like to confront the trolley problem, but they would still make a choice if they had no option. It's what we do in war, or on lifeboats, after all.
In the trolley problem the outcomes are equally immediate. If it is actual death now vs hypothetical deaths later people will always give all the weight to the immediate and concrete.
But, not an option that is available to people in positions of civil or military leadership.
It's about focus. Old person allowed to die in hospital on cost-benefit grounds is not usually news, but it is now if there's a potential story about how they were triaged out under heartless government guidelines. That constrains the government from taking what might be a tough but correct decision because governments are not immune from public opinion, not even with 80 seat majorities.
There was always going to be a second wave. Maybe even a third. Spanish flu told us that. We have saved lives, saved jobs in the first wave. We'll do the same in the second. What's the alternative - just let it rip?
The first relaxation of the previous lockdown affecting recreation came I believe with this announcement: “From Wednesday May 13, the government will also allow outdoor sports facilities – such as tennis and basketball courts, golf courses and bowling greens – to open, but you should only use these alone, with members of your household, or with one other person from outside your household, while keeping two metres apart at all times.”
So if they are back to banning all outdoor sports it really is back to the situation in March/April. 8 months of going around in circles and getting nowhere.
No nuance. No focussing on activities that are actually potentially dangerous. Shut everything. F*ck everything. No matter the long term cost.
These good polls keep rolling in for Biden, just 3 days before, so many pollsters would have to be so wrong and would have zero credibility if they are. 2018 would be unimportant if they get BOTH Trumps elections wrong.
Is there anything this Government does that isn't corrupt?
Is that Kate Bingham, wife of Conservative MP Jesse Norman?
It’s Kate Bingham, the doyen of the U.K. life sciences industry and the most experienced investor in development stage drugs the country has
Is there no-one in government who understands the concept of conflicts of interest or the risks of insider dealing or why there may be issues in doing this?
Kate Bingham may be all that @Charles describes but a lot of care needs to be taken about sharing sensitive and potentially price sensitive information such as this in such a way. Did anyone think about this and provide some guidance about what is or is not appropriate?
Must be rigorously operated though - I’m unhappy with drive through voting to be honest.
That's a completely different argument though. To attempt to invalidate after the fact is something else completely.
If the vote was cast illegally then it is right to throw it out. The county should also write to everyone who’s vote was thrown out and invite them to recast their vote
Write to them? Are you having a laugh? You are aware that the US election is on Tuesday, aren't you? Not a month on Tuesday?
I realised that shortly after posting. I clearly meant communicate with them. Take out adverts if you need to.
Come on Charles that is nonsense.
If it is illegal then the votes are invalid. No ifs or buts.
But the electoral authorities should make all the efforts possible to contact the individuals to give them the opportunity to cast their vote again
Charles this is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. The method was ruled legal by the Texas Supreme Court. Take it to a Federal court to prevent more drive in voting, sure. But invalidating cast votes is preposterous.
Must be rigorously operated though - I’m unhappy with drive through voting to be honest.
That's a completely different argument though. To attempt to invalidate after the fact is something else completely.
If the vote was cast illegally then it is right to throw it out. The county should also write to everyone who’s vote was thrown out and invite them to recast their vote
The Texas Supreme Court ruled it was legal.
Then clearly there is nothing to worry about from the latest case.
Did they actually say that what Harris is doing is legal or did they only say that curbaude voting is legal?
Keep up Charles. The Republican dominated State Supreme Court ruled it legal. The GOP have appealed to the Federal Courts. The judge assigned is a very well known partisan Republican. The Right wing judges on SCOTUS have recently hinted that they believe that electoral law is set by State legislatures and cannot be over-ruled by State courts, however reasonable the actions taken. This interpretation of the constitution like this may well result in these ballots being declared illegal. At a hearing on Monday. The day before the election
Furthermore these types of ballots are cast all over the state. But the GOP are only seeking their disqualification in heavily Democrat voting Harris County. In strong Republican areas... not a peep.
The way that Harris’s actions were described do seem to stretch the definitions permitted and come close to facilitating something which is explicitly illegal
If the GOP are permitted to appeal they should be allowed to do so
And they don’t have some public service obligation to undertake legal cases that are not to their benefit. Presumably the Dems could easily use the result to get emergency injunctions in other counties
Charles you are being preposterous.
No he isn't. If the Republicans get a Republican judge to rule 1 day before the election that all the votes cast for the Democrats were illegal, then thats the law. Absolutely nothing dodgy about that...
If state law says drive through voting is illegal then it is illegal even if you call it something else.
And that should equally apply in both Republican and Democratic leaning areas
But it doesn’t mean the GOP has an obligation to file lawsuits in GOP leaning areas
The North is quickly running out of reasons to ever trust the Tories again, perhaps it will be another generation before the Red Wall splinters again
You couldn’t do something g different for one part of the country. It wouldn’t have been fair
So why not have all northern cities in tier 3 on 80% furlough ?
What has changed now that means that what was offered to Manchester is not the right approach for the whole country ?
The ONLY difference is London is now in severe lockdown and the government will therefore be more interested in protecting the businesses and population.
Because the other cities had agreed the lower amount was sufficient. So why would a prudent government spend more?
I do hope your tongue was firmly in your cheek when you wrote that.
The North is quickly running out of reasons to ever trust the Tories again, perhaps it will be another generation before the Red Wall splinters again
You couldn’t do something g different for one part of the country. It wouldn’t have been fair
So why not have all northern cities in tier 3 on 80% furlough ?
What has changed now that means that what was offered to Manchester is not the right approach for the whole country ?
The ONLY difference is London is now in severe lockdown and the government will therefore be more interested in protecting the businesses and population.
Because the other cities had agreed the lower amount was sufficient. So why would a prudent government spend more?
I do hope your tongue was firmly in your cheek when you wrote that.
It's amazing that someone who in the past often sounded so sensible can have gone so absolutely bonkers.
Is there anything this Government does that isn't corrupt?
Is that Kate Bingham, wife of Conservative MP Jesse Norman?
It’s Kate Bingham, the doyen of the U.K. life sciences industry and the most experienced investor in development stage drugs the country has
Is there no-one in government who understands the concept of conflicts of interest or the risks of insider dealing or why there may be issues in doing this?
Kate Bingham may be all that @Charles describes but a lot of care needs to be taken about sharing sensitive and potentially price sensitive information such as this in such a way. Did anyone think about this and provide some guidance about what is or is not appropriate?
On the face of it she seems to be very well qualified to help advise HMG. Strong scientific and business background, but why address US investors if there was a risk of accusations about conflicts of interest?
So is it correct I can walk around Endcliffe Park in Sheffield but am not allowed to walk around Sheffield Botanical Gardens a quarter of a mile away ?
And is it correct I can walk around a golf course but cannot do so while playing golf ?
Saw some data that showed the transmission rates in education settings, having a lockdown and not closing schools and unis is like using a condom with holes in both ends.
From a pure epidemiological POV it is a no brainer.
Which is why lockdown as a concept doesn't work. We need to keep schools and supermarkets open, those two things together plus healthcare and other basic services add up to an R of over 1 already. There is no combination of things we can keep open that includes schools that doesn't have an R over 1. So we need a different way of doing this.
We're using a broad measure of stopping some forms of interaction to reduce the overall R, it's an untargeted method which causes a lot of secondary damage. It also doesn't work because stopping interaction in public just drives the same interaction into front rooms which are impossible to police.
There is no form of lockdown that will make any kind of difference in this country, not without closing schools and that is an unacceptable cost and needs to be avoided even if it means more deaths than would otherwise happen.
The only way to resolve this is targeted measures to stop people who have the virus interacting with people who don't. There is no other way to do it, none. Everything else is going to fail and cost the nation more than just money.
I don't think that's necessarily true: in Sweden schools were kept open (albeit universities and older kids went on-line), while there were a reasonable number of other restrictions.
And I think it would have been sensible to do something similar in the UK - kept Universities on-line until January, and bring schools back from youngest to oldest. Doing it all in one go meant that you didn't go from R of 1 to 1.2, but from 1 to 3.
Sweden isn't exactly an example that should be held up as worth following, with our population density and social nature their death rate would be more than double what it is IMO.
Sure: but my point is that incrementalism (or iteration)is almost always the best approach (whether in business or politics). Do something small, see what the effect is, and decide whether to do more or less of it.
Combining people returing from summer holidays abroad (importing cases), the days turning colder (and therefore people spending more time inside), and schools and universities returning all at once was a recipe for a soaring R.
Add to this that the summer was wasted in building out efficient tracking or testing. If the government had stockpiled 100 million rapid tests, we could really have done a great job of getting on top of outbreaks.
We're now faced with a really horrible set of choices, none of which are good.
- We can follow the Toby Young school of thought, which will almost certainly result in a massive spike of deaths as hospitals are overloaded, followed by a de facto lockdown as people are too scared to go out
- We can maintain the current restrictions, and accept that cases will continue rising (albeit I would expect the pace to start slowing now)
- We can lockdown...
All the options are horrible, and all involve trade offs. There is no perfect outcome, because there are different winners and losers and people will be sore as hell, irrespective.
My personal option is (2), because I think we're staring into the rear view mirror, and I think case numbers will start coming down sooner rather than later. But I admit this is not without its risks: what if hospitals do end up being stretched beyond capacity?
We need to stop thinking of this as a trade off between saving lives or saving the economy. That's a false choice. We can have both with good testing and isolation measures and we don't need a lockdown to implement them. Any isolation system that doesn't have daily door knocks at random times, GPS tracking or government quarantine facilities is going to fail, people are too irresponsible and have proved they can't be trusted to isolate when they have the virus. That the problem we need to solve, it has a hugely negative effect on the R, we've been building a model of different isolation rates based on studies done on the subject and an average of 5 days spent being infectious before being isolated. If we isolate 60% of people properly the R falls below 1, if we get to 100% it falls to around 0.8 even with that 5 day infectious period.
We can use the same shit testing system we have which waits for people to come to it and have an R significantly below 1 if we make people isolate properly.
I’m not sure you can guarantee that, but it would certainly make a large difference. Put together with rapid testing done locally and it almost certainly would control any outbreak.
I wonder how many decades we will still be paying for this?
I went to London Zoo a couple of weeks ago. It's much more than a zoo. It is the epicentre of crucial conservation work all over the world. The implication was strongly that the first lockdown left it in truly dire financial straits. Whether it will survive another one, who knows? The loss of this work will be incalculable for future generations. And people visiting it present almost zero COVID risk.
But... zoos will shut. It's just a few animals, isn't it?
These good polls keep rolling in for Biden, just 3 days before, so many pollsters would have to be so wrong and would have zero credibility if they are. 2018 would be unimportant if they get BOTH Trumps elections wrong.
Must be rigorously operated though - I’m unhappy with drive through voting to be honest.
That's a completely different argument though. To attempt to invalidate after the fact is something else completely.
If the vote was cast illegally then it is right to throw it out. The county should also write to everyone who’s vote was thrown out and invite them to recast their vote
Write to them? Are you having a laugh? You are aware that the US election is on Tuesday, aren't you? Not a month on Tuesday?
I realised that shortly after posting. I clearly meant communicate with them. Take out adverts if you need to.
Come on Charles that is nonsense.
If it is illegal then the votes are invalid. No ifs or buts.
But the electoral authorities should make all the efforts possible to contact the individuals to give them the opportunity to cast their vote again
Charles this is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. The method was ruled legal by the Texas Supreme Court. Take it to a Federal court to prevent more drive in voting, sure. But invalidating cast votes is preposterous.
Not if they were cast illegally
Ruled illegal by GOP judges. Nothing dodgy about that.
As I said at the time, politically smart, but this is intellectually dishonest.
I'm not sure how you arrived at that. Seems to me to be accurate in every particular
Because the model this 2 week suggestion was built on was total horseshit and spat out numbers which didn't provide something which could be used to compare against potential economic cost. And what they have announced isn't the same.
If he had said we need another lockdown that will last at least a month, that would be more reasonable....but will come with huge economic cost.
But as you prove, he has won the politics, even though those of us who have a grasp on the mathematical modelling presented by SAGE plus the science of this virus means 2 weeks was not some simple easy decision that definitely would have resulted in any real gains.
Must be rigorously operated though - I’m unhappy with drive through voting to be honest.
That's a completely different argument though. To attempt to invalidate after the fact is something else completely.
If the vote was cast illegally then it is right to throw it out. The county should also write to everyone who’s vote was thrown out and invite them to recast their vote
The Texas Supreme Court ruled it was legal.
Then clearly there is nothing to worry about from the latest case.
Did they actually say that what Harris is doing is legal or did they only say that curbaude voting is legal?
Keep up Charles. The Republican dominated State Supreme Court ruled it legal. The GOP have appealed to the Federal Courts. The judge assigned is a very well known partisan Republican. The Right wing judges on SCOTUS have recently hinted that they believe that electoral law is set by State legislatures and cannot be over-ruled by State courts, however reasonable the actions taken. This interpretation of the constitution like this may well result in these ballots being declared illegal. At a hearing on Monday. The day before the election
Furthermore these types of ballots are cast all over the state. But the GOP are only seeking their disqualification in heavily Democrat voting Harris County. In strong Republican areas... not a peep.
The way that Harris’s actions were described do seem to stretch the definitions permitted and come close to facilitating something which is explicitly illegal
If the GOP are permitted to appeal they should be allowed to do so
And they don’t have some public service obligation to undertake legal cases that are not to their benefit. Presumably the Dems could easily use the result to get emergency injunctions in other counties
Charles you are being preposterous.
No he isn't. If the Republicans get a Republican judge to rule 1 day before the election that all the votes cast for the Democrats were illegal, then thats the law. Absolutely nothing dodgy about that...
If state law says drive through voting is illegal then it is illegal even if you call it something else.
And that should equally apply in both Republican and Democratic leaning areas
But it doesn’t mean the GOP has an obligation to file lawsuits in GOP leaning areas
If the law is to apply equally to all - a basic principle in most well-functioning democracies - then such a ruling should mean that ALL votes cast using this method, whether in Democratic or GOP areas, should be cast aside. This should not depend on a lawsuit being filed in all such areas, precisely in order to stop parties gaming the system.
But that is what it appears is being done here. Added to which the judge should recuse himself from ruling in order to avoid the appearance of bias, another basic principle common to common and civil law jurisdictions.
If neither of these two happen then it is simply an attempt to cheat the electorate of their votes and steal an election by foul means.
It confirms what I have been saying for a few days
People love the idea of sitting at home on 80% wages for doing nothing?
It is more than that
Huge numbers are public sector or local authority employees or are pensioners all of whom have no financial penalties by staying at home, while the private sector is decimated, along with the tax revenues that go a long way to paying for the public sector
Big tax rises are coming down the line for everyone
Must be rigorously operated though - I’m unhappy with drive through voting to be honest.
That's a completely different argument though. To attempt to invalidate after the fact is something else completely.
If the vote was cast illegally then it is right to throw it out. The county should also write to everyone who’s vote was thrown out and invite them to recast their vote
Write to them? Are you having a laugh? You are aware that the US election is on Tuesday, aren't you? Not a month on Tuesday?
I realised that shortly after posting. I clearly meant communicate with them. Take out adverts if you need to.
Come on Charles that is nonsense.
If it is illegal then the votes are invalid. No ifs or buts.
But the electoral authorities should make all the efforts possible to contact the individuals to give them the opportunity to cast their vote again
Charles this is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. The method was ruled legal by the Texas Supreme Court. Take it to a Federal court to prevent more drive in voting, sure. But invalidating cast votes is preposterous.
Not if they were cast illegally
Charles you are being seriously seriously ridiculous here
Is there anything this Government does that isn't corrupt?
Is that Kate Bingham, wife of Conservative MP Jesse Norman?
It’s Kate Bingham, the doyen of the U.K. life sciences industry and the most experienced investor in development stage drugs the country has
Is there no-one in government who understands the concept of conflicts of interest or the risks of insider dealing or why there may be issues in doing this?
Kate Bingham may be all that @Charles describes but a lot of care needs to be taken about sharing sensitive and potentially price sensitive information such as this in such a way. Did anyone think about this and provide some guidance about what is or is not appropriate?
On the face of it she seems to be very well qualified to help advise HMG. Strong scientific and business background, but why address US investors if there was a risk of accusations about conflicts of interest?
Must be rigorously operated though - I’m unhappy with drive through voting to be honest.
That's a completely different argument though. To attempt to invalidate after the fact is something else completely.
If the vote was cast illegally then it is right to throw it out. The county should also write to everyone who’s vote was thrown out and invite them to recast their vote
The Texas Supreme Court ruled it was legal.
Then clearly there is nothing to worry about from the latest case.
Did they actually say that what Harris is doing is legal or did they only say that curbaude voting is legal?
Keep up Charles. The Republican dominated State Supreme Court ruled it legal. The GOP have appealed to the Federal Courts. The judge assigned is a very well known partisan Republican. The Right wing judges on SCOTUS have recently hinted that they believe that electoral law is set by State legislatures and cannot be over-ruled by State courts, however reasonable the actions taken. This interpretation of the constitution like this may well result in these ballots being declared illegal. At a hearing on Monday. The day before the election
Furthermore these types of ballots are cast all over the state. But the GOP are only seeking their disqualification in heavily Democrat voting Harris County. In strong Republican areas... not a peep.
The way that Harris’s actions were described do seem to stretch the definitions permitted and come close to facilitating something which is explicitly illegal
If the GOP are permitted to appeal they should be allowed to do so
And they don’t have some public service obligation to undertake legal cases that are not to their benefit. Presumably the Dems could easily use the result to get emergency injunctions in other counties
Charles you are being preposterous.
No he isn't. If the Republicans get a Republican judge to rule 1 day before the election that all the votes cast for the Democrats were illegal, then thats the law. Absolutely nothing dodgy about that...
If state law says drive through voting is illegal then it is illegal even if you call it something else.
And that should equally apply in both Republican and Democratic leaning areas
But it doesn’t mean the GOP has an obligation to file lawsuits in GOP leaning areas
If the law is to apply equally to all - a basic principle in most well-functioning democracies - then such a ruling should mean that ALL votes cast using this method, whether in Democratic or GOP areas, should be cast aside. This should not depend on a lawsuit being filed in all such areas, precisely in order to stop parties gaming the system.
But that is what it appears is being done here. Added to which the judge should recuse himself from ruling in order to avoid the appearance of bias, another basic principle common to common and civil law jurisdictions.
If neither of these two happen then it is simply an attempt to cheat the electorate of their votes and steal an election by foul means.
If such a method of voting, which voters participated in in good faith believing it legal, is declared illegal without re-running the ballot, then America is no more a democracy than Belarus, Venezuela or Zimbabwe.
As I said at the time, politically smart, but this is intellectually dishonest.
I'm not sure how you arrived at that. Seems to me to be accurate in every particular
It won't help him. I predict that Johnson will be back at 50% in the polls within a week. The public will accept that he has tried his best to avoid a lockdown but he had to succumb. And Starmer's attempts to criticise will be characterised as sniping. It'll be like the last 6 months never happened.
So basically all that lockdown earlier this year was largely pointless because the time gained was wasted and here we are having to do it all again but weaker, poorer, during winter and with 50,000 people already having died.
Let’s hope that in the middle of all this nothing happens to disrupt any medical supplies and drugs we need to import, eh!
The North is quickly running out of reasons to ever trust the Tories again, perhaps it will be another generation before the Red Wall splinters again
You couldn’t do something g different for one part of the country. It wouldn’t have been fair
So why not have all northern cities in tier 3 on 80% furlough ?
What has changed now that means that what was offered to Manchester is not the right approach for the whole country ?
The ONLY difference is London is now in severe lockdown and the government will therefore be more interested in protecting the businesses and population.
Because the other cities had agreed the lower amount was sufficient. So why would a prudent government spend more?
I do hope your tongue was firmly in your cheek when you wrote that.
It's amazing that someone who in the past often sounded so sensible can have gone so absolutely bonkers.
It is the old silver spoon way, they have no time or care for the plebs.
It confirms what I have been saying for a few days
People love the idea of sitting at home on 80% wages for doing nothing?
It is more than that
Huge numbers are public sector or local authority employees or are pensioners all of whom have no financial penalties by staying at home, while the private sector is decimated, along with the tax revenues that go a long way to paying for the public sector
Big tax rises are coming down the line for everyone
Here we go again, the myth repeated. The vast majority of public sector and local authority employees are not sitting at home on furlough - they are working. Most have face-to-face roles - you may even see them emptying your bins, staffing your hospitals, teaching your grandchildren, or cremating the dead. Some are working at home. Not very many are on furlough.
And riding stables. For crying out loud. There are risks riding a horse on a beach or up a hillside but Covid is not one of them.
How do you look after your horses. My daughter has to go minimum twice a day to see to her horses.
I don’t own any. But am well aware that they need to be ridden and exercised daily. There are two very good ones near me and one winter treat is riding on Silecroft beach .
Plus the closure of such stables is a blow for those who work with disabled children and adults who get a lot from interacting with and riding horses.
Must be rigorously operated though - I’m unhappy with drive through voting to be honest.
That's a completely different argument though. To attempt to invalidate after the fact is something else completely.
If the vote was cast illegally then it is right to throw it out. The county should also write to everyone who’s vote was thrown out and invite them to recast their vote
Write to them? Are you having a laugh? You are aware that the US election is on Tuesday, aren't you? Not a month on Tuesday?
I realised that shortly after posting. I clearly meant communicate with them. Take out adverts if you need to.
Come on Charles that is nonsense.
If it is illegal then the votes are invalid. No ifs or buts.
But the electoral authorities should make all the efforts possible to contact the individuals to give them the opportunity to cast their vote again
Charles this is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. The method was ruled legal by the Texas Supreme Court. Take it to a Federal court to prevent more drive in voting, sure. But invalidating cast votes is preposterous.
Not if they were cast illegally
Ruled illegal by GOP judges. Nothing dodgy about that.
It's been ruled ok by the TX supreme court. The lawsuit is cretinous, the GOP need to never see power again
These good polls keep rolling in for Biden, just 3 days before, so many pollsters would have to be so wrong and would have zero credibility if they are. 2018 would be unimportant if they get BOTH Trumps elections wrong.
And riding stables. For crying out loud. There are risks riding a horse on a beach or up a hillside but Covid is not one of them.
How do you look after your horses. My daughter has to go minimum twice a day to see to her horses.
"Riding stables" = stable where you go to rent horses from the stable owner, by the hour. Someone else's stable where you keep your own horse is a livery stable, not a riding stable, and different rules apply.
And riding stables. For crying out loud. There are risks riding a horse on a beach or up a hillside but Covid is not one of them.
I don't think SAGE understand the concept of risk.
I don't think SAGE are deciding which activities can and cannot continue.
Well, all we can hope is that the lobbying and special pleading gets somewhere i wouldn't hold out much hope though. Not now the message has officially reverted to "Stay at Home..."
So basically all that lockdown earlier this year was largely pointless because the time gained was wasted and here we are having to do it all again but weaker, poorer, during winter and with 50,000 people already having died.
Let’s hope that in the middle of all this nothing happens to disrupt any medical supplies and drugs we need to import, eh!
I've yet to see a poll that shows a majority of people against covid restrictions.
If you have some, please share.
Because you are in a minority means you should shut up?
I think the point was that Hitchens was suggesting that if nothing else "numbers" would worry the MPs. But if the polling shows its popular, "numbers" opposed won't mean anything.
It confirms what I have been saying for a few days
People love the idea of sitting at home on 80% wages for doing nothing?
It is more than that
Huge numbers are public sector or local authority employees or are pensioners all of whom have no financial penalties by staying at home, while the private sector is decimated, along with the tax revenues that go a long way to paying for the public sector
Big tax rises are coming down the line for everyone
Here we go again, the myth repeated. The vast majority of public sector and local authority employees are not sitting at home on furlough - they are working. Most have face-to-face roles - you may even see them emptying your bins, staffing your hospitals, teaching your grandchildren, or cremating the dead. Some are working at home. Not very many are on furlough.
I was not suggesting they are on furlough, quite the opposite
They are guaranteed their jobs and pensions and as with pensioners will not see any loss of income
I do not expect any public sector workers to loss their jobs, but on the other hand the private sector are looking at millions of job loses
I've yet to see a poll that shows a majority of people against covid restrictions.
If you have some, please share.
Because you are in a minority means you should shut up?
I think the point was that Hitchens was suggesting that if nothing else "numbers" would worry the MPs. But if the polling shows its popular, "numbers" opposed won't mean anything.
And riding stables. For crying out loud. There are risks riding a horse on a beach or up a hillside but Covid is not one of them.
How do you look after your horses. My daughter has to go minimum twice a day to see to her horses.
"Riding stables" = stable where you go to rent horses from the stable owner, by the hour. Someone else's stable where you keep your own horse is a livery stable, not a riding stable, and different rules apply.
It confirms what I have been saying for a few days
People love the idea of sitting at home on 80% wages for doing nothing?
It is more than that
Huge numbers are public sector or local authority employees or are pensioners all of whom have no financial penalties by staying at home, while the private sector is decimated, along with the tax revenues that go a long way to paying for the public sector
Big tax rises are coming down the line for everyone
Here we go again, the myth repeated. The vast majority of public sector and local authority employees are not sitting at home on furlough - they are working. Most have face-to-face roles - you may even see them emptying your bins, staffing your hospitals, teaching your grandchildren, or cremating the dead. Some are working at home. Not very many are on furlough.
I was not suggesting they are on furlough, quite the opposite
They are guaranteed their jobs and pensions and as with pensioners will not see any loss of income
I do not expect any public sector workers to loss their jobs, but on the other hand the private sector are looking at millions of job loses
Don't you? Half the Councils in the country are on the verge of bankruptcy. I'm expecting across the board pay cuts and massive retrospective changes to pension entitlements.
I've yet to see a poll that shows a majority of people against covid restrictions.
If you have some, please share.
Because you are in a minority means you should shut up?
I think the point was that Hitchens was suggesting that if nothing else "numbers" would worry the MPs. But if the polling shows its popular, "numbers" opposed won't mean anything.
A significant minority can still be worrisome.
Yes but you can just completely ignore them. See also Brexit.
It confirms what I have been saying for a few days
People love the idea of sitting at home on 80% wages for doing nothing?
It is more than that
Huge numbers are public sector or local authority employees or are pensioners all of whom have no financial penalties by staying at home, while the private sector is decimated, along with the tax revenues that go a long way to paying for the public sector
Big tax rises are coming down the line for everyone
Here we go again, the myth repeated. The vast majority of public sector and local authority employees are not sitting at home on furlough - they are working. Most have face-to-face roles - you may even see them emptying your bins, staffing your hospitals, teaching your grandchildren, or cremating the dead. Some are working at home. Not very many are on furlough.
I was not suggesting they are on furlough, quite the opposite
They are guaranteed their jobs and pensions and as with pensioners will not see any loss of income
I do not expect any public sector workers to loss their jobs, but on the other hand the private sector are looking at millions of job loses
I doubt many members of the public really appreciate the shear mountain of debt and long term economic damage being built up during this crisis that will have to result in higher taxes for everybody for many decades.
This isn't just a matter of get a vaccine in a few months, job done, back to normal everybody, nothing to see. This is worse than 2008.
It confirms what I have been saying for a few days
People love the idea of sitting at home on 80% wages for doing nothing?
It is more than that
Huge numbers are public sector or local authority employees or are pensioners all of whom have no financial penalties by staying at home, while the private sector is decimated, along with the tax revenues that go a long way to paying for the public sector
Big tax rises are coming down the line for everyone
Here we go again, the myth repeated. The vast majority of public sector and local authority employees are not sitting at home on furlough - they are working. Most have face-to-face roles - you may even see them emptying your bins, staffing your hospitals, teaching your grandchildren, or cremating the dead. Some are working at home. Not very many are on furlough.
I was not suggesting they are on furlough, quite the opposite
They are guaranteed their jobs and pensions and as with pensioners will not see any loss of income
I do not expect any public sector workers to loss their jobs, but on the other hand the private sector are looking at millions of job loses
Which public sector jobs would you like to see cut?
It confirms what I have been saying for a few days
People love the idea of sitting at home on 80% wages for doing nothing?
It is more than that
Huge numbers are public sector or local authority employees or are pensioners all of whom have no financial penalties by staying at home, while the private sector is decimated, along with the tax revenues that go a long way to paying for the public sector
Big tax rises are coming down the line for everyone
Here we go again, the myth repeated. The vast majority of public sector and local authority employees are not sitting at home on furlough - they are working. Most have face-to-face roles - you may even see them emptying your bins, staffing your hospitals, teaching your grandchildren, or cremating the dead. Some are working at home. Not very many are on furlough.
I was not suggesting they are on furlough, quite the opposite
They are guaranteed their jobs and pensions and as with pensioners will not see any loss of income
I do not expect any public sector workers to loss their jobs, but on the other hand the private sector are looking at millions of job loses
I doubt many members of the public really appreciate the shear mountain of debt and long term economic damage being built up during this crisis that will have to result in higher taxes for everybody for many decades.
Tragic and costly that the government didn’t act sooner.
As I said at the time, politically smart, but this is intellectually dishonest.
I'm not sure how you arrived at that. Seems to me to be accurate in every particular
It won't help him. I predict that Johnson will be back at 50% in the polls within a week. The public will accept that he has tried his best to avoid a lockdown but he had to succumb. And Starmer's attempts to criticise will be characterised as sniping. It'll be like the last 6 months never happened.
British public will support government measures just imposed. But methinks they will NOT be thanking Boris Johnson OR the Tory Party. Cursing is more like it.
Comments
There was always going to be a second wave. Maybe even a third. Spanish flu told us that. We have saved lives, saved jobs in the first wave. We'll do the same in the second. What's the alternative - just let it rip?
Its safer to do that for 4hrs than going anywhere near a shop or even going to the park.
If the GOP are permitted to appeal they should be allowed to do so
And they don’t have some public service obligation to undertake legal cases that are not to their benefit. Presumably the Dems could easily use the result to get emergency injunctions in other counties
Spanish flu is different type of virus.
"Making absolute statements of certainty about ‘ second waves’ is unwise, given the current substantial uncertainties and novelty of the evidence."
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-epidemic-waves/#:~:text=The second or third waves,or probable by modelling studies.&text=History is littered with references to respiratory virus pandemics or serious epidemics.&text=These ten outbreaks start with,end with the current pandemic.
https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-reports-of-kate-bingham-head-of-governments-vaccine-taskforce-saying-that-not-everyone-will-be-vaccinated/
The Sunday Times article mentions that she had been talking to venture capitalists, investors about CV19 vaccines. How far should eyebrows be raised, but it might have been wiser if she had turned down the invitation given her new role.
So if they are back to banning all outdoor sports it really is back to the situation in March/April. 8 months of going around in circles and getting nowhere.
Source I just checked says House receives and tallies EVs for 2020 Presidential on January 6, 2021.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11641#:~:text=December 14, 2020: Electors Vote,meeting is on December 14.
It's all he ever does.
Kate Bingham may be all that @Charles describes but a lot of care needs to be taken about sharing sensitive and potentially price sensitive information such as this in such a way. Did anyone think about this and provide some guidance about what is or is not appropriate?
And that should equally apply in both Republican and Democratic leaning areas
But it doesn’t mean the GOP has an obligation to file lawsuits in GOP leaning areas
https://svhealthinvestors.com/people/kate-bingham
Yup, Keir Starmer has played a political masterstroke, the best leader of the opposition since Blair (not a high bar, I will give my detractors that)
And is it correct I can walk around a golf course but cannot do so while playing golf ?
Put together with rapid testing done locally and it almost certainly would control any outbreak.
But... zoos will shut. It's just a few animals, isn't it?
If he had said we need another lockdown that will last at least a month, that would be more reasonable....but will come with huge economic cost.
But as you prove, he has won the politics, even though those of us who have a grasp on the mathematical modelling presented by SAGE plus the science of this virus means 2 weeks was not some simple easy decision that definitely would have resulted in any real gains.
But that is what it appears is being done here. Added to which the judge should recuse himself from ruling in order to avoid the appearance of bias, another basic principle common to common and civil law jurisdictions.
If neither of these two happen then it is simply an attempt to cheat the electorate of their votes and steal an election by foul means.
Huge numbers are public sector or local authority employees or are pensioners all of whom have no financial penalties by staying at home, while the private sector is decimated, along with the tax revenues that go a long way to paying for the public sector
Big tax rises are coming down the line for everyone
Let’s hope that in the middle of all this nothing happens to disrupt any medical supplies and drugs we need to import, eh! They couldn’t take the skin off a rice pudding.
If you have some, please share.
We have to go to the stables daily in Winter to feed the horses. Has the government banned it ?
Plus the closure of such stables is a blow for those who work with disabled children and adults who get a lot from interacting with and riding horses.
"It is your patriotic duty to go to the pub" quipped Johnson. Now he has promptly closed them all.
They are guaranteed their jobs and pensions and as with pensioners will not see any loss of income
I do not expect any public sector workers to loss their jobs, but on the other hand the private sector are looking at millions of job loses
This isn't just a matter of get a vaccine in a few months, job done, back to normal everybody, nothing to see. This is worse than 2008.
It is Covid non-compliance central.