Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

The big challenge with Farage’s anti-lock down party is that just 15% share that view – politicalbet

SystemSystem Posts: 11,014
edited November 2020 in General
imageThe big challenge with Farage’s anti-lock down party is that just 15% share that view – politicalbetting.com

Latest polling conducted by Savanta ComRes , afte Johnson’s announcement, shows strong support for new four-week lockdown. Almost three quarters say they support the measures (72%), with just 15% saying that they oppose them.

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • Options
    BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556
    Not to mention that no party in the land will be running on a pro-lockdown platform in 2024.

    Let's see what Farage's magic touch does for Donald Trump, the ultimate anti-lockdowner. I suspect the results won't be pretty...
  • Options
    Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1323029556828188672

    He simply cannot give bad news. The wrong PM for the wrong time.

    I'm sure he will "seek" to go back to regional lockdowns and ease restrictions. And then Hancock and the modellers will pull another set of grim stats out from their briefcases.

    Like I said earlier, this misery is going on until next Summer.
  • Options
    Farage is Trumpesque and will go the way of his hero will on Tuesday
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,127
    72% Government approval. It's almost like 2020 never happened.
  • Options
    Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    edited November 2020
    On topic: widespread economic collapse has yet to occur. Toleration for endless lockdowns may start to fray at the edges when millions of people are trying and failing to feed their kids and pay the mortgage off Universal Credit.

    EDIT: this is a general observation, not an endorsement of the old blusterer. Though FWIW, absent a vaccine that can be deployed in very large quantities very very quickly, which we do not have, the latest lockdown is merely a classic example of (exorbitantly costly) can kicking.
  • Options
    BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556

    72% Government approval. It's almost like 2020 never happened.

    It's almost like 72% of the public aren't mewling infants.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961

    72% Government approval. It's almost like 2020 never happened.

    That's not government approval. That's approval of a single policy.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,911
    edited November 2020
    Reminds me of the countless pre referendum, pre 2015 GE headers where we were told no one was interested in the EU according to the polls, so Farage was wasting his time

    In this case, I would think that nerdy, socially inept stay at homes, who would rather not go out in crowds ever, are ridiculously over represented in the sample
  • Options

    72% Government approval. It's almost like 2020 never happened.

    Not sure that relates to HMG approval but more approval for lockdowns
  • Options
    ComRes does also say that most agree this has come too late. Regardless, I would be in the support camp and I hate the Government.

    I wonder where the polls will go over the next few weeks, we've had our first larger Labour lead, was it just an outlier?
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,538
    edited November 2020
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,326
    O/T I wanted to thank AndyJS (I think) for drawing attention to DNA (Danish, subtitles), running on BBC4/iplayer. I've seen the first 3 and it's becoming as engrossing as The Bridge. It's also much more multinational, with a lot of the dialogue in English, with Charlotte Rampling superb as a veteran French detective, offering suave elegance and intelligence as a counterpoint to the rumpled but dogged Danish hero. A subplot involves abortion and Catholicism in Poland, so there's some Polish subtitled scenes too.
  • Options
    What's the real agenda for this new party?

    Anti-lockdown might really take off, but it only has any kind of medium term appeal if there is no vaccine next spring and we are still in Johnson's lockdown/unlockdown repeating trap.

    More likely Farage will seek to use the hurt and anxiety around the economic depression that is coming to cause trouble.

  • Options
    isam said:

    Reminds me of the countless pre referendum, pre 2015 GE headers where we were told no one was interested in the EU according to the polls, so Farage was wasting his time

    In this case, I would think that nerdy, socially inept stay at homes, who would rather not go out in crowds ever, are ridiculously over represented in the sample

    I'm certainly not underestimating him.

    With the shit coming down the tracks economically, he could be PM in 2024 on the back of real and widespread anger against the entire political class.

  • Options

    Farage is Trumpesque and will go the way of his hero will on Tuesday

    A fear you are very wrong. I hope you aren't.
  • Options
    Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    What's the real agenda for this new party?

    Anti-lockdown might really take off, but it only has any kind of medium term appeal if there is no vaccine next spring and we are still in Johnson's lockdown/unlockdown repeating trap.

    More likely Farage will seek to use the hurt and anxiety around the economic depression that is coming to cause trouble.

    Well, we are going back to the 1930s, after all.

    I mean, if we're lucky. It could be even worse.
  • Options
    Don't underestimate Farage though, we have got to watch him
  • Options
    One interesting thing will be whether Farage suddenly gets invited onto endless news programmes and Question Time events whereas to date the Beeb have kept those science voices against endless lockdowns to a minimum.

  • Options
    I've just found the DuckDuckGo Browser which works wonderfully and fast with PB on my Android phone. it loads the comments almost instantly - that is totally different from my experience on Chrome and other more established browsers
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    edited November 2020
    Trump is a political opportunist. He smells votes in fear and anger.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607

    If lockdown-lite (i.e. lockdown but with education open) doesn't work then keeping it going until the Christmas holidays start will make it full-fat lockdown by default. And we know that that works, as long as we have the same level of compliance as last time.

    1. *IF* there's the same level of compliance
    2. *IF* it continues all the way until the Summer (because when you stop you go into another cycle of panic about rising cases after approximately seven minutes)
    3. *IF* a large fraction of the population doesn't starve to death in the meantime, because so many people are out of work and destitute that the state can no longer afford to stuff all their mouths with food anymore. The fact that the Treasury won't so much as cave to the Marcus Rashford school meals campaign anymore is telling

    Apart from that, lockdown is a fantastic solution.
    That is a particularly stupid post.

    - We had about 10 weeks of lockdown followed by a period of 17 weeks (not 7 minutes) of no lockdown; lockdown will not continue all the way to summer, even under the mismanagement of this inpet government.
    - No one is starving.
    - The state can continue to borrow cheap money and/or print money for the foreseeable.
    - The economic consequences of no lock-down are likely to be worse given the case numbers, hospital overload and deaths would continue to rise.
    To the extent that lockdown measures worked (temporarily) earlier this year, then it's almost certainly because of high levels of terror/emotional blackmail driven compliance, which also involved large numbers of terrified people dying at home instead of seeking medical attention, and because it ran very conveniently into one of the warmest Springs on record. This time people are variously despondent, sceptical and sick to death of the whole thing and we have shitty Winter to deal with.

    No one is starving yet, because we've not had the tsunami wave of unemployment which is bound to be caused by months and months of continuous or cyclical lockdowns. Large swathes of the economy are already critically weakened, and business confidence will be absolutely zero in sectors like hospitality because nobody knows how long they will be shuttered for or when future restrictions will be reimposed yet again. Do you trust the Government to lift restrictions by December 2nd? Does anyone? If they do then will they be lifted fully, or partially, or everywhere, or only in certain places? And when will the third, fourth and fifth lockdowns occur?

    We have to seriously question how many hundreds of billions of pounds of debt the Government can continue to rack up - and we could easily be talking another half-a-trillion if it tries to prop all the affected sectors and workers right through until Summer - before the markets stop lending, and the fact that it all then has to be borrowed through QE makes it obvious that the state is effectively being financed directly through the printing press. And what then?

    The lunatic forecasts of the trajectory of this disease are probably incorrect - the infamous Vallance graph was total bollocks; the North-East council leaders were begging not to be put into Tier 3 before this all went to shit because they believed Tier 2 to be working, and so forth. There is no particular reason to believe that the doomsday scenarios which have sent the Government into panic mode are right. And in any event, quite how we are meant to sustain a functioning healthcare system against a background of massive unemployment is quite beyond me. Slightly less than half the total population was in any kind of work even before this all kicked off, the remainder being kids, students, the retired, the unemployed and the economically inactive (the severely disabled, stay-at-home mummies and so on.) Move an extra six or seven million from the working column into the dependent on handouts column and we've had it.
    Vallance was predicting 50K cases a week by mid October and according to the ONS he probably wasn't far off that even with the Tier system.
    That's not true, he was predicting 50k reported cases based on a 7 day doubling time of reported cases. We're currently at around 18k cases per day on that measure, not 50k. The graph was cases testing positive by reporting day, not the ONS study which uses population sampling and catches asymptomatic cases.

    Anyway, it was a graph intended to scare the public into supporting a lockdown just as the laughable ones we saw yesterday and the claims of 4,000 deaths per day. It was a news conference of lies and phantom statistical modelling.
  • Options
    Did we do the latest Ralston update on NV?
    If you look at the math below, it already was very difficult for Trump. Now he has less of a chance to win than he does of getting a gaming license in Nevada.
    https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/the-early-voting-blog-3
  • Options

    What's the real agenda for this new party?

    Anti-lockdown might really take off, but it only has any kind of medium term appeal if there is no vaccine next spring and we are still in Johnson's lockdown/unlockdown repeating trap.

    More likely Farage will seek to use the hurt and anxiety around the economic depression that is coming to cause trouble.

    Well, we are going back to the 1930s, after all.

    I mean, if we're lucky. It could be even worse.
    Yep. I am feeling very @eadric about the next few years. I reckon you have to be in your 50s to have any idea what economic chaos feels like.
  • Options
    solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,623
    What's the percentage of people who are anti-lockdown but couldn't bear to vote for Farage in any circumstance?
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,538

    I've just found the DuckDuckGo Browser which works wonderfully and fast with PB on my Android phone. it loads the comments almost instantly - that is totally different from my experience on Chrome and other more established browsers

    I thought it was just a search engine. Wasn't aware it was a browser as well.
  • Options

    I've just found the DuckDuckGo Browser which works wonderfully and fast with PB on my Android phone. it loads the comments almost instantly - that is totally different from my experience on Chrome and other more established browsers

    Oh. Thanks. I will have a look. Didn't know they had a browser.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/11/01/death-scenarios-used-government-justify-second-national-lockdown/

    "The modelling presented on Saturday night, which suggests deaths could reach 4,000 a day by December, is so out-of-date that it suggests daily deaths are now around 1,000 a day.

    In fact, the daily average for the last week is 260, with a figure of 162 yesterday.

    And the statistics unit at Cambridge University has produced far more up-to-date projections, with far lower figures, the Telegraph can reveal.

    These forecasts, dated October 28 - three days before the Downing Street announcement - far more closely track the current situation, forecasting 240 daily deaths by next week, and around 500 later this month. "

    It was a press conference of lies. We're going into a lockdown based on nothing but lies and out of date data models.

    None of these scientists will ever have to live with the consequences of their decisions. Millions of people are facing desperate circumstances while they lie to the public and scare everyone into supporting unnecessary measures. They are a disgrace.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,717
    RobD said:

    72% Government approval. It's almost like 2020 never happened.

    That's not government approval. That's approval of a single policy.
    Yes, but it's worth bearing in mind that while more people seem angry about going into lockdown, and probably more blaming the government now, that doesn't translate directly into people opposing lockdown as Farage and others imply.
  • Options

    I've just found the DuckDuckGo Browser which works wonderfully and fast with PB on my Android phone. it loads the comments almost instantly - that is totally different from my experience on Chrome and other more established browsers

    Does it by any chance block Twitter posts? If it has a built in ad blocker I suspect that's what it's doing.

    You can use something like Brave on the desktop as well, or add a custom filter to block Twitter posts.

    @TSE again I ask, can you not just disable Twitter post replacement?
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,717

    I've just found the DuckDuckGo Browser which works wonderfully and fast with PB on my Android phone. it loads the comments almost instantly - that is totally different from my experience on Chrome and other more established browsers

    That name is so early 2000 'edgy' coolness.
  • Options
    DuckDuckGo Browser is I believe based on Chromium on the rendering side but will likely incorporate its own ad blocking.

    I suspect if you installed any browser with ad blocking you would find this website works a lot better, as I do.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,717

    isam said:

    Reminds me of the countless pre referendum, pre 2015 GE headers where we were told no one was interested in the EU according to the polls, so Farage was wasting his time

    In this case, I would think that nerdy, socially inept stay at homes, who would rather not go out in crowds ever, are ridiculously over represented in the sample

    I'm certainly not underestimating him.

    With the shit coming down the tracks economically, he could be PM in 2024 on the back of real and widespread anger against the entire political class.

    Anything is possible, but I feel like people always have widespread anger at the political class, and it doesn't stop us voting for them. Nor are we more apathetic about doing so since turnout is well up on 20 years ago, albeit nowhere near what it was like in the 80s and 90s.
  • Options
    Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    What's the real agenda for this new party?

    Anti-lockdown might really take off, but it only has any kind of medium term appeal if there is no vaccine next spring and we are still in Johnson's lockdown/unlockdown repeating trap.

    More likely Farage will seek to use the hurt and anxiety around the economic depression that is coming to cause trouble.

    Well, we are going back to the 1930s, after all.

    I mean, if we're lucky. It could be even worse.
    Yep. I am feeling very @eadric about the next few years. I reckon you have to be in your 50s to have any idea what economic chaos feels like.
    Indeed, and we have two lockdown parties. Labour's USP on the crisis is that it would lock people up even harder and for even longer than the hopeless Tories, presumably sustained by even more borrowing than the hopeless Tories.

    The risk for Starmer is that, when this all goes to shit, he doesn't look like the competent alternative to Boris, but as an enthusiastic collaborator who's largely indistinguishable on policy.

    I don't think that my estimate of eight million unemployed by Easter is at all unrealistic. It's just where you get if you bulldoze some sectors, notably hospitality and the arts, and halve employment in retail. There'll be an awful lot of angry, destitute people ready to consider, if you'll forgive the allusion, voting for a "plague on all their houses" party.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,952
    edited November 2020

    One interesting thing will be whether Farage suddenly gets invited onto endless news programmes and Question Time events whereas to date the Beeb have kept those science voices against endless lockdowns to a minimum.

    Are you saying Farage would be a "science voice?"
    I mean he is a skilled politician, amongst other things, but I doubt he would even claim that.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607
    MikeL said:

    We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.

    How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?

    Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.

    Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.

    The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".

    The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.

    And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.

    No, the lockdown polling is a load of crap. Lockdown is for other people. Everyone wants other people to lockdown and believes other people should do it, the 72% support is for everyone else do do it.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607

    MikeL said:

    We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.

    How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?

    Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.

    Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.

    The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".

    The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.

    And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.

    What I find particularly odd is the idea the scientists are trying to justify a lockdown by making up the numbers.

    Why would they want to do that? Sounds a bit tinfoil hat for me
    Well we know that the Cambridge 4,000 deaths per day model is out of date and the current projection is for a peak of 1,000 deaths per day as produced on the 28th of October. You fell for it Horse, the scientists scared you into submission with their scary graphs of lies.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,717
    MikeL said:


    Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.

    Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.

    I think this is key. Fair enough to oppose it, fair enough to think the whole response has been an absolute shambles from start to finish, but any traipsing into 'the people won't stand for it' stuff just isn't backed up by what we are seeing. Doesn't make it right, but no cause is aided by pretending it has more support than it does.

    And while I certainly think questions around the data and how it is inpreted are absolutely fair game, the implication from some appears to be that top level latest analysis data should be public domain to be debated by the public before anything happens, and that just doesn't seem viable. They're scrambling around as it is without literally making policy in real time.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,717
    MaxPB said:

    MikeL said:

    We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.

    How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?

    Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.

    Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.

    The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".

    The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.

    And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.

    No, the lockdown polling is a load of crap. Lockdown is for other people. Everyone wants other people to lockdown and believes other people should do it, the 72% support is for everyone else do do it.
    What motivation do you think they have to tell lies? What is in it for them?
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    MaxPB said:

    MikeL said:

    We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.

    How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?

    Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.

    Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.

    The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".

    The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.

    And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.

    No, the lockdown polling is a load of crap. Lockdown is for other people. Everyone wants other people to lockdown and believes other people should do it, the 72% support is for everyone else do do it.
    I am not sure that’s true. There is a sense of safety and security in a lockdown. That’s attractive to many.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,485
    Voter intimidation by ‘law enforcement’ in NC yesterday.

    https://twitter.com/will_doran/status/1322609416173244416
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,717
    MaxPB said:

    MikeL said:

    We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.

    How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?

    Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.

    Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.

    The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".

    The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.

    And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.

    No, the lockdown polling is a load of crap. Lockdown is for other people. Everyone wants other people to lockdown and believes other people should do it, the 72% support is for everyone else do do it.
    I think jonathan as the right of it on this one. The figure is too high, and in general there is too much compliance (albeit frayed in places), for most of those who say they support it to be talking out their arse. Some, no doubt, but I think we'd see a lot more disconnect between action and words, for instance in areas with higher restrictions these past weeks, if it was a significant number talking nonsense.
  • Options
    In honor of all you hard-fisted punters out there in PB-land:

    THE GAMBLER
    Don Schlitz (and made famous by Kenny Rogers)

    On a warm summer's evening
    On a train bound for nowhere
    I met up with the gambler
    We were both too tired to sleep

    So we took turns a-starin'
    Out the window at the darkness
    The boredom overtook us
    And he began to speak

    He said, "on, I've made a life
    Out of readin' people's faces
    Knowin' what the cards were
    By the way they held their eyes

    So if you don't mind my sayin'
    I can see you're out of aces
    For a taste of your whiskey
    I'll give you some advice"

    So I handed him my bottle
    And he drank down my last swallow
    Then he bummed a cigarette
    And asked me for a light

    And the night got deathly quiet
    And his face lost all expression
    Said, If you're gonna play the game, boy
    You gotta learn to play it right

    You've got to know when to hold 'em
    Know when to fold 'em
    Know when to walk away
    And know when to run
    You never count your money
    When you're sittin' at the table
    There'll be time enough for countin'
    When the dealin's done

    Every gambler knows
    That the secret to survivin'
    Is knowin' what to throw away
    And knowin' what to keep

    Cause every hand's a winner
    And every hand's a loser
    And the best that you can hope for
    Is to die in your sleep

    And when he'd finished speakin'
    He turned back toward the window
    Crushed out his cigarette
    Faded off to sleep

    And somewhere in the darkness
    The gambler he broke even
    But in his final words
    I found an ace that I could keep

    You've got to know when to hold 'em
    Know when to fold 'em
    Know when to walk away
    And know when to run
    You never count your money
    When you're sittin' at the table
    There'll be time enough for countin'
    When the dealin's done
  • Options
    Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    MikeL said:

    We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.

    How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?

    Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.

    Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.

    The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".

    The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.

    And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.

    Something like 40% of the adult population doesn't go to work, including all the pensioners of course, and a large portion of the remainder work in the public sector. Most of them will be feeling safe. Many more private sector workers are still labouring under the illusion that they'll be kept on furlough and have viable jobs to go back to in whatever decade this is finally over.

    Support for lockdown will decrease in line with the numbers of workers being sacked.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607
    kle4 said:

    MaxPB said:

    MikeL said:

    We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.

    How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?

    Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.

    Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.

    The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".

    The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.

    And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.

    No, the lockdown polling is a load of crap. Lockdown is for other people. Everyone wants other people to lockdown and believes other people should do it, the 72% support is for everyone else do do it.
    What motivation do you think they have to tell lies? What is in it for them?
    They aren't lying, lockdown is for everyone else they support it for other people. My sister is a great example of it "yeah it's probably a good thing" next sentence "you're still coming for dinner next Sunday, right?"
  • Options
    MaxPB said:

    MikeL said:

    We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.

    How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?

    Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.

    Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.

    The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".

    The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.

    And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.

    What I find particularly odd is the idea the scientists are trying to justify a lockdown by making up the numbers.

    Why would they want to do that? Sounds a bit tinfoil hat for me
    Well we know that the Cambridge 4,000 deaths per day model is out of date and the current projection is for a peak of 1,000 deaths per day as produced on the 28th of October. You fell for it Horse, the scientists scared you into submission with their scary graphs of lies.
    But for what purpose? To get a lockdown? Why would they want a lockdown for no reason, the motivation to do so is what?

    You're sounding a bit tinfoil hat there Max.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607
    edited November 2020

    MaxPB said:

    MikeL said:

    We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.

    How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?

    Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.

    Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.

    The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".

    The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.

    And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.

    What I find particularly odd is the idea the scientists are trying to justify a lockdown by making up the numbers.

    Why would they want to do that? Sounds a bit tinfoil hat for me
    Well we know that the Cambridge 4,000 deaths per day model is out of date and the current projection is for a peak of 1,000 deaths per day as produced on the 28th of October. You fell for it Horse, the scientists scared you into submission with their scary graphs of lies.
    But for what purpose? To get a lockdown? Why would they want a lockdown for no reason, the motivation to do so is what?

    You're sounding a bit tinfoil hat there Max.
    Because they are true believers in lockdown. It's become an article of faith for them, why else would they make all the graphs use outdated numbers and simply ignore that Scotland, NI and two regions of England have got R below 1?
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,717
    MaxPB said:

    kle4 said:

    MaxPB said:

    MikeL said:

    We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.

    How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?

    Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.

    Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.

    The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".

    The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.

    And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.

    No, the lockdown polling is a load of crap. Lockdown is for other people. Everyone wants other people to lockdown and believes other people should do it, the 72% support is for everyone else do do it.
    What motivation do you think they have to tell lies? What is in it for them?
    They aren't lying, lockdown is for everyone else they support it for other people. My sister is a great example of it "yeah it's probably a good thing" next sentence "you're still coming for dinner next Sunday, right?"
    No, why do you think the scientists are lying? What is in it for them?
  • Options
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MikeL said:

    We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.

    How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?

    Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.

    Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.

    The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".

    The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.

    And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.

    What I find particularly odd is the idea the scientists are trying to justify a lockdown by making up the numbers.

    Why would they want to do that? Sounds a bit tinfoil hat for me
    Well we know that the Cambridge 4,000 deaths per day model is out of date and the current projection is for a peak of 1,000 deaths per day as produced on the 28th of October. You fell for it Horse, the scientists scared you into submission with their scary graphs of lies.
    But for what purpose? To get a lockdown? Why would they want a lockdown for no reason, the motivation to do so is what?

    You're sounding a bit tinfoil hat there Max.
    Because they are true believers in lockdown. It's become an article of faith for them, why else would they make all the graphs use outdated numbers and simply ignore that Scotland, NI and two regions of England have for R below 1?
    But for what endgame, please just answer the question.

    They get their lockdown, what do they want the lockdown for? To blow up the country? Cause jobs to be lost and homelessness? Get rid of the Tories?

    What for?!?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,938

    On topic: widespread economic collapse has yet to occur. Toleration for endless lockdowns may start to fray at the edges when millions of people are trying and failing to feed their kids and pay the mortgage off Universal Credit.

    EDIT: this is a general observation, not an endorsement of the old blusterer. Though FWIW, absent a vaccine that can be deployed in very large quantities very very quickly, which we do not have, the latest lockdown is merely a classic example of (exorbitantly costly) can kicking.

    You do realize that places without government lockdowns still have de facto lockdowns, right?
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited November 2020

    MikeL said:

    We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.

    How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?

    Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.

    Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.

    The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".

    The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.

    And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.

    What I find particularly odd is the idea the scientists are trying to justify a lockdown by making up the numbers.

    Why would they want to do that? Sounds a bit tinfoil hat for me
    They haven't made up numbers, they have carefully selected them. Same as the "not a prediction" chart, that was PR exercise over science.

    I did point out earlier the two crucial charts were off. The strange shape of the error bands for deaths and hospital admissions from today forward. Either the model of models is totally unable to make any predictions or something else. Now we now what they did, they took the old model numbers and tacked them on.

    Again PR exercise over science.
  • Options
    Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    MikeL said:

    We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.

    How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?

    Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.

    Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.

    The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".

    The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.

    And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.

    What I find particularly odd is the idea the scientists are trying to justify a lockdown by making up the numbers.

    Why would they want to do that? Sounds a bit tinfoil hat for me
    I don't think it's malicious. The projections just aren't very good, that's all. Made based on long lists of assumptions which may or may not be borne out in real life.

    The problem is, because they're by scientists they are treated as fact, rather than not particularly reliable or accurate guesses.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,717

    MikeL said:

    We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.

    How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?

    Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.

    Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.

    The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".

    The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.

    And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.

    Something like 40% of the adult population doesn't go to work, including all the pensioners of course, and a large portion of the remainder work in the public sector. Most of them will be feeling safe. Many more private sector workers are still labouring under the illusion that they'll be kept on furlough and have viable jobs to go back to in whatever decade this is finally over.

    Support for lockdown will decrease in line with the numbers of workers being sacked.
    I honestly never expected the support to be high enough that the governments were confident enough to have second lockdowns. Whether it is because Western Europe has done such a bad job of handling things that people are patiently accepting everything, by and large, one cannot argue we're in the midst of massive uprising against things.

    Farage, though, is trying to get ahead of the game, since as you say support for lockdown will likely decrease, and he's waiting for that to come to him.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607
    kle4 said:

    MaxPB said:

    kle4 said:

    MaxPB said:

    MikeL said:

    We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.

    How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?

    Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.

    Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.

    The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".

    The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.

    And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.

    No, the lockdown polling is a load of crap. Lockdown is for other people. Everyone wants other people to lockdown and believes other people should do it, the 72% support is for everyone else do do it.
    What motivation do you think they have to tell lies? What is in it for them?
    They aren't lying, lockdown is for everyone else they support it for other people. My sister is a great example of it "yeah it's probably a good thing" next sentence "you're still coming for dinner next Sunday, right?"
    No, why do you think the scientists are lying? What is in it for them?
    In all honesty, they fear the investigation. They are arse covering because if deaths go up to 800 per day this winter the investigation will look at what advice they gave and be asked a lot of uncomfortable questions. They won't be asked questions about the consequences of lockdown, it will be the fault of the politicians.

    As many have stated before me, there is no loss for them to play it ultra cautious because they don't carry the can for consequences of lockdown but they do for virus deaths.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited November 2020

    MikeL said:

    We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.

    How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?

    Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.

    Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.

    The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".

    The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.

    And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.

    What I find particularly odd is the idea the scientists are trying to justify a lockdown by making up the numbers.

    Why would they want to do that? Sounds a bit tinfoil hat for me
    I don't think it's malicious. The projections just aren't very good, that's all. Made based on long lists of assumptions which may or may not be borne out in real life.

    The problem is, because they're by scientists they are treated as fact, rather than not particularly reliable or accurate guesses.
    No, in this case it absolutely isn't "projections aren't very good". They have been misleading. Slides 4 and 5. They have took old numbers that look worse and hacked off the out of date part and shown the output of the model based of much older numbers, hence the large uncertainty, because predictions for today weren't pumped out of the model a couple of days ago.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/931775/Slides_to_accompany_coronavirus_press_conference-_CSA-__31_October_2020.pdf

    This is deliberately misleading the public, when they know they have much more update to modelling numbers. Question is, did Boris and Co know this?
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,717

    MikeL said:

    We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.

    How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?

    Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.

    Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.

    The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".

    The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.

    And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.

    What I find particularly odd is the idea the scientists are trying to justify a lockdown by making up the numbers.

    Why would they want to do that? Sounds a bit tinfoil hat for me
    I don't think it's malicious. The projections just aren't very good, that's all. Made based on long lists of assumptions which may or may not be borne out in real life.

    The problem is, because they're by scientists they are treated as fact, rather than not particularly reliable or accurate guesses.
    It was persuasively argued months ago that the government cannot delegate its responsibilty to make judgement calls informed by the science, and that the science may not be perfect even when very good is surely part of that. But I have some sympathy for any government plotting a path, as deviate from what might be layered, complex and caveated advice and things go badly and you are screwed, whereas if you follow it and things still go bad you also get screwed as people will say why did you blindly follow the science, and it is hard to prove that you achieved something.

    We've seen it with both waves in the initial denials that there would be waves.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MikeL said:

    We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.

    How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?

    Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.

    Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.

    The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".

    The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.

    And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.

    What I find particularly odd is the idea the scientists are trying to justify a lockdown by making up the numbers.

    Why would they want to do that? Sounds a bit tinfoil hat for me
    Well we know that the Cambridge 4,000 deaths per day model is out of date and the current projection is for a peak of 1,000 deaths per day as produced on the 28th of October. You fell for it Horse, the scientists scared you into submission with their scary graphs of lies.
    But for what purpose? To get a lockdown? Why would they want a lockdown for no reason, the motivation to do so is what?

    You're sounding a bit tinfoil hat there Max.
    Because they are true believers in lockdown. It's become an article of faith for them, why else would they make all the graphs use outdated numbers and simply ignore that Scotland, NI and two regions of England have for R below 1?
    But for what endgame, please just answer the question.

    They get their lockdown, what do they want the lockdown for? To blow up the country? Cause jobs to be lost and homelessness? Get rid of the Tories?

    What for?!?
    Answered just now, arse covering.
  • Options
    Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    kle4 said:

    MikeL said:

    We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.

    How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?

    Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.

    Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.

    The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".

    The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.

    And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.

    Something like 40% of the adult population doesn't go to work, including all the pensioners of course, and a large portion of the remainder work in the public sector. Most of them will be feeling safe. Many more private sector workers are still labouring under the illusion that they'll be kept on furlough and have viable jobs to go back to in whatever decade this is finally over.

    Support for lockdown will decrease in line with the numbers of workers being sacked.
    I honestly never expected the support to be high enough that the governments were confident enough to have second lockdowns. Whether it is because Western Europe has done such a bad job of handling things that people are patiently accepting everything, by and large, one cannot argue we're in the midst of massive uprising against things.

    Farage, though, is trying to get ahead of the game, since as you say support for lockdown will likely decrease, and he's waiting for that to come to him.
    Precisely. Getting ready to capitalise on the blast wave of destruction that's rolling towards us, and most of the public simply hasn't noticed because of Rishi Sunak's largesse - which can't last forever.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,717

    Deleted -- pointless idle speculation.

    Tougher standards from decrepiterJohnL than for many.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,717
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MikeL said:

    We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.

    How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?

    Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.

    Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.

    The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".

    The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.

    And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.

    What I find particularly odd is the idea the scientists are trying to justify a lockdown by making up the numbers.

    Why would they want to do that? Sounds a bit tinfoil hat for me
    Well we know that the Cambridge 4,000 deaths per day model is out of date and the current projection is for a peak of 1,000 deaths per day as produced on the 28th of October. You fell for it Horse, the scientists scared you into submission with their scary graphs of lies.
    But for what purpose? To get a lockdown? Why would they want a lockdown for no reason, the motivation to do so is what?

    You're sounding a bit tinfoil hat there Max.
    Because they are true believers in lockdown. It's become an article of faith for them, why else would they make all the graphs use outdated numbers and simply ignore that Scotland, NI and two regions of England have for R below 1?
    But for what endgame, please just answer the question.

    They get their lockdown, what do they want the lockdown for? To blow up the country? Cause jobs to be lost and homelessness? Get rid of the Tories?

    What for?!?
    Answered just now, arse covering.
    Lying, as you have accused them, and apparently so blatantly it has been spotted instantly, does not cover their arses at all, it exposes them completely, so your logic makes not the slightest bit of sense.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,547
    edited November 2020
    FYI, note that last night the United States switched from Daylight Savings Time to Standard Time (except in a few regions including entire State of Arizona that do not observe DST)>

    Spring forward - Fall back. So we (or most of us in US) just fell back, so what is now 3.30pm PST today was 4.30 PDT yesterday.

    So on the Left Coast we are now 17 hours behind Tokyo, 8 hours behind London, 3 hours behind New York, 2 hours behind Chicago, 1 hour behind Denver.

    We've clearly got a LOT of catching up to do . . .
  • Options
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MikeL said:

    We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.

    How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?

    Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.

    Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.

    The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".

    The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.

    And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.

    What I find particularly odd is the idea the scientists are trying to justify a lockdown by making up the numbers.

    Why would they want to do that? Sounds a bit tinfoil hat for me
    Well we know that the Cambridge 4,000 deaths per day model is out of date and the current projection is for a peak of 1,000 deaths per day as produced on the 28th of October. You fell for it Horse, the scientists scared you into submission with their scary graphs of lies.
    But for what purpose? To get a lockdown? Why would they want a lockdown for no reason, the motivation to do so is what?

    You're sounding a bit tinfoil hat there Max.
    Because they are true believers in lockdown. It's become an article of faith for them, why else would they make all the graphs use outdated numbers and simply ignore that Scotland, NI and two regions of England have for R below 1?
    But for what endgame, please just answer the question.

    They get their lockdown, what do they want the lockdown for? To blow up the country? Cause jobs to be lost and homelessness? Get rid of the Tories?

    What for?!?
    Answered just now, arse covering.
    You sound unhinged Max and normally I have a great deal of time for you as you know.
  • Options
    solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,623
    kle4 said:

    MaxPB said:

    MikeL said:

    We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.

    How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?

    Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.

    Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.

    The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".

    The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.

    And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.

    No, the lockdown polling is a load of crap. Lockdown is for other people. Everyone wants other people to lockdown and believes other people should do it, the 72% support is for everyone else do do it.
    What motivation do you think they have to tell lies? What is in it for them?
    Ask people how likely they are to self-isolate if they are told to versus the actual observed number of people who self-isolate when told to
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607

    MikeL said:

    We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.

    How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?

    Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.

    Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.

    The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".

    The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.

    And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.

    What I find particularly odd is the idea the scientists are trying to justify a lockdown by making up the numbers.

    Why would they want to do that? Sounds a bit tinfoil hat for me
    I don't think it's malicious. The projections just aren't very good, that's all. Made based on long lists of assumptions which may or may not be borne out in real life.

    The problem is, because they're by scientists they are treated as fact, rather than not particularly reliable or accurate guesses.
    They have been actively misleading the public with the latest graphs. Whitty literally lied about the R in NE England and glossed over it. The models are based on the R increasing again when the trend is downwards and maybe even falling below 1 in a majority of England at this point and definitely below 1 in NI and Scotland.

    They literally lied to the nation to get support for their lockdown. The dimwitted politicians might fall for it, anyone who works with data modelling can see right through them.
  • Options
    MaxPB said:

    MikeL said:

    We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.

    How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?

    Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.

    Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.

    The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".

    The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.

    And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.

    What I find particularly odd is the idea the scientists are trying to justify a lockdown by making up the numbers.

    Why would they want to do that? Sounds a bit tinfoil hat for me
    I don't think it's malicious. The projections just aren't very good, that's all. Made based on long lists of assumptions which may or may not be borne out in real life.

    The problem is, because they're by scientists they are treated as fact, rather than not particularly reliable or accurate guesses.
    They have been actively misleading the public with the latest graphs. Whitty literally lied about the R in NE England and glossed over it. The models are based on the R increasing again when the trend is downwards and maybe even falling below 1 in a majority of England at this point and definitely below 1 in NI and Scotland.

    They literally lied to the nation to get support for their lockdown. The dimwitted politicians might fall for it, anyone who works with data modelling can see right through them.
    I can't believe nobody even picked that up. There was a clear chart showing R falling in the NE...it isn't like the issue I spotted where you have to have some knowledge of what to expect from probabilistic models.
  • Options
    MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,286
    Forget all "data analysis" re number of deaths.

    The issue is actually about hospital capacity.

    The reason for the lockdown is quite simply that just about all experts say that without it we will run out of hospital capacity.

    It's as simple as that.
  • Options
    MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,286
    MaxPB said:

    MikeL said:

    We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.

    How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?

    Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.

    Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.

    The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".

    The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.

    And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.

    What I find particularly odd is the idea the scientists are trying to justify a lockdown by making up the numbers.

    Why would they want to do that? Sounds a bit tinfoil hat for me
    I don't think it's malicious. The projections just aren't very good, that's all. Made based on long lists of assumptions which may or may not be borne out in real life.

    The problem is, because they're by scientists they are treated as fact, rather than not particularly reliable or accurate guesses.
    They have been actively misleading the public with the latest graphs. Whitty literally lied about the R in NE England and glossed over it. The models are based on the R increasing again when the trend is downwards and maybe even falling below 1 in a majority of England at this point and definitely below 1 in NI and Scotland.

    They literally lied to the nation to get support for their lockdown. The dimwitted politicians might fall for it, anyone who works with data modelling can see right through them.
    No.

    It was said very clearly in the presentation that the R was falling.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited November 2020
    MikeL said:

    Forget all "data analysis" re number of deaths.

    The issue is actually about hospital capacity.

    The reason for the lockdown is quite simply that just about all experts say that without it we will run out of hospital capacity.

    It's as simple as that.

    The problem is when you start getting caught out lying, people start to wonder what else you might be fiddling. Didn't the MEN journalist find the claims about Manchester hospital numbers weren't verifiable. She keeps asking, they keep giving her different stories.

    I am not suggesting a massive tinfoil type thing, but the supposed straight shooting eggheads are deceiving the public in the way you expect of politicians, not scientists. Cherry picking the data, using a "not a prediction" chart which they know the dumb idiots in the media will spread as one.
  • Options
    eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,887

    Farage is Trumpesque and will go the way of his hero will on Tuesday

    Give Farage a job with a reality TV show, and infiltrate the establishment right of centre party, before making a bid for PM.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607
    MikeL said:

    MikeL said:

    We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.

    How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?

    Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.

    Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.

    The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".

    The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.

    And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.

    What I find particularly odd is the idea the scientists are trying to justify a lockdown by making up the numbers.

    Why would they want to do that? Sounds a bit tinfoil hat for me
    Indeed.

    At one point someone on here was suggesting that Boris was imposing a lockdown for the fun of it and because he got a kick out of it.

    I'm sorry but that sort of thinking is moving into complete fantasyland.

    The bottom line is that the vast, vast majority of scientists and medical experts think a lockdown isn't just necessary but that it is absolutely imperative.

    And in opposition to them we have some people, most of whom have no technical expertise at all in the subject, doing some amateur data manipulation in an attempt to justify the result that they want - based entirely on their notion of "freedom".
    Fuck off I have 6 years experience in ML based data modelling of financial markets. I actually do this for a living basically every day of my life at the moment. If anything it's the government scientists that are lacking in technical expertise, the main model is written in C and is very old and uses very old modelling techniques. Tech and banking is where data scientists all reside, not academia.

    Take a look at it this way. None of the data has been made available, the data models haven't been made available, they haven't been peer reviewed, that defies all basic scientific method. What are they trying to hide?
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,952
    kle4 said:

    Deleted -- pointless idle speculation.

    Tougher standards from decrepiterJohnL than for many.
    Yeah. Be pretty quiet here if we all took that attitude.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,326
    edited November 2020
    MaxPB said:


    No, the lockdown polling is a load of crap. Lockdown is for other people. Everyone wants other people to lockdown and believes other people should do it, the 72% support is for everyone else do do it.

    You know this how? Everyone I talk to says the same - "it's a nuisance but clearly we have to do it". I've not talked to anyone who plans to exempt themselves. People are still struggling to understand the rules, though - does "meeting 1 person not from your household outdoors" mean you can meet X on Monday and Y on Tuesday, or does it always need to be X (I think so, but it's not stated). And are people allowed to come to the UK to stay in one locked-down household, as a friend in Austria needs to know?

    You're right that the public isn't clear about an economic whirlwind coming, but I'm not sure anyone is. A lot of Britain is functioning online, and quite a bit of the non-online services are not really essential in the short term - eating out, having haircuts, etc.: if we don't do them, the industries will need support, but will the economy suffer lasting damage from that? What's needed is a mechanism to shift money from people who are working normally from home to support people who can't, and the furlough scheme plus, I assume, taxation down the line, will do that.

    What exactly do you expect? Gallopping inflation? Deep recession? Or what?

  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,538
    Sad news about Robert Fisk. One of the country's best journalists.
  • Options
    MaxPB said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/11/01/death-scenarios-used-government-justify-second-national-lockdown/

    "The modelling presented on Saturday night, which suggests deaths could reach 4,000 a day by December, is so out-of-date that it suggests daily deaths are now around 1,000 a day.

    In fact, the daily average for the last week is 260, with a figure of 162 yesterday.

    And the statistics unit at Cambridge University has produced far more up-to-date projections, with far lower figures, the Telegraph can reveal.

    These forecasts, dated October 28 - three days before the Downing Street announcement - far more closely track the current situation, forecasting 240 daily deaths by next week, and around 500 later this month. "

    It was a press conference of lies. We're going into a lockdown based on nothing but lies and out of date data models.

    None of these scientists will ever have to live with the consequences of their decisions. Millions of people are facing desperate circumstances while they lie to the public and scare everyone into supporting unnecessary measures. They are a disgrace.

    The Telegraph report was comprehensively trashed on the BBC this evening.

    In any profession you have to produce a range of outcomes. They are usually known as P90/P50/P10 in industry. The point being that the P90 and P10 ratios are at the extremes of what is likely - it is into that area that the 4000 a day will have fallen. But it was made clear that this was not the advice that the Government used to make its decisions. Rather it was looking at the P50 and what that would mean for the NHS. When your P50 is enough that you will run out of hospital beds at the beginning of December you don't even have to look at the extremes to know you have to do something radical.

    I do not know if the Lockdown is the right thing to do. Certainly if they don't have a plan in place to deal with the virus when we come out of lockdown in 4 weeks then all it will have done is delay the inevitable. But the Telegraph has long been part of the lunatic fringe when it comes to its Covid reporting and they have not shied away from misrepresenting both the scientists and the politicians when it suits their very partial agenda.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,952

    MaxPB said:

    MikeL said:

    We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.

    How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?

    Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.

    Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.

    The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".

    The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.

    And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.

    What I find particularly odd is the idea the scientists are trying to justify a lockdown by making up the numbers.

    Why would they want to do that? Sounds a bit tinfoil hat for me
    I don't think it's malicious. The projections just aren't very good, that's all. Made based on long lists of assumptions which may or may not be borne out in real life.

    The problem is, because they're by scientists they are treated as fact, rather than not particularly reliable or accurate guesses.
    They have been actively misleading the public with the latest graphs. Whitty literally lied about the R in NE England and glossed over it. The models are based on the R increasing again when the trend is downwards and maybe even falling below 1 in a majority of England at this point and definitely below 1 in NI and Scotland.

    They literally lied to the nation to get support for their lockdown. The dimwitted politicians might fall for it, anyone who works with data modelling can see right through them.
    I can't believe nobody even picked that up. There was a clear chart showing R falling in the NE...it isn't like the issue I spotted where you have to have some knowledge of what to expect from probabilistic models.
    You didn't even have to be that on the ball. It was all over the local press and TV all week.
    The impression left is that the South is now about to be hit. So it is now a serious issue which needed a national reesponse and phenomenal amounts of money chucked at it.
  • Options

    Don't underestimate Farage though, we have got to watch him

    He stood in Westminster elections/by-elections seven times, and failed every time!
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,911
    edited November 2020

    MaxPB said:

    MikeL said:

    We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.

    How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?

    Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.

    Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.

    The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".

    The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.

    And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.

    What I find particularly odd is the idea the scientists are trying to justify a lockdown by making up the numbers.

    Why would they want to do that? Sounds a bit tinfoil hat for me
    Well we know that the Cambridge 4,000 deaths per day model is out of date and the current projection is for a peak of 1,000 deaths per day as produced on the 28th of October. You fell for it Horse, the scientists scared you into submission with their scary graphs of lies.
    Actually, I find 1,000 deaths per day pretty scary.
    Every day must be pretty scary then, the average is about 1600
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961
    edited November 2020

    MaxPB said:

    MikeL said:

    We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.

    How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?

    Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.

    Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.

    The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".

    The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.

    And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.

    What I find particularly odd is the idea the scientists are trying to justify a lockdown by making up the numbers.

    Why would they want to do that? Sounds a bit tinfoil hat for me
    I don't think it's malicious. The projections just aren't very good, that's all. Made based on long lists of assumptions which may or may not be borne out in real life.

    The problem is, because they're by scientists they are treated as fact, rather than not particularly reliable or accurate guesses.
    They have been actively misleading the public with the latest graphs. Whitty literally lied about the R in NE England and glossed over it. The models are based on the R increasing again when the trend is downwards and maybe even falling below 1 in a majority of England at this point and definitely below 1 in NI and Scotland.

    They literally lied to the nation to get support for their lockdown. The dimwitted politicians might fall for it, anyone who works with data modelling can see right through them.
    I can't believe nobody even picked that up. There was a clear chart showing R falling in the NE...it isn't like the issue I spotted where you have to have some knowledge of what to expect from probabilistic models.
    It was flat at best.
  • Options
    MJWMJW Posts: 1,339
    I don't think Farage needs an awful lot of people to create an impact. His real problem, ironically is the lack of European elections using PR and which people did view as a protest vote. There's no elections until May, when we might be at least partially out of the woods. Even then who but the most fanatical anti-lockdown types are going to vote in a councillor standing on a platform they have little to no control of implementing, who they may not agree with or like in other ways, as although there seems to be some correlation between being a Brexiteer/right-wing and being Covidsceptic, it doesn't map on as neatly as, well, Brexit?
  • Options
    Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,533
    isam said:

    MaxPB said:

    MikeL said:

    We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.

    How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?

    Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.

    Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.

    The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".

    The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.

    And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.

    What I find particularly odd is the idea the scientists are trying to justify a lockdown by making up the numbers.

    Why would they want to do that? Sounds a bit tinfoil hat for me
    Well we know that the Cambridge 4,000 deaths per day model is out of date and the current projection is for a peak of 1,000 deaths per day as produced on the 28th of October. You fell for it Horse, the scientists scared you into submission with their scary graphs of lies.
    Actually, I find 1,000 deaths per day pretty scary.
    Every day must be pretty scary then, the average is about 1600
    Very glib, and completely missing the point. Presumably without Covid that 1,600 would go down to 600 then? Or is it that Covid victims are pretty well nearly dead anyway?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,938
    edited November 2020
    So...

    I've been in a number of US states - with various lockdown strategies - and I'm calling New Mexico the best.

    Their strategy is:

    - Universities/Colleges on-line only
    - High School (13+ on-line)
    - Masks in crowded places / public transport / shops
    - Table service in bars and restaurants (and some capacity constraints, although these didn't seem that onerous)
    - Hundreds of public hand sanitizer stations around
    - Encourage (but don't require) working from home

    And that's been pretty much it. Now, they're less crowded than the UK. But they've enforced these, and they seem to be broadly obeyed, and they don't really have a CV19 problem. The messaging is that the current restrictions will remain in-place until after either a vaccine is developed or the virus has been largely eliminated via other means.

    Edit to add: the Santa Fe Opera appears to have been closed too.
  • Options

    Don't underestimate Farage though, we have got to watch him

    He stood in Westminster elections/by-elections seven times, and failed every time!
    So Farage still has a ways to go before he starts closing in on Billy Boaks?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,983
    edited November 2020
    15% would be higher than even the 12% UKIP got in 2015 and the highest voteshare ever recorded for either UKIP or the Brexit Party, so for Farage that would be enough, especially if an EU trade deal did not regain control of our fishing waters or prevented subsidies to ex industrial areas he could target fishing ports and red wall areas too.

    Farage is also in touch with most of the other populist right parties in Europe, Lega in Italy, the AfD in Germany and Vox in Spain who also oppose further lockdowns as does the populist One Nation in Australia and the libertarian ACT Party in New Zealand and of course Trump
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,938

    FYI, note that last night the United States switched from Daylight Savings Time to Standard Time (except in a few regions including entire State of Arizona that do not observe DST)>

    Spring forward - Fall back. So we (or most of us in US) just fell back, so what is now 3.30pm PST today was 4.30 PDT yesterday.

    So on the Left Coast we are now 17 hours behind Tokyo, 8 hours behind London, 3 hours behind New York, 2 hours behind Chicago, 1 hour behind Denver.

    We've clearly got a LOT of catching up to do . . .

    Re Arizona, that's not quite true. Some of the Indian reservations in Arizona do observe Daylight Savings Time.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,911

    isam said:

    MaxPB said:

    MikeL said:

    We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.

    How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?

    Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.

    Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.

    The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".

    The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.

    And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.

    What I find particularly odd is the idea the scientists are trying to justify a lockdown by making up the numbers.

    Why would they want to do that? Sounds a bit tinfoil hat for me
    Well we know that the Cambridge 4,000 deaths per day model is out of date and the current projection is for a peak of 1,000 deaths per day as produced on the 28th of October. You fell for it Horse, the scientists scared you into submission with their scary graphs of lies.
    Actually, I find 1,000 deaths per day pretty scary.
    Every day must be pretty scary then, the average is about 1600
    Very glib, and completely missing the point. Presumably without Covid that 1,600 would go down to 600 then? Or is it that Covid victims are pretty well nearly dead anyway?
    No the point is it would be about 1600 if every other year is anything to go by

    The average age of a covid death is higher than the average life expectancy so maybe you’re right on your second point
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,938
    isam said:

    MaxPB said:

    MikeL said:

    We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.

    How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?

    Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.

    Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.

    The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".

    The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.

    And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.

    What I find particularly odd is the idea the scientists are trying to justify a lockdown by making up the numbers.

    Why would they want to do that? Sounds a bit tinfoil hat for me
    Well we know that the Cambridge 4,000 deaths per day model is out of date and the current projection is for a peak of 1,000 deaths per day as produced on the 28th of October. You fell for it Horse, the scientists scared you into submission with their scary graphs of lies.
    Actually, I find 1,000 deaths per day pretty scary.
    Every day must be pretty scary then, the average is about 1600
    Well, yes: 1,000 extra deaths would be an enormous increase in the number of people dying.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,911
    edited November 2020
    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    MaxPB said:

    MikeL said:

    We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.

    How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?

    Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.

    Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.

    The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".

    The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.

    And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.

    What I find particularly odd is the idea the scientists are trying to justify a lockdown by making up the numbers.

    Why would they want to do that? Sounds a bit tinfoil hat for me
    Well we know that the Cambridge 4,000 deaths per day model is out of date and the current projection is for a peak of 1,000 deaths per day as produced on the 28th of October. You fell for it Horse, the scientists scared you into submission with their scary graphs of lies.
    Actually, I find 1,000 deaths per day pretty scary.
    Every day must be pretty scary then, the average is about 1600
    Well, yes: 1,000 extra deaths would be an enormous increase in the number of people dying.
    Extra ones would be. The average of the last 2 years is roughly the average of the preceding half a dozen
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,538
    What are the chances of getting a definitive result on election night? Probably about 30% IMO.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,127
    RobD said:

    72% Government approval. It's almost like 2020 never happened.

    That's not government approval. That's approval of a single policy.
    No s***!
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,911

    isam said:

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    MaxPB said:

    MikeL said:

    We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.

    How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?

    Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.

    Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.

    The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".

    The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.

    And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.

    What I find particularly odd is the idea the scientists are trying to justify a lockdown by making up the numbers.

    Why would they want to do that? Sounds a bit tinfoil hat for me
    Well we know that the Cambridge 4,000 deaths per day model is out of date and the current projection is for a peak of 1,000 deaths per day as produced on the 28th of October. You fell for it Horse, the scientists scared you into submission with their scary graphs of lies.
    Actually, I find 1,000 deaths per day pretty scary.
    Every day must be pretty scary then, the average is about 1600
    Well, yes: 1,000 extra deaths would be an enormous increase in the number of people dying.
    Extra ones would be. The average of the last 2 years is roughly the average of the preceding half a dozen
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    FYI, note that last night the United States switched from Daylight Savings Time to Standard Time (except in a few regions including entire State of Arizona that do not observe DST)>

    Spring forward - Fall back. So we (or most of us in US) just fell back, so what is now 3.30pm PST today was 4.30 PDT yesterday.

    So on the Left Coast we are now 17 hours behind Tokyo, 8 hours behind London, 3 hours behind New York, 2 hours behind Chicago, 1 hour behind Denver.

    We've clearly got a LOT of catching up to do . . .

    Re Arizona, that's not quite true. Some of the Indian reservations in Arizona do observe Daylight Savings Time.
    Forgot that! I stand corrected yet again!

    Personally think that AZ is going for Democrats this year, up & down the ballot. Et tu, (ro)brute?
This discussion has been closed.