On the Priti Ugli behaviour at the Home Office, if it's revealed that Sir Philip Rutnam, Knight Commander of the Bath, leaked untrue stories to the press that Ms Patel was not trusted by MI5 chiefs to get full security briefings, would that make him a bully?
Any such reports would be a fairly obvious attempt at deflection.
If Labour had won the last election, Diane Abbott had ended up at the Home Office, and two months later it has said this in The Times "Officers in the security service have reduced the volume of intelligence they show to the home secretary and regularly “roll their eyes” at her interventions in meetings, it was claimed.", would there be people claiming that misogynist racists were bullying her?
They'd be saying anyone who had worked with her and found her to be a pleasant colleague was no better than someone making excuses for Jimmy Savile wouldn't they?
Why did Ian Duncan-Smith add an extra 'i' to his first name later in life?
Seems a bit odd to me. Maybe @isam can shed some light?!
I can say with some personal expertise that Iain is the Scottish Gaelic spelling. Perhaps the quiet man thought a silent 'i' added extra Scotchness (though motives unclear)?
To offset the gloom, my 76 year old cancer surviving uncle, my girlfriends 60s something type 1 diabetic uncle and his cancer survivng wife, plus daughter who is on a lot of medication, and my other uncles missus have all tested positive for Covid in the last 2-3 weeks, as well as three of my mates, and all recovered without having to go to hospital
Probably bocked my chances now
I still only know one person who has deffo had it.
I know three personally.
Two of my brothers-in-law and my eldest daughter's ex-boyfriend.
Brother-in-law 1 caught it in India. He's late thirties, ultra-fit (he's in training for a round-the-world expedition). He ended up in an ICU, but fortunately pulled through. This was March; he still complains of "being very phlegmy; it's really getting on [his] nerves." It has not, though, stopped him from a walking expedition in the Scottish Highlands this last summer, though, I should add (even if it did slow him down a bit).
Brother-in-law 2 caught it more recently (about seven weeks ago) in Poland. He's late forties and in good shape. He has yet to recover, although hasn't needed hospitalisation (continued coughing fits, waves of lassitude and fatigue - he complains that he needs to go to bed mid-afternoon for a couple of hours every day, uncharacteristically)
Eldest Daughter's ex-boyfriend (who had departed the household prior to catching it, fortunately). Mid-twenties, and fit enough to have run a marathon last year (albeit I reckon he'll run to fat in a decade or so when his metabolism slows down). Still in touch with us, reported being "sick as a dog for weeks." Also did not need hospitalisation, but has complained about breathlessness ever since when trying to sustain exercise (he's the captain of a local tennis club; he can't do long matches any more).
Maybe this is why we seem to see Covid through different prisms - you know three super fit people who have had it and suffered badly, I know about ten unfit people, about half of whom have been previously very ill, who have had it, and barely suffered at all
I spoke to a customer last week. She was self-isolating as she had tested positive after doing one of the ONS survey tests. She was asymptomatic. Yet had been shielding due to a medical condition. We still don't understand this thing.
To offset the gloom, my 76 year old cancer surviving uncle, my girlfriends 60s something type 1 diabetic uncle and his cancer survivng wife, plus daughter who is on a lot of medication, and my other uncles missus have all tested positive for Covid in the last 2-3 weeks, as well as three of my mates, and all recovered without having to go to hospital
Probably bocked my chances now
I still only know one person who has deffo had it.
I know three personally.
Two of my brothers-in-law and my eldest daughter's ex-boyfriend.
Brother-in-law 1 caught it in India. He's late thirties, ultra-fit (he's in training for a round-the-world expedition). He ended up in an ICU, but fortunately pulled through. This was March; he still complains of "being very phlegmy; it's really getting on [his] nerves." It has not, though, stopped him from a walking expedition in the Scottish Highlands this last summer, though, I should add (even if it did slow him down a bit).
Brother-in-law 2 caught it more recently (about seven weeks ago) in Poland. He's late forties and in good shape. He has yet to recover, although hasn't needed hospitalisation (continued coughing fits, waves of lassitude and fatigue - he complains that he needs to go to bed mid-afternoon for a couple of hours every day, uncharacteristically)
Eldest Daughter's ex-boyfriend (who had departed the household prior to catching it, fortunately). Mid-twenties, and fit enough to have run a marathon last year (albeit I reckon he'll run to fat in a decade or so when his metabolism slows down). Still in touch with us, reported being "sick as a dog for weeks." Also did not need hospitalisation, but has complained about breathlessness ever since when trying to sustain exercise (he's the captain of a local tennis club; he can't do long matches any more).
So all 3 of the people you know for sure have had it were quite badly affected? That's a hell of a strike rate. Top tip for you, don't waste money on the lottery!
Twenty-year delay to Leeds leg ‘could derail HS2 in the north’
A proposal to build the rail link in phases has led to fears the project will be scaled back and may never reach Yorkshire.
The eastern leg of the government’s high-speed rail scheme HS2 is at risk of being delayed by up to 20 years, leading to fears it will be scrapped altogether.
North of England and Midlands leaders are fighting with the government behind the scenes on what they believe will be a “phased delivery” of the 120-mile eastern leg between Birmingham and Leeds.
This is expected to be one of the recommendations in an upcoming report by Sir John Armitt, who has been reviewing plans for the line for the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC).
One option would be to build the HS2 line from Birmingham to East Midlands Parkway as a “first phase” with the rest of the line through Chesterfield and Sheffield to Leeds to be built at a later date. It is understood that this could delay the scheme by up to 20 years, with construction unlikely to start on the eastern leg before 2040, if it goes ahead at all.
“The government is on the record saying it’s full speed ahead with the eastern leg of HS2, but there is a growing concern they will go for a phased approach, which essentially means kicking Sheffield and Leeds’s sections into the long grass,” said one northern leader.
Earlier this month, the government confirmed legislation for the HS2 eastern leg, part of phase 2b of the project, will be split into a second parliamentary bill, separate from that for the western leg of phase 2b from Crewe to Manchester.
Lord Adonis, who unveiled the HS2 project in 2010 while secretary of state for transport, said recently there was a risk that splitting phase 2b into separate bills could delay the eastern leg or, at worst, cancel it.
Dan Jarvis, mayor of the Sheffield City Region, said “watering down or cancelling the project would be unforgivable”. He added: “HS2 is more than journey times to London ... Levelling up will not happen with half-measures.
“The track cannot stop short at Birmingham or Manchester. It must come all the way to Yorkshire and beyond. It’s time for the government to stop the dither and delay, put its money where its mouth is and deliver on its promises.”
Scottish Labour once again likely to get squeezed next year outside Glasgow and central Scotland, with Nationalists voting SNP and Unionists voting Tory
You are still conflating the concepts 'Pro-independence', 'Nationalist' and 'SNP voter' in your desperate anxiety. And quite deliberately. Because it helps you create your narrative that only SNP voters would vote for Yes.
Are the LibDems still a thing in Scotland?
The Lib Dems currently have 4x as many Westminster MPs in Scotland as the Labour party.
Which is, it is a little unkind to point out, a bit like saying the toddler next door is 5x as fast as my tortoise.
On the other hand, only 5 out of 129 MSPs at Holyrood. Interestingly, mostly constituency - not usual for small parties.
The efficiency of the Lib Dem vote in Scotland must make them seriously wonder about the merits of PR!
It does seem that their previous stronghold in the borders, David Steel country, has now completely vanished. Where they lose they seem to disappear fairly quickly.
Quite so. Not just David Steel and his Borders colleagues. John Robertson in East Lothian too ... I had an old friend in Hawick who was very active in the LDs. He died some years back - I wonder what he would have said about today.
Isn't their vote in NE Fife due in substantial part to St Andrews University?
Scottish Labour once again likely to get squeezed next year outside Glasgow and central Scotland, with Nationalists voting SNP and Unionists voting Tory
You are still conflating the concepts 'Pro-independence', 'Nationalist' and 'SNP voter' in your desperate anxiety. And quite deliberately. Because it helps you create your narrative that only SNP voters would vote for Yes.
Are the LibDems still a thing in Scotland?
The Lib Dems currently have 4x as many Westminster MPs in Scotland as the Labour party.
Which is, it is a little unkind to point out, a bit like saying the toddler next door is 5x as fast as my tortoise.
On the other hand, only 5 out of 129 MSPs at Holyrood. Interestingly, mostly constituency - not usual for small parties.
The efficiency of the Lib Dem vote in Scotland must make them seriously wonder about the merits of PR!
It does seem that their previous stronghold in the borders, David Steel country, has now completely vanished. Where they lose they seem to disappear fairly quickly.
Quite so. Not just David Steel and his Borders colleagues. John Robertson in East Lothian too ... I had an old friend in Hawick who was very active in the LDs. He died some years back - I wonder what he would have said about today.
Isn't their vote in NE Fife due in substantial part to St Andrews University?
John Home Robertson was Labour though.
Whoops yes - same sort of eternal MP in a similar-ish seat, albeity with the mining areas to the west. ,
Having been (fairly) pulled up for having gone too sarcastic and harsh in my responses, I will try to respond as levelly and objectively as I can.
Sumption's main thrust, as I read it, is that it is immoral for people to have their choices made for them; that people should be able to choose for themselves.
I would say his argument collapses with the inextricable issue that in a pandemic, and with infectious disease control, people cannot simply make choices for themselves but inevitably choose to inflict the outcome of their own choices onto others - regardless of the choice they themselves made (and therefore causes the exact issue he rails against).
I do not believe that anyone has deliberately chosen to infect others. Yet millions of people in this country alone have been infected. Tens of thousands are being infected every day - and therefore tens of thousands are infecting others every day; millions have infected others.
Say, then, that I'm willing to take the chance on my own behalf. Let's be honest, my chances are pretty good. I'm 47, healthy, not even overweight, no known co-morbidities... and if I take that chance, I'm taking it also for my wife, both my daughters, and my severely autistic son.
Again, they're all pretty healthy, but taking five spins on the roulette wheel instead of one makes the odds shift less nicely. And we're also taking that chance for all the kids at The Lad's school - a special school packed full of children with dsabilities, co-morbidites, and learning difficulties (noticing that people with learning disabilities have a six-fold worse chance of dying than those without doesn't give me a comfortable feeling with risking The Lad to start with).
This thing gets in to that school and despite their younger status, I would expect at least one child to die. And that would be on me. That would be down to my choice on taking the risk; I would have ended up, completely without wanting to, taking away the entire life choices of someone else.
Good post and I agree with it. But I think there is a false binary in much of this debate. The idea that we either (i) leave the choice to people or (ii) enforce a (non) choice upon them is not the reality of the situation. Rules and guidelines notwithstanding, we are actually doing (i). The distancing regime works on trust. Nobody is going to police a diktat that says you can't visit Aunt Agatha at her cottage in Little Hootham Tootham. Rather we hope and expect, given the situation, that you won't.
Have to say I agree with you. If Boris said "Everything is open, go out and do what you want" people would manage that to their own judgement as they are now with visiting/having friends over
Unfortunately that does not cover the morons and idiots that inhabit the country and they are a large part of the population.
Twenty-year delay to Leeds leg ‘could derail HS2 in the north’
A proposal to build the rail link in phases has led to fears the project will be scaled back and may never reach Yorkshire.
The eastern leg of the government’s high-speed rail scheme HS2 is at risk of being delayed by up to 20 years, leading to fears it will be scrapped altogether.
North of England and Midlands leaders are fighting with the government behind the scenes on what they believe will be a “phased delivery” of the 120-mile eastern leg between Birmingham and Leeds.
This is expected to be one of the recommendations in an upcoming report by Sir John Armitt, who has been reviewing plans for the line for the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC).
One option would be to build the HS2 line from Birmingham to East Midlands Parkway as a “first phase” with the rest of the line through Chesterfield and Sheffield to Leeds to be built at a later date. It is understood that this could delay the scheme by up to 20 years, with construction unlikely to start on the eastern leg before 2040, if it goes ahead at all.
“The government is on the record saying it’s full speed ahead with the eastern leg of HS2, but there is a growing concern they will go for a phased approach, which essentially means kicking Sheffield and Leeds’s sections into the long grass,” said one northern leader.
Earlier this month, the government confirmed legislation for the HS2 eastern leg, part of phase 2b of the project, will be split into a second parliamentary bill, separate from that for the western leg of phase 2b from Crewe to Manchester.
Lord Adonis, who unveiled the HS2 project in 2010 while secretary of state for transport, said recently there was a risk that splitting phase 2b into separate bills could delay the eastern leg or, at worst, cancel it.
Dan Jarvis, mayor of the Sheffield City Region, said “watering down or cancelling the project would be unforgivable”. He added: “HS2 is more than journey times to London ... Levelling up will not happen with half-measures.
“The track cannot stop short at Birmingham or Manchester. It must come all the way to Yorkshire and beyond. It’s time for the government to stop the dither and delay, put its money where its mouth is and deliver on its promises.”
Its a 'moral and ethical achievement' which other countries have not themselves obliged to follow the UK in doing.
Well we can set our own morals on that regardless of what they do. There's nothing magical about a figure of 0.7%, but if it is to be reduced or eliminated hopefully it would be with eyes opens about its positives and negatives, and not merely a politcally cheap way of gaining some billions.
Its certainly time for an audit of how much a success increased foreign aid has been.
For me there is nothing moral and ethical about borrowing money to give away so that various politicians and religious types can fell good about themselves.
And its certainly not an example to be setting to third world countries.
Sense there'd be little resistance from you if that 0.7% came down quite significantly.
As I said I'd like to see a proper audit as to what the increased foreign aid spending has achieved.
I'm against arbitrary spending targets but I would see no problem in spending more than the European average provided value for money was achieved.
That .7% has become an unthinking shibboleth for bien-pensants and do-gooders. It's not the number - I wouldn't mind if it were more if it came with some assurance that the aid was effectively targeted. But just doling it out to governments, NGOs and international charities ensures that only a tiny fraction gets to the target after "costs" and side-payments and other contributions drop off on the way.
@Thescreamingeagles I don't think the SC will take the case, and if they do I expect Trump will get eviscorated again.
The SC will not take an appeal on a no hope case just to eviscerate it a second time.
Unless the conservative justices intend a genuine attempt to fix the election - which seems extraordinarily unlikely - they won’t accept any request for review.
Not a lawyer so genuine question here.
Haven't we got to the point where Trump can be cited as a vexatious litigant? The penalties are, I believe, quite severe.
I am not an American lawyer but my understanding is that when a case is dismissed with prejudice it means that the parties are not allowed to raise the same point again in any other proceedings. One of the parties to this fiasco in Penn was the Donald Trump campaign so they are effectively barred, at least in Penn, from trying again on the same or very similar grounds. If this is being in other states as well he will gradually run out of options.
Noted with thanks, David.
I did notice the 'with prejudice' bit and wondered if it had any significance beyond indicating how pissed off he was.
I don't think that there is any doubt about the latter point! He clearly felt that he had been left to try and find the semblance of an argument in the cases he had been referred to since the petitioners had failed to do so and that it proved a serious waste of his time.
I know Giuliani is beyond embarrassment but, ouch.
I was impressed at the considerable and genuine effort he made to consider in detail their case, as if it had been presented coherently. And he set out the law with admirable clarity so that even a legal ignoramus like me could follow it.
No doubt with a view to precluding any possibility of an appeal, but commendable nonetheless.
Scottish Labour once again likely to get squeezed next year outside Glasgow and central Scotland, with Nationalists voting SNP and Unionists voting Tory
You are still conflating the concepts 'Pro-independence', 'Nationalist' and 'SNP voter' in your desperate anxiety. And quite deliberately. Because it helps you create your narrative that only SNP voters would vote for Yes.
Are the LibDems still a thing in Scotland?
The Lib Dems currently have 4x as many Westminster MPs in Scotland as the Labour party.
Which is, it is a little unkind to point out, a bit like saying the toddler next door is 5x as fast as my tortoise.
On the other hand, only 5 out of 129 MSPs at Holyrood. Interestingly, mostly constituency - not usual for small parties.
The efficiency of the Lib Dem vote in Scotland must make them seriously wonder about the merits of PR!
It does seem that their previous stronghold in the borders, David Steel country, has now completely vanished. Where they lose they seem to disappear fairly quickly.
Quite so. Not just David Steel and his Borders colleagues. John Robertson in East Lothian too ... I had an old friend in Hawick who was very active in the LDs. He died some years back - I wonder what he would have said about today.
Isn't their vote in NE Fife due in substantial part to St Andrews University?
Scottish Labour once again likely to get squeezed next year outside Glasgow and central Scotland, with Nationalists voting SNP and Unionists voting Tory
You are still conflating the concepts 'Pro-independence', 'Nationalist' and 'SNP voter' in your desperate anxiety. And quite deliberately. Because it helps you create your narrative that only SNP voters would vote for Yes.
Are the LibDems still a thing in Scotland?
The Lib Dems currently have 4x as many Westminster MPs in Scotland as the Labour party.
Which is, it is a little unkind to point out, a bit like saying the toddler next door is 5x as fast as my tortoise.
On the other hand, only 5 out of 129 MSPs at Holyrood. Interestingly, mostly constituency - not usual for small parties.
The efficiency of the Lib Dem vote in Scotland must make them seriously wonder about the merits of PR!
It does seem that their previous stronghold in the borders, David Steel country, has now completely vanished. Where they lose they seem to disappear fairly quickly.
Quite so. Not just David Steel and his Borders colleagues. John Robertson in East Lothian too ... I had an old friend in Hawick who was very active in the LDs. He died some years back - I wonder what he would have said about today.
Isn't their vote in NE Fife due in substantial part to St Andrews University?
John Home Robertson was Labour though.
Whoops yes - same sort of eternal MP in a similar-ish seat, albeity with the mining areas to the west. ,
He became the MP for Berwick & East Lothian in Autumn 1978 following the death of John Mackintosh.
On the Priti Ugli behaviour at the Home Office, if it's revealed that Sir Philip Rutnam, Knight Commander of the Bath, leaked untrue stories to the press that Ms Patel was not trusted by MI5 chiefs to get full security briefings, would that make him a bully?
The only two things wrong with defamatory hypotheticals are that they are hypothetical, and defamatory. Otherwise, good post.
On the Priti Ugli behaviour at the Home Office, if it's revealed that Sir Philip Rutnam, Knight Commander of the Bath, leaked untrue stories to the press that Ms Patel was not trusted by MI5 chiefs to get full security briefings, would that make him a bully?
If my auntie had two hairy bollocks would that make her my uncle?
Well, those who warned me the test was horrible were not kidding.
However, now I await the results, while setting cover.
I thought it was a lot less horrible than I anticipated, bit uncomfortable, I gagged and my eyes watered, but not too bad - I was pretty reluctant (scared) to go and have it done, and was coaxed (bullied ) into it by my family who wanted to break the lockdown rules and come over to our sons 1st birthday. My Dad had a test in hospital in August and said to me it was so inconsequential that if they were paying people 50p a time to do them all day, he would volunteer for the £30 an hour!
To offset the gloom, my 76 year old cancer surviving uncle, my girlfriends 60s something type 1 diabetic uncle and his cancer survivng wife, plus daughter who is on a lot of medication, and my other uncles missus have all tested positive for Covid in the last 2-3 weeks, as well as three of my mates, and all recovered without having to go to hospital
Probably bocked my chances now
I still only know one person who has deffo had it.
I know three personally.
Two of my brothers-in-law and my eldest daughter's ex-boyfriend.
Brother-in-law 1 caught it in India. He's late thirties, ultra-fit (he's in training for a round-the-world expedition). He ended up in an ICU, but fortunately pulled through. This was March; he still complains of "being very phlegmy; it's really getting on [his] nerves." It has not, though, stopped him from a walking expedition in the Scottish Highlands this last summer, though, I should add (even if it did slow him down a bit).
Brother-in-law 2 caught it more recently (about seven weeks ago) in Poland. He's late forties and in good shape. He has yet to recover, although hasn't needed hospitalisation (continued coughing fits, waves of lassitude and fatigue - he complains that he needs to go to bed mid-afternoon for a couple of hours every day, uncharacteristically)
Eldest Daughter's ex-boyfriend (who had departed the household prior to catching it, fortunately). Mid-twenties, and fit enough to have run a marathon last year (albeit I reckon he'll run to fat in a decade or so when his metabolism slows down). Still in touch with us, reported being "sick as a dog for weeks." Also did not need hospitalisation, but has complained about breathlessness ever since when trying to sustain exercise (he's the captain of a local tennis club; he can't do long matches any more).
So all 3 of the people you know for sure have had it were quite badly affected? That's a hell of a strike rate. Top tip for you, don't waste money on the lottery!
Surely my luck would change? Got to be owed a good roll by now...
Edit: And if other acquaintances have had it completely asymptomatically, I’d not know about them and they’d shift the odds invisibly.
On the Priti Ugli behaviour at the Home Office, if it's revealed that Sir Philip Rutnam, Knight Commander of the Bath, leaked untrue stories to the press that Ms Patel was not trusted by MI5 chiefs to get full security briefings, would that make him a bully?
If my auntie had two hairy bollocks would that make her my uncle?
To offset the gloom, my 76 year old cancer surviving uncle, my girlfriends 60s something type 1 diabetic uncle and his cancer survivng wife, plus daughter who is on a lot of medication, and my other uncles missus have all tested positive for Covid in the last 2-3 weeks, as well as three of my mates, and all recovered without having to go to hospital
Probably bocked my chances now
I still only know one person who has deffo had it.
I know three personally.
Two of my brothers-in-law and my eldest daughter's ex-boyfriend.
Brother-in-law 1 caught it in India. He's late thirties, ultra-fit (he's in training for a round-the-world expedition). He ended up in an ICU, but fortunately pulled through. This was March; he still complains of "being very phlegmy; it's really getting on [his] nerves." It has not, though, stopped him from a walking expedition in the Scottish Highlands this last summer, though, I should add (even if it did slow him down a bit).
Brother-in-law 2 caught it more recently (about seven weeks ago) in Poland. He's late forties and in good shape. He has yet to recover, although hasn't needed hospitalisation (continued coughing fits, waves of lassitude and fatigue - he complains that he needs to go to bed mid-afternoon for a couple of hours every day, uncharacteristically)
Eldest Daughter's ex-boyfriend (who had departed the household prior to catching it, fortunately). Mid-twenties, and fit enough to have run a marathon last year (albeit I reckon he'll run to fat in a decade or so when his metabolism slows down). Still in touch with us, reported being "sick as a dog for weeks." Also did not need hospitalisation, but has complained about breathlessness ever since when trying to sustain exercise (he's the captain of a local tennis club; he can't do long matches any more).
It's stories like that that make you worry that 10-15% of the NHS budget for the next decade could be taken up dealing with long-term Covid effects.
There's always going to be a range of people's individual experiences (for me - at least six infected, no hospitalisations, all recovered).
Weekend effects and all that but Germany had 5 deaths yesterday. That model suggesting that they were going to end up with the highest gross death rate in Europe is looking a bit shaky.
To offset the gloom, my 76 year old cancer surviving uncle, my girlfriends 60s something type 1 diabetic uncle and his cancer survivng wife, plus daughter who is on a lot of medication, and my other uncles missus have all tested positive for Covid in the last 2-3 weeks, as well as three of my mates, and all recovered without having to go to hospital
Probably bocked my chances now
I still only know one person who has deffo had it.
I know three personally.
Two of my brothers-in-law and my eldest daughter's ex-boyfriend.
Brother-in-law 1 caught it in India. He's late thirties, ultra-fit (he's in training for a round-the-world expedition). He ended up in an ICU, but fortunately pulled through. This was March; he still complains of "being very phlegmy; it's really getting on [his] nerves." It has not, though, stopped him from a walking expedition in the Scottish Highlands this last summer, though, I should add (even if it did slow him down a bit).
Brother-in-law 2 caught it more recently (about seven weeks ago) in Poland. He's late forties and in good shape. He has yet to recover, although hasn't needed hospitalisation (continued coughing fits, waves of lassitude and fatigue - he complains that he needs to go to bed mid-afternoon for a couple of hours every day, uncharacteristically)
Eldest Daughter's ex-boyfriend (who had departed the household prior to catching it, fortunately). Mid-twenties, and fit enough to have run a marathon last year (albeit I reckon he'll run to fat in a decade or so when his metabolism slows down). Still in touch with us, reported being "sick as a dog for weeks." Also did not need hospitalisation, but has complained about breathlessness ever since when trying to sustain exercise (he's the captain of a local tennis club; he can't do long matches any more).
So all 3 of the people you know for sure have had it were quite badly affected? That's a hell of a strike rate. Top tip for you, don't waste money on the lottery!
Surely my luck would change? Got to be owed a good roll by now...
Edit: And if other acquaintances have had it completely asymptomatically, I’d not know about them and they’d shift the odds invisibly.
My gran always used to say that bad things came in threes so maybe you are due a change of fortune. There were so many weird superstitions before people could use the internet to come up with bizarre conspiracy theories to explain the randomness of the world.
Having been (fairly) pulled up for having gone too sarcastic and harsh in my responses, I will try to respond as levelly and objectively as I can.
Sumption's main thrust, as I read it, is that it is immoral for people to have their choices made for them; that people should be able to choose for themselves.
I would say his argument collapses with the inextricable issue that in a pandemic, and with infectious disease control, people cannot simply make choices for themselves but inevitably choose to inflict the outcome of their own choices onto others - regardless of the choice they themselves made (and therefore causes the exact issue he rails against).
I do not believe that anyone has deliberately chosen to infect others. Yet millions of people in this country alone have been infected. Tens of thousands are being infected every day - and therefore tens of thousands are infecting others every day; millions have infected others.
Say, then, that I'm willing to take the chance on my own behalf. Let's be honest, my chances are pretty good. I'm 47, healthy, not even overweight, no known co-morbidities... and if I take that chance, I'm taking it also for my wife, both my daughters, and my severely autistic son.
Again, they're all pretty healthy, but taking five spins on the roulette wheel instead of one makes the odds shift less nicely. And we're also taking that chance for all the kids at The Lad's school - a special school packed full of children with dsabilities, co-morbidites, and learning difficulties (noticing that people with learning disabilities have a six-fold worse chance of dying than those without doesn't give me a comfortable feeling with risking The Lad to start with).
This thing gets in to that school and despite their younger status, I would expect at least one child to die. And that would be on me. That would be down to my choice on taking the risk; I would have ended up, completely without wanting to, taking away the entire life choices of someone else.
Good post and I agree. But I think there is a false binary in much of this debate. The idea that we either (i) leave the choice to people or (ii) enforce a (non) choice upon them is not the reality of the situation. Rules and guidelines notwithstanding, we are actually doing (i). The distancing regime works on trust. Nobody is going to police a diktat that says you can't visit Aunt Agatha at her cottage in Little Hootham Tootham. Rather we hope and expect, given the situation, that you won't.
Western governments are trying to tread a thin line between telling people what to do and letting them make their own decisions - with varying degrees of success.
The biggest problem is a reasonable minority, who seem determined to behave in any reckless way that isn't explicitly prohibited. The people who spent three days on the p!ss after it was announced the bars would close, those who were desperate to go on holiday over the summer to places where regulations were not enforced, and those who now think that no government will stop them celebrating Christmas.
Having been (fairly) pulled up for having gone too sarcastic and harsh in my responses, I will try to respond as levelly and objectively as I can.
Sumption's main thrust, as I read it, is that it is immoral for people to have their choices made for them; that people should be able to choose for themselves.
I would say his argument collapses with the inextricable issue that in a pandemic, and with infectious disease control, people cannot simply make choices for themselves but inevitably choose to inflict the outcome of their own choices onto others - regardless of the choice they themselves made (and therefore causes the exact issue he rails against).
I do not believe that anyone has deliberately chosen to infect others. Yet millions of people in this country alone have been infected. Tens of thousands are being infected every day - and therefore tens of thousands are infecting others every day; millions have infected others.
Say, then, that I'm willing to take the chance on my own behalf. Let's be honest, my chances are pretty good. I'm 47, healthy, not even overweight, no known co-morbidities... and if I take that chance, I'm taking it also for my wife, both my daughters, and my severely autistic son.
Again, they're all pretty healthy, but taking five spins on the roulette wheel instead of one makes the odds shift less nicely. And we're also taking that chance for all the kids at The Lad's school - a special school packed full of children with dsabilities, co-morbidites, and learning difficulties (noticing that people with learning disabilities have a six-fold worse chance of dying than those without doesn't give me a comfortable feeling with risking The Lad to start with).
This thing gets in to that school and despite their younger status, I would expect at least one child to die. And that would be on me. That would be down to my choice on taking the risk; I would have ended up, completely without wanting to, taking away the entire life choices of someone else.
Good post and I agree with it. But I think there is a false binary in much of this debate. The idea that we either (i) leave the choice to people or (ii) enforce a (non) choice upon them is not the reality of the situation. Rules and guidelines notwithstanding, we are actually doing (i). The distancing regime works on trust. Nobody is going to police a diktat that says you can't visit Aunt Agatha at her cottage in Little Hootham Tootham. Rather we hope and expect, given the situation, that you won't.
Have to say I agree with you. If Boris said "Everything is open, go out and do what you want" people would manage that to their own judgement as they are now with visiting/having friends over
And the other way too. If he says Christmas is off, many will ignore that. People are influenced by the Covid rules but are not slaves to them. We rely on people's judgment. On a consenting public. There's no way around this in a society like ours. So for me the key question is what is the best way to do it. (i) Set rules but do not police them. (ii) Have no rules. I think it's (i). Which is where we are. So I haven't read the Sumption piece but if he's saying we should go for (ii) I'm not agreeing with him.
Will Princess NutNut give the thumb up or down....
'I should take his credit card away': Economic hawk Rishi Sunak jokes about Boris Johnson's desire to turn on the spending taps as he prepares to outline coronavirus economic plans
Well, those who warned me the test was horrible were not kidding.
However, now I await the results, while setting cover.
I thought it was a lot less horrible than I anticipated, bit uncomfortable, I gagged and my eyes watered, but not too bad - I was pretty reluctant (scared) to go and have it done, and was coaxed (bullied ) into it by my family who wanted to break the lockdown rules and come over to our sons 1st birthday. My Dad had a test in hospital in August and said to me it was so inconsequential that if they were paying people 50p a time to do them all day, he would volunteer for the £30 an hour!
Good luck, hope it's a neg
I'm participating in the ONS covid-19 survey and so far have received £150 in vouchers for taking 6 tests. The missus has received the same.
Its a 'moral and ethical achievement' which other countries have not themselves obliged to follow the UK in doing.
Well we can set our own morals on that regardless of what they do. There's nothing magical about a figure of 0.7%, but if it is to be reduced or eliminated hopefully it would be with eyes opens about its positives and negatives, and not merely a politcally cheap way of gaining some billions.
Its certainly time for an audit of how much a success increased foreign aid has been.
For me there is nothing moral and ethical about borrowing money to give away so that various politicians and religious types can fell good about themselves.
And its certainly not an example to be setting to third world countries.
Sense there'd be little resistance from you if that 0.7% came down quite significantly.
As I said I'd like to see a proper audit as to what the increased foreign aid spending has achieved.
I'm against arbitrary spending targets but I would see no problem in spending more than the European average provided value for money was achieved.
Well VFM is a general requirement for public spending. The key question here is should the test be more rigorous for Aid given the money is going to foreigners?
Having been (fairly) pulled up for having gone too sarcastic and harsh in my responses, I will try to respond as levelly and objectively as I can.
Sumption's main thrust, as I read it, is that it is immoral for people to have their choices made for them; that people should be able to choose for themselves.
I would say his argument collapses with the inextricable issue that in a pandemic, and with infectious disease control, people cannot simply make choices for themselves but inevitably choose to inflict the outcome of their own choices onto others - regardless of the choice they themselves made (and therefore causes the exact issue he rails against).
I do not believe that anyone has deliberately chosen to infect others. Yet millions of people in this country alone have been infected. Tens of thousands are being infected every day - and therefore tens of thousands are infecting others every day; millions have infected others.
Say, then, that I'm willing to take the chance on my own behalf. Let's be honest, my chances are pretty good. I'm 47, healthy, not even overweight, no known co-morbidities... and if I take that chance, I'm taking it also for my wife, both my daughters, and my severely autistic son.
Again, they're all pretty healthy, but taking five spins on the roulette wheel instead of one makes the odds shift less nicely. And we're also taking that chance for all the kids at The Lad's school - a special school packed full of children with dsabilities, co-morbidites, and learning difficulties (noticing that people with learning disabilities have a six-fold worse chance of dying than those without doesn't give me a comfortable feeling with risking The Lad to start with).
This thing gets in to that school and despite their younger status, I would expect at least one child to die. And that would be on me. That would be down to my choice on taking the risk; I would have ended up, completely without wanting to, taking away the entire life choices of someone else.
Good post and I agree. But I think there is a false binary in much of this debate. The idea that we either (i) leave the choice to people or (ii) enforce a (non) choice upon them is not the reality of the situation. Rules and guidelines notwithstanding, we are actually doing (i). The distancing regime works on trust. Nobody is going to police a diktat that says you can't visit Aunt Agatha at her cottage in Little Hootham Tootham. Rather we hope and expect, given the situation, that you won't.
Western governments are trying to tread a thin line between telling people what to do and letting them make their own decisions - with varying degrees of success.
The biggest problem is a reasonable minority, who seem determined to behave in any reckless way that isn't explicitly prohibited. The people who spent three days on the p!ss after it was announced the bars would close, those who were desperate to go on holiday over the summer to places where regulations were not enforced, and those who now think that no government will stop them celebrating Christmas.
And whilst that's a problem as old as time, my hunch is that a lot of the societal problems in Britain boil down to issues of me vs. we, rights vs. duties. And dealing with a virus that spreads rapidly given the chance has exposed those tensions pretty starkly.
And whilst I'm not sure any politician has a good solution here (Big Society anyone?), I'm pretty sure that the current No 10 approach is exactly how to not find a better answer.
To offset the gloom, my 76 year old cancer surviving uncle, my girlfriends 60s something type 1 diabetic uncle and his cancer survivng wife, plus daughter who is on a lot of medication, and my other uncles missus have all tested positive for Covid in the last 2-3 weeks, as well as three of my mates, and all recovered without having to go to hospital
Probably bocked my chances now
I still only know one person who has deffo had it.
I know three personally.
Two of my brothers-in-law and my eldest daughter's ex-boyfriend.
Brother-in-law 1 caught it in India. He's late thirties, ultra-fit (he's in training for a round-the-world expedition). He ended up in an ICU, but fortunately pulled through. This was March; he still complains of "being very phlegmy; it's really getting on [his] nerves." It has not, though, stopped him from a walking expedition in the Scottish Highlands this last summer, though, I should add (even if it did slow him down a bit).
Brother-in-law 2 caught it more recently (about seven weeks ago) in Poland. He's late forties and in good shape. He has yet to recover, although hasn't needed hospitalisation (continued coughing fits, waves of lassitude and fatigue - he complains that he needs to go to bed mid-afternoon for a couple of hours every day, uncharacteristically)
Eldest Daughter's ex-boyfriend (who had departed the household prior to catching it, fortunately). Mid-twenties, and fit enough to have run a marathon last year (albeit I reckon he'll run to fat in a decade or so when his metabolism slows down). Still in touch with us, reported being "sick as a dog for weeks." Also did not need hospitalisation, but has complained about breathlessness ever since when trying to sustain exercise (he's the captain of a local tennis club; he can't do long matches any more).
It's stories like that that make you worry that 10-15% of the NHS budget for the next decade could be taken up dealing with long-term Covid effects.
To be fair, B-i-L 1 is still able to go on a Highlands walking holiday, even if slightly slower and more phlegmy than he’d like. Norway next year (hopefully) will be the acid test of whether or not his round the world exped could still be on. Even if not, and looking at it solely from the NHS point of view, he shouldn’t cost them anything unless it turns out to be a symptom of an underlying issue.
B-i-L 2: too early to say.
ED-ex-BF: it does affect what he can do, but only at the margins. True, if he moves away from a fit lifestyle (which would be possible if he can no longer play the sport he loves) it would cause longer term issues for the NHS if he runs to obesity in the future.
I think the main effect will be on restricting certain areas of quality of life, which is very difficult to measure. And, of course, longer research could potentially help reverse the problem (and possibly even help with post-viral syndromes for other diseases).
Having been (fairly) pulled up for having gone too sarcastic and harsh in my responses, I will try to respond as levelly and objectively as I can.
Sumption's main thrust, as I read it, is that it is immoral for people to have their choices made for them; that people should be able to choose for themselves.
I would say his argument collapses with the inextricable issue that in a pandemic, and with infectious disease control, people cannot simply make choices for themselves but inevitably choose to inflict the outcome of their own choices onto others - regardless of the choice they themselves made (and therefore causes the exact issue he rails against).
I do not believe that anyone has deliberately chosen to infect others. Yet millions of people in this country alone have been infected. Tens of thousands are being infected every day - and therefore tens of thousands are infecting others every day; millions have infected others.
Say, then, that I'm willing to take the chance on my own behalf. Let's be honest, my chances are pretty good. I'm 47, healthy, not even overweight, no known co-morbidities... and if I take that chance, I'm taking it also for my wife, both my daughters, and my severely autistic son.
Again, they're all pretty healthy, but taking five spins on the roulette wheel instead of one makes the odds shift less nicely. And we're also taking that chance for all the kids at The Lad's school - a special school packed full of children with dsabilities, co-morbidites, and learning difficulties (noticing that people with learning disabilities have a six-fold worse chance of dying than those without doesn't give me a comfortable feeling with risking The Lad to start with).
This thing gets in to that school and despite their younger status, I would expect at least one child to die. And that would be on me. That would be down to my choice on taking the risk; I would have ended up, completely without wanting to, taking away the entire life choices of someone else.
Good post and I agree with it. But I think there is a false binary in much of this debate. The idea that we either (i) leave the choice to people or (ii) enforce a (non) choice upon them is not the reality of the situation. Rules and guidelines notwithstanding, we are actually doing (i). The distancing regime works on trust. Nobody is going to police a diktat that says you can't visit Aunt Agatha at her cottage in Little Hootham Tootham. Rather we hope and expect, given the situation, that you won't.
Have to say I agree with you. If Boris said "Everything is open, go out and do what you want" people would manage that to their own judgement as they are now with visiting/having friends over
And the other way too. If he says Christmas is off, many will ignore that. People are influenced by the Covid rules but are not slaves to them. We rely on people's judgment. On a consenting public. There's no way around this in a society like ours. So for me the key question is what is the best way to do it. (i) Set rules but do not police them. (ii) Have no rules. I think it's (i). Which is where we are. So I haven't read the Sumption piece but if he's saying we should go for (ii) I'm not agreeing with him.
Yes, the government should set rules - not least so it can't be blamed if/when deaths go up in late January. People will, of course, make their own decisions, and Christmas rules can't be enforced anyway.
If I were boss, I would say:
1. You are strongly advised not to mix indoors over Christmas with people from outside your immediate family or support bubble, so doing so is against the rules. 2. Nobody should have to spend Christmas on their own (unless of course they want to). Therefore, any single person household not already in a support bubble is encouraged to spend Christmas with their family or somebody else.
Having been (fairly) pulled up for having gone too sarcastic and harsh in my responses, I will try to respond as levelly and objectively as I can.
Sumption's main thrust, as I read it, is that it is immoral for people to have their choices made for them; that people should be able to choose for themselves.
I would say his argument collapses with the inextricable issue that in a pandemic, and with infectious disease control, people cannot simply make choices for themselves but inevitably choose to inflict the outcome of their own choices onto others - regardless of the choice they themselves made (and therefore causes the exact issue he rails against).
I do not believe that anyone has deliberately chosen to infect others. Yet millions of people in this country alone have been infected. Tens of thousands are being infected every day - and therefore tens of thousands are infecting others every day; millions have infected others.
Say, then, that I'm willing to take the chance on my own behalf. Let's be honest, my chances are pretty good. I'm 47, healthy, not even overweight, no known co-morbidities... and if I take that chance, I'm taking it also for my wife, both my daughters, and my severely autistic son.
Again, they're all pretty healthy, but taking five spins on the roulette wheel instead of one makes the odds shift less nicely. And we're also taking that chance for all the kids at The Lad's school - a special school packed full of children with dsabilities, co-morbidites, and learning difficulties (noticing that people with learning disabilities have a six-fold worse chance of dying than those without doesn't give me a comfortable feeling with risking The Lad to start with).
This thing gets in to that school and despite their younger status, I would expect at least one child to die. And that would be on me. That would be down to my choice on taking the risk; I would have ended up, completely without wanting to, taking away the entire life choices of someone else.
Good post and I agree. But I think there is a false binary in much of this debate. The idea that we either (i) leave the choice to people or (ii) enforce a (non) choice upon them is not the reality of the situation. Rules and guidelines notwithstanding, we are actually doing (i). The distancing regime works on trust. Nobody is going to police a diktat that says you can't visit Aunt Agatha at her cottage in Little Hootham Tootham. Rather we hope and expect, given the situation, that you won't.
Western governments are trying to tread a thin line between telling people what to do and letting them make their own decisions - with varying degrees of success.
The biggest problem is a reasonable minority, who seem determined to behave in any reckless way that isn't explicitly prohibited. The people who spent three days on the p!ss after it was announced the bars would close, those who were desperate to go on holiday over the summer to places where regulations were not enforced, and those who now think that no government will stop them celebrating Christmas.
Yes. I agree. We need the Rules because having the Rules reduces the amount of irresponsible behaviour. But of course it still happens. Two possible responses. Should we police the Rules aggressively in order to reduce it further? Or should we recognize that the Rules are unenforceable and therefore not have any? I say neither. Just stick with our general approach of largely unpoliced Rules. I think people are creating for column inches some big conflicy between "liberty" and "safety" that does not in practice exist.
Comments
Let's hope this situation isn't being watched by any all-powerful extraterrestrials, with ideas about pest control.
However, now I await the results, while setting cover.
No doubt with a view to precluding any possibility of an appeal, but commendable nonetheless.
https://twitter.com/sparkyhamill/status/1330480472913293316?s=20
Good luck, hope it's a neg
Got to be owed a good roll by now...
Edit: And if other acquaintances have had it completely asymptomatically, I’d not know about them and they’d shift the odds invisibly.
But I think overall long covid runs at about 1%.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/sep/08/60000-may-have-long-covid-for-more-than-three-months-uk-study
The biggest problem is a reasonable minority, who seem determined to behave in any reckless way that isn't explicitly prohibited. The people who spent three days on the p!ss after it was announced the bars would close, those who were desperate to go on holiday over the summer to places where regulations were not enforced, and those who now think that no government will stop them celebrating Christmas.
'I should take his credit card away': Economic hawk Rishi Sunak jokes about Boris Johnson's desire to turn on the spending taps as he prepares to outline coronavirus economic plans
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8974897/I-credit-card-away-Economic-hawk-Rishi-Sunak-jokes-Boris-Johnsons-spending.html
https://twitter.com/mikamckinnon/status/1329971536770416641
And whilst I'm not sure any politician has a good solution here (Big Society anyone?), I'm pretty sure that the current No 10 approach is exactly how to not find a better answer.
NEW THREAD
B-i-L 2: too early to say.
ED-ex-BF: it does affect what he can do, but only at the margins. True, if he moves away from a fit lifestyle (which would be possible if he can no longer play the sport he loves) it would cause longer term issues for the NHS if he runs to obesity in the future.
I think the main effect will be on restricting certain areas of quality of life, which is very difficult to measure. And, of course, longer research could potentially help reverse the problem (and possibly even help with post-viral syndromes for other diseases).
If I were boss, I would say:
1. You are strongly advised not to mix indoors over Christmas with people from outside your immediate family or support bubble, so doing so is against the rules.
2. Nobody should have to spend Christmas on their own (unless of course they want to). Therefore, any single person household not already in a support bubble is encouraged to spend Christmas with their family or somebody else.