"Outdated attitudes" with zero censorship is perfectly reasonable. Let the snowflakes not watch it having been warned let everyone else watch it unfiltered and uncensored.
I don't have a problem with the policy, 'outdated attitudes' just feels ill defined as a term.
Would you feel comfortable filming this today?
If no: it is outdated.
Who is 'you' in this scenario? I wouldn't film a dog called n****r, as that would feel gratuitously offensive, but I'd be quite comfortable to film characters that had a wide variety of views, including racist ones, as part of a story.
Well precisely. So it is outdated. You can film things today set in the past knowing it is outdated when you film it. Because it accurately reflects the era.
A slightly different example of this is the use of smoking in TV and films. There has been a long running campaign to rem
At the other extreme - and something I think is completely unacceptable - companies are now editing old films and photos to remove images of people smoking. In the UK this has included censoring photos of both Churchill and IKB to remove cigars from their hands.
I don't understand how difficult it is for some people not to appreciate that people in the past thought and acted differently, and people in the future will think and act differently.
I can't begin to think what his source would be for that. Nothing springs to mind from, say, Aristophanes or Menander or Plautus or Petronius which gives us a steer either way about master/slave sex initiation techniques, and I am not sure where else to look. There's a lot of contemporary evidence to suggest that Epsteinian transactions are dressed up in a pretence of flirtation and seduction even when the reality is recognised all round as basic, choice-free sex trafficking. So where is Mr Gabb getting this stuff from?
In Petronius' Satyricon, Trimalchio is quite frank that he was used for sex by his master, when he was a slave, and states that there is no shame in serving the master's pleasure. Martial remarks that his wife is willing to let him bugger her, but he tells her that his slave boy's backside is better than hers, for that purpose. Then there is Plato's Phaidon, in which Phaedo of Elis was kept as a sex slave, due to his personal beauty. Marcus Arelius was considered remarkably self-restrained, not to take advantage of the attractive slaves in his employ.
Not the point. We all agree that masters had sex with slaves, what we are talking about is how the transaction was initiated.
You instruct your slave what your slave is to do. The slave has no choice in the matter.
So what? That is also true of employer/employee relationships, and that doesn't stop employers dressing up instructions as courteously phrased requests. Not always, but sometimes. Sexual relations come in as many different flavours as master/servant ones. so what is the basis of the evidence-free assertion that the Crassus-Antoninus scene is impossible?
If I own a slave and want to have sex with him/her why would I be courting him/her? To take more modern examples, do we really think that master/slave sex was consensual in the Deep South or West Indies?
I can't speak for you personally, and once again you miss the point. We are not talking about consensual yes/no, we are talking about dressed up as consensual yes/no.
Don’t know if this is an authoritative source, but:
‘A Roman Citizen was allowed to exploit his own slaves for sex, no matter the age or circumstances of birth. A freeborn Roman could even rape, torture and abuse their property without charge or prosecution. A slave had no civil protection or authority pertaining to their body; in essence the body of a slave was to be used to appease the sexual appetites of their Dominus.’
Nobody disputes that. We are not asking whether they could but whether they invariably did. That was not, for instance, the relationship between Cicero and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Tullius_Tiro.
Is that what we are arguing? Then there is no argument. Of course there were some Romans who treated their slaves well, some even fell in love, and freed them, and so on.
But the main point is that Romans had absolute sexual ownership of their slaves, and many regularly exploited this. It was the norm.
"Outdated attitudes" with zero censorship is perfectly reasonable. Let the snowflakes not watch it having been warned let everyone else watch it unfiltered and uncensored.
I don't have a problem with the policy, 'outdated attitudes' just feels ill defined as a term.
Would you feel comfortable filming this today?
If no: it is outdated.
Who is 'you' in this scenario? I wouldn't film a dog called n****r, as that would feel gratuitously offensive, but I'd be quite comfortable to film characters that had a wide variety of views, including racist ones, as part of a story.
Well precisely. So it is outdated. You can film things today set in the past knowing it is outdated when you film it. Because it accurately reflects the era.
A slightly different example of this is the use of smoking in TV and films. There has been a long running campaign to rem
At the other extreme - and something I think is completely unacceptable - companies are now editing old films and photos to remove images of people smoking. In the UK this has included censoring photos of both Churchill and IKB to remove cigars from their hands.
I don't understand how difficult it is for some people not to appreciate that people in the past thought and acted differently, and people in the future will think and act differently.
I can't begin to think what his source would be for that. Nothing springs to mind from, say, Aristophanes or Menander or Plautus or Petronius which gives us a steer either way about master/slave sex initiation techniques, and I am not sure where else to look. There's a lot of contemporary evidence to suggest that Epsteinian transactions are dressed up in a pretence of flirtation and seduction even when the reality is recognised all round as basic, choice-free sex trafficking. So where is Mr Gabb getting this stuff from?
In Petronius' Satyricon, Trimalchio is quite frank that he was used for sex by his master, when he was a slave, and states that there is no shame in serving the master's pleasure. Martial remarks that his wife is willing to let him bugger her, but he tells her that his slave boy's backside is better than hers, for that purpose. Then there is Plato's Phaidon, in which Phaedo of Elis was kept as a sex slave, due to his personal beauty. Marcus Arelius was considered remarkably self-restrained, not to take advantage of the attractive slaves in his employ.
Not the point. We all agree that masters had sex with slaves, what we are talking about is how the transaction was initiated.
You instruct your slave what your slave is to do. The slave has no choice in the matter.
So what? That is also true of employer/employee relationships, and that doesn't stop employers dressing up instructions as courteously phrased requests. Not always, but sometimes. Sexual relations come in as many different flavours as master/servant ones. so what is the basis of the evidence-free assertion that the Crassus-Antoninus scene is impossible?
If I own a slave and want to have sex with him/her why would I be courting him/her? To take more modern examples, do we really think that master/slave sex was consensual in the Deep South or West Indies?
Am I the only one who finds this discussion truly bizarre?
It is, or started out as, an historical enquiry. What have you got against history?
Nothing, I’m just worried at the weird fantasies that are emerging from this discussion of it.
It reminds me of the time I was teaching about evolution and a girl asked what would happen if a human and a cabbage had sex.
Clearly the Tories mucked up the pandemic again in the latter part of this year.
I was talking about cases going out of control from July onwards and was laughed at by my peers. I was calling for a lockdown then and I was absolutely right.
Indeed. By September it was patently obvious that the measures they were announcing were insufficient and would lead to national lockdown.
Drakeford's errors are bizarre though. He had the courage and foresight to go firebreak earlier than other leaders. It seemed like he understood the virus. And now he has messed up all that good work.
I struggle to think of a time when a policy was a) so obviously the right call based on the evidence b) overwhelmingly popular according to the polls... and yet was so resisted by politicians.
Because lockdowns devastate economies. And ruined economies mean ruined lives. I don’t envy politicians who have to make the call.
I really think this is wrong. The virus devastates economies. Lockdowns are good for the economy because they reduce the virus faster.
Yes; most economists support them for that reason. It’s usually just casual commentators who are wedded to the need for a narrative that it must be a seesaw choice “protect public health OR protect the economy.”
In reality, the vast majority of economists point out that the choice is “protect public health AND the economy... or lose out on both.”
No. We simply don’t know yet. You could be right, you could be wrong. We are still in the middle of this pandemic (with maybe the worst yet to come - medically and/or economically). eg We have no idea what the long term effects will be, of closing down great world cities. We assume they will simply bounce back. What if they don’t? What if suicide rates soar? What if the vaccines don’t work as hoped?
It will be several long years before we can look back and say Yes, lockdowns were the best option. Or not.
Well, at least we've progressed from a bald statement that "lockdowns devastate economies" to "we simply don't know yet."
It's not my claim. It's that of economists who've spent careers studying what happened (and happens) to economies during pandemics, and comparing those who exercise more restrictions to protect public health to those who don't (and investigating confounding factors that confuse the situation and cause variance).
And, overwhelmingly, conclude that it's the precise opposite of "lockdowns devastate economies." Failing to take sufficient action (including lockdowns and other restrictions) is what devastates economies.
The problem is, though... I believe you are a writer? So you understand the overwhelming power of narrative. The so-attractive narrative siren-calling us is to mentally frame it as one or the other, antagonistic forces, requiring a difficult choice to be made by hard-nosed people.
What chance does something counterintuitive have against narrative? Any more than we would hope for a dog with stitches to accept that the Cone of Shame is better to have on him than not.
No, you’re wrong. If I was a western political leader I too would go for lockdowns. Once you lose the chance of a China/NZ/Korea solution they are the only obvious tool.
But remember, if all you have is a hammer, every problem must be treated like a nail. Even if you end up smashing your thumb to pieces.
One day we may realise there was an alternative. When we have no thumbs left.
"Outdated attitudes" with zero censorship is perfectly reasonable. Let the snowflakes not watch it having been warned let everyone else watch it unfiltered and uncensored.
I don't have a problem with the policy, 'outdated attitudes' just feels ill defined as a term.
Would you feel comfortable filming this today?
If no: it is outdated.
Who is 'you' in this scenario? I wouldn't film a dog called n****r, as that would feel gratuitously offensive, but I'd be quite comfortable to film characters that had a wide variety of views, including racist ones, as part of a story.
Well precisely. So it is outdated. You can film things today set in the past knowing it is outdated when you film it. Because it accurately reflects the era.
A slightly different example of this is the use of smoking in TV and films. There has been a long running campaign to rem
At the other extreme - and something I think is completely unacceptable - companies are now editing old films and photos to remove images of people smoking. In the UK this has included censoring photos of both Churchill and IKB to remove cigars from their hands.
I don't understand how difficult it is for some people not to appreciate that people in the past thought and acted differently, and people in the future will think and act differently.
I can't begin to think what his source would be for that. Nothing springs to mind from, say, Aristophanes or Menander or Plautus or Petronius which gives us a steer either way about master/slave sex initiation techniques, and I am not sure where else to look. There's a lot of contemporary evidence to suggest that Epsteinian transactions are dressed up in a pretence of flirtation and seduction even when the reality is recognised all round as basic, choice-free sex trafficking. So where is Mr Gabb getting this stuff from?
In Petronius' Satyricon, Trimalchio is quite frank that he was used for sex by his master, when he was a slave, and states that there is no shame in serving the master's pleasure. Martial remarks that his wife is willing to let him bugger her, but he tells her that his slave boy's backside is better than hers, for that purpose. Then there is Plato's Phaidon, in which Phaedo of Elis was kept as a sex slave, due to his personal beauty. Marcus Arelius was considered remarkably self-restrained, not to take advantage of the attractive slaves in his employ.
Not the point. We all agree that masters had sex with slaves, what we are talking about is how the transaction was initiated.
You instruct your slave what your slave is to do. The slave has no choice in the matter.
So what? That is also true of employer/employee relationships, and that doesn't stop employers dressing up instructions as courteously phrased requests. Not always, but sometimes. Sexual relations come in as many different flavours as master/servant ones. so what is the basis of the evidence-free assertion that the Crassus-Antoninus scene is impossible?
If I own a slave and want to have sex with him/her why would I be courting him/her? To take more modern examples, do we really think that master/slave sex was consensual in the Deep South or West Indies?
I can't speak for you personally, and once again you miss the point. We are not talking about consensual yes/no, we are talking about dressed up as consensual yes/no.
Don’t know if this is an authoritative source, but:
‘A Roman Citizen was allowed to exploit his own slaves for sex, no matter the age or circumstances of birth. A freeborn Roman could even rape, torture and abuse their property without charge or prosecution. A slave had no civil protection or authority pertaining to their body; in essence the body of a slave was to be used to appease the sexual appetites of their Dominus.’
Nobody disputes that. We are not asking whether they could but whether they invariably did. That was not, for instance, the relationship between Cicero and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Tullius_Tiro.
Is that what we are arguing? Then there is no argument. Of course there were some Romans who treated their slaves well, some even fell in love, and freed them, and so on.
But the main point is that Romans had absolute sexual ownership of their slaves, and many regularly exploited this. It was the norm.
The original claim was that a scene in Spartacus where Crassus tries to seduce a slave is wrong because Crassus could just have told him to get his kit off and adopt the position. Exactly like saying that a portrayal of an Englishman trying to blandish his wife into a shag prior to 1991 is nonsense because the law at that time allowed him to rape her anyway.
Isn't it irritating when football commentators apologise for inappropriate language they have obviously got nothing to do with and can't control. It sounds fake and as you never heard it anyway it just makes you curious to know what was said.
Chancellor Angela Merkel blamed Christmas shopping for a "considerable" rise in social contacts.
And what are we doing here....having people queue for Primark around the clock.
You seem to be disturbed by round the clock shopping but that's more socially distanced. If someone is shopping at 3am (probably a shift worker at that time themselves) then how crowded do you think they'll be?
Referring to DavidL’s comments earlier, about his family life (and my sympathies on all that) I echo his observation of a new Covid depression - as in mental depression. I’m witnessing it in a lot of friends, and yes it surely has a lot to do with stunted family life, limited social life, etc
But I wonder if it is even more basic than that. Humans are tactile animals. We like to touch each other: to hug, shake hands, embrace, slap backs, high five, kiss and cuddle, make love. Normally we do this all day every day. Yet right now there is possibly less human-to-human touch going on than at any time in the history of the species.
What is this doing to our brains? Not good things, I suspect. Some people may be going without the firm touch of another human from one month to the next.
This is bound to cause depression. It may do worse things than that.
It is no secret that I suffer bouts of depression and my "cure" is to be around people. I am finding Covid very difficult
I am also finding it hard. And I am quite used to isolation, working alone, and so on.
I am sure simple lack of human touch is part of the problem. My mood improves immeasurably after warm, affectionate physical contact. Quite a few friends are buying cats and dogs for the first time in their lives.
Apparently "dog-napping" is on the increase since the demand now outstrips the supply of puppies.
It makes you wonder how Mark Watney survived on Mars
Clearly the Tories mucked up the pandemic again in the latter part of this year.
I was talking about cases going out of control from July onwards and was laughed at by my peers. I was calling for a lockdown then and I was absolutely right.
Indeed. By September it was patently obvious that the measures they were announcing were insufficient and would lead to national lockdown.
Drakeford's errors are bizarre though. He had the courage and foresight to go firebreak earlier than other leaders. It seemed like he understood the virus. And now he has messed up all that good work.
I struggle to think of a time when a policy was a) so obviously the right call based on the evidence b) overwhelmingly popular according to the polls... and yet was so resisted by politicians.
Because lockdowns devastate economies. And ruined economies mean ruined lives. I don’t envy politicians who have to make the call.
I really think this is wrong. The virus devastates economies. Lockdowns are good for the economy because they reduce the virus faster.
Yes; most economists support them for that reason. It’s usually just casual commentators who are wedded to the need for a narrative that it must be a seesaw choice “protect public health OR protect the economy.”
In reality, the vast majority of economists point out that the choice is “protect public health AND the economy... or lose out on both.”
No. We simply don’t know yet. You could be right, you could be wrong. We are still in the middle of this pandemic (with maybe the worst yet to come - medically and/or economically). eg We have no idea what the long term effects will be, of closing down great world cities. We assume they will simply bounce back. What if they don’t? What if suicide rates soar? What if the vaccines don’t work as hoped?
It will be several long years before we can look back and say Yes, lockdowns were the best option. Or not.
But with no Lockdown the virus would have run amok and this would have led to a Lockdown. Just a less organized "people led" one.
That's not a lock down as it's not led by the state. if anything at all it's a "Bloody hell I'm not going out there".
Lancashire and Yorkshire were split for a while weren't they?
(Pre lockdown Tiers I mean, not sure about post for Yorkshire)
For a couple of weeks there were different rules in different parts of Bradford borough. Outside of the city and Keighley they were eased. Then we were all put into Tier 2, or whatever the equivalent was back then.
Isn't it irritating when football commentators apologise for inappropriate language they have obviously got nothing to do with and can't control. It sounds fake and as you never heard it anyway it just makes you curious to know what was said.
Agreed. I’d estimate nine times out of 10 I didn’t even hear it first time. Streisand Effect.
Your right...surprised as that guy runs the company who provides a huge amount of analytical data for every EPL team (and most of the major European teams).
Your right...surprised as that guy runs the company who provides a huge amount of analytical data for every EPL team (and most of the major European teams).
He did last week as a troll.
He was amused by the amount of people that believed it.
I'll never understand these wind up merchants/trolls.
Clearly the Tories mucked up the pandemic again in the latter part of this year.
I was talking about cases going out of control from July onwards and was laughed at by my peers. I was calling for a lockdown then and I was absolutely right.
Indeed. By September it was patently obvious that the measures they were announcing were insufficient and would lead to national lockdown.
Drakeford's errors are bizarre though. He had the courage and foresight to go firebreak earlier than other leaders. It seemed like he understood the virus. And now he has messed up all that good work.
I struggle to think of a time when a policy was a) so obviously the right call based on the evidence b) overwhelmingly popular according to the polls... and yet was so resisted by politicians.
Because lockdowns devastate economies. And ruined economies mean ruined lives. I don’t envy politicians who have to make the call.
I really think this is wrong. The virus devastates economies. Lockdowns are good for the economy because they reduce the virus faster.
Yes; most economists support them for that reason. It’s usually just casual commentators who are wedded to the need for a narrative that it must be a seesaw choice “protect public health OR protect the economy.”
In reality, the vast majority of economists point out that the choice is “protect public health AND the economy... or lose out on both.”
No. We simply don’t know yet. You could be right, you could be wrong. We are still in the middle of this pandemic (with maybe the worst yet to come - medically and/or economically). eg We have no idea what the long term effects will be, of closing down great world cities. We assume they will simply bounce back. What if they don’t? What if suicide rates soar? What if the vaccines don’t work as hoped?
It will be several long years before we can look back and say Yes, lockdowns were the best option. Or not.
Well, at least we've progressed from a bald statement that "lockdowns devastate economies" to "we simply don't know yet."
It's not my claim. It's that of economists who've spent careers studying what happened (and happens) to economies during pandemics, and comparing those who exercise more restrictions to protect public health to those who don't (and investigating confounding factors that confuse the situation and cause variance).
And, overwhelmingly, conclude that it's the precise opposite of "lockdowns devastate economies." Failing to take sufficient action (including lockdowns and other restrictions) is what devastates economies.
The problem is, though... I believe you are a writer? So you understand the overwhelming power of narrative. The so-attractive narrative siren-calling us is to mentally frame it as one or the other, antagonistic forces, requiring a difficult choice to be made by hard-nosed people.
What chance does something counterintuitive have against narrative? Any more than we would hope for a dog with stitches to accept that the Cone of Shame is better to have on him than not.
No, you’re wrong. If I was a western political leader I too would go for lockdowns. Once you lose the chance of a China/NZ/Korea solution they are the only obvious tool.
But remember, if all you have is a hammer, every problem must be treated like a nail. Even if you end up smashing your thumb to pieces.
One day we may realise there was an alternative. When we have no thumbs left.
I agree, as it happens. Lockdowns are a very blunt and crude tool. It’s just that it’s the only one that’s worked here. I’m almost jumping up and down in frustration over the Slovakia experience. Population-wide testing, three stages (Stage 1: the highest prevalence counties entire populations; Stage 2: the entire national population a week or two later; Stage 3: The half of all counties that still have the highest prevalence a week or two after that) and compulsory 10- day self-isolation for all positives and those who choose not to be tested.
Result: their infections dropped twice as far as ours did during our lockdown and more rapidly; in their worst-hit areas by over 80%.
"Outdated attitudes" with zero censorship is perfectly reasonable. Let the snowflakes not watch it having been warned let everyone else watch it unfiltered and uncensored.
I don't have a problem with the policy, 'outdated attitudes' just feels ill defined as a term.
Would you feel comfortable filming this today?
If no: it is outdated.
Who is 'you' in this scenario? I wouldn't film a dog called n****r, as that would feel gratuitously offensive, but I'd be quite comfortable to film characters that had a wide variety of views, including racist ones, as part of a story.
Well precisely. So it is outdated. You can film things today set in the past knowing it is outdated when you film it. Because it accurately reflects the era.
A slightly different example of this is the use of smoking in TV and films. There has been a long running campaign to rem
At the other extreme - and something I think is completely unacceptable - companies are now editing old films and photos to remove images of people smoking. In the UK this has included censoring photos of both Churchill and IKB to remove cigars from their hands.
I don't understand how difficult it is for some people not to appreciate that people in the past thought and acted differently, and people in the future will think and act differently.
I can't begin to think what his source would be for that. Nothing springs to mind from, say, Aristophanes or Menander or Plautus or Petronius which gives us a steer either way about master/slave sex initiation techniques, and I am not sure where else to look. There's a lot of contemporary evidence to suggest that Epsteinian transactions are dressed up in a pretence of flirtation and seduction even when the reality is recognised all round as basic, choice-free sex trafficking. So where is Mr Gabb getting this stuff from?
In Petronius' Satyricon, Trimalchio is quite frank that he was used for sex by his master, when he was a slave, and states that there is no shame in serving the master's pleasure. Martial remarks that his wife is willing to let him bugger her, but he tells her that his slave boy's backside is better than hers, for that purpose. Then there is Plato's Phaidon, in which Phaedo of Elis was kept as a sex slave, due to his personal beauty. Marcus Arelius was considered remarkably self-restrained, not to take advantage of the attractive slaves in his employ.
Not the point. We all agree that masters had sex with slaves, what we are talking about is how the transaction was initiated.
You instruct your slave what your slave is to do. The slave has no choice in the matter.
So what? That is also true of employer/employee relationships, and that doesn't stop employers dressing up instructions as courteously phrased requests. Not always, but sometimes. Sexual relations come in as many different flavours as master/servant ones. so what is the basis of the evidence-free assertion that the Crassus-Antoninus scene is impossible?
If I own a slave and want to have sex with him/her why would I be courting him/her? To take more modern examples, do we really think that master/slave sex was consensual in the Deep South or West Indies?
I can't speak for you personally, and once again you miss the point. We are not talking about consensual yes/no, we are talking about dressed up as consensual yes/no.
Don’t know if this is an authoritative source, but:
‘A Roman Citizen was allowed to exploit his own slaves for sex, no matter the age or circumstances of birth. A freeborn Roman could even rape, torture and abuse their property without charge or prosecution. A slave had no civil protection or authority pertaining to their body; in essence the body of a slave was to be used to appease the sexual appetites of their Dominus.’
Nobody disputes that. We are not asking whether they could but whether they invariably did. That was not, for instance, the relationship between Cicero and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Tullius_Tiro.
Is that what we are arguing? Then there is no argument. Of course there were some Romans who treated their slaves well, some even fell in love, and freed them, and so on.
But the main point is that Romans had absolute sexual ownership of their slaves, and many regularly exploited this. It was the norm.
Indeed. London didn't see a big fall in lockdown, we're just going to have to live with a higher base level than the rest of the country because there is simply too much activity even under lockdown. The only thing that will save London is a rapid vaccine roll out for under 50s and the government needs to bite the bullet on that and take the bad headlines.
Under 50s don't need the vaccine though since they don't get hospitalised.
Vaccinate the over 50s and shielding under 50s and the under 50s can get back to normal automatically.
Not quite true. A quarter of all those critically ill are under 53.
Allow the rate to double in the under-50s just twice, and our hospitals would be just as overloaded with solely under 50s as they are with a full suite today.
Clearly the Tories mucked up the pandemic again in the latter part of this year.
I was talking about cases going out of control from July onwards and was laughed at by my peers. I was calling for a lockdown then and I was absolutely right.
Indeed. By September it was patently obvious that the measures they were announcing were insufficient and would lead to national lockdown.
Drakeford's errors are bizarre though. He had the courage and foresight to go firebreak earlier than other leaders. It seemed like he understood the virus. And now he has messed up all that good work.
I struggle to think of a time when a policy was a) so obviously the right call based on the evidence b) overwhelmingly popular according to the polls... and yet was so resisted by politicians.
Because lockdowns devastate economies. And ruined economies mean ruined lives. I don’t envy politicians who have to make the call.
I really think this is wrong. The virus devastates economies. Lockdowns are good for the economy because they reduce the virus faster.
Yes; most economists support them for that reason. It’s usually just casual commentators who are wedded to the need for a narrative that it must be a seesaw choice “protect public health OR protect the economy.”
In reality, the vast majority of economists point out that the choice is “protect public health AND the economy... or lose out on both.”
No. We simply don’t know yet. You could be right, you could be wrong. We are still in the middle of this pandemic (with maybe the worst yet to come - medically and/or economically). eg We have no idea what the long term effects will be, of closing down great world cities. We assume they will simply bounce back. What if they don’t? What if suicide rates soar? What if the vaccines don’t work as hoped?
It will be several long years before we can look back and say Yes, lockdowns were the best option. Or not.
Well, at least we've progressed from a bald statement that "lockdowns devastate economies" to "we simply don't know yet."
It's not my claim. It's that of economists who've spent careers studying what happened (and happens) to economies during pandemics, and comparing those who exercise more restrictions to protect public health to those who don't (and investigating confounding factors that confuse the situation and cause variance).
And, overwhelmingly, conclude that it's the precise opposite of "lockdowns devastate economies." Failing to take sufficient action (including lockdowns and other restrictions) is what devastates economies.
The problem is, though... I believe you are a writer? So you understand the overwhelming power of narrative. The so-attractive narrative siren-calling us is to mentally frame it as one or the other, antagonistic forces, requiring a difficult choice to be made by hard-nosed people.
What chance does something counterintuitive have against narrative? Any more than we would hope for a dog with stitches to accept that the Cone of Shame is better to have on him than not.
No, you’re wrong. If I was a western political leader I too would go for lockdowns. Once you lose the chance of a China/NZ/Korea solution they are the only obvious tool.
But remember, if all you have is a hammer, every problem must be treated like a nail. Even if you end up smashing your thumb to pieces.
One day we may realise there was an alternative. When we have no thumbs left.
I agree, as it happens. Lockdowns are a very blunt and crude tool. It’s just that it’s the only one that’s worked here. I’m almost jumping up and down in frustration over the Slovakia experience. Population-wide testing, three stages (Stage 1: the highest prevalence counties entire populations; Stage 2: the entire national population a week or two later; Stage 3: The half of all counties that still have the highest prevalence a week or two after that) and compulsory 10- day self-isolation for all positives and those who choose not to be tested.
Result: their infections dropped twice as far as ours did during our lockdown and more rapidly; in their worst-hit areas by over 80%.
If Slovakia can do that, why the hell can’t we?
Johnson and his cronies are incapable of maintaining the required focus to plan and implement such an endeavour.
If we'd had the two week firebreak we would be in the position where Drakeford is now which is even worse.
Thanks to taking the time to try the Tiers we found out that the original Tier system didn't work, took a 4 week lockdown that did and put in stricter Tiers as a result afterwards.
So how is taking time to consider all the evidence as we did a bad thing?
There's a graph in the paper that shows it wonderfully well.
But here's two bits that stood out.
As a result, more than 1.3 million extra infections are estimated to have spread across the country. We heard evidence that one intensive care ward in Manchester became so overwhelmed that patients were left to die without the life-saving care they needed......
..The next day in the Commons, Wednesday, October 14, Sunak hit back, accusing Labour of being “detached from reality” and being irresponsible for not acknowledging “the economic cost of a blunt national lockdown”. This was little more than two weeks before the government would perform a U-turn and announce a lockdown.
Does the graph show England doing worse than Wales? 🤔
A blunt lockdown failed where it was tried.
By taking time to test Tiers we surely have a better outcome now than if we had just gone for a 2 weeks firebreak then back to the status quo ante which is what the advice was and Wales tried.
Fake news again! The Wales Lockdown worked in the short term, it only failed in the medium term because it was too short and the moment we exited it was party time.
I reluctantly went hunter-gathering this afternoon to Waitrose in Cowbridge. Sunday afternoon, just before closing time, it'll be quiet I thought. Waitrose was rammed to the extent that trolley usage was like the dodgems. I got what was on my list and left.
Drakeford might be clueless, but his citizens seem even dafter.
I estimate that England is ten to fourteen days behind, so good luck.
Short term is meaningless which was my precise point! Medium term is relevant.
The fact they reverted from the firebreak back to the status quo ante restrictions was Drakeford's policy and Drakeford gave the attitude that the two weeks was sufficient so why not party afterwards?
In contrast in England as they had tried the Tiers first post lockdown they knew NOT to go back into the original Tiers afterwards so the post lockdown Tiers were different to the pre lockdown Tiers.
I see no reason why if we had followed the 2 week firebreak advice we wouldn't have followed Drakeford's path which seems worse than what has actually happened in the medium term.
We should have been in a long lock down in September.
I had a quarterly appointment at Manchester Royal Infirmary last week with a specialist endocrine nurse.
When I saw her in September she was shattered, she had spent the summer on the positive C-19 ward as she was deemed 'safe' as she is young (in her 30s).
Each day getting home after hours in PPE, getting totally undressed at the front door, putting all her clothes in the washing machine and then ages in the shower petrified she'd bring the virus into her family.
Since Sept she is back on the endocrine side of things.
There are no consultants available, there have been none since March, they are all running and working on the C-19 positive wards.
Patients are getting very impatient, she commented that clap for carers on a Thursday night seems a long time ago and the public have turned against them as they are not getting the care they expect.
There are staff on the positive C-19 wards and positive C-19 ICU ward in Manchester that have worked 6 and 7 days weeks, every week, with no holiday, since March, 10+ hours every single day.
She said the staff are at breaking point in Manchester on the positive wards, the patients are at breaking point through lack of any healthcare service.
Once we do see a reduction in C-19 when vaccines start to have a material impact a vast swathe of the NHS needs a long holiday, a very long holiday.
The awful management of this by the government has let this continue, they have permitted levels to stay high so long as the NHS is not totally overwhelmed with zero care whatsoever on the impact of those working in the NHS or those who desperately require the healthcare that is provides.
A terrible strategy that they deserve to be absolutely hammered for.
Not quite as bad where I am, but fatigue is certainly telling on our respiratory unit, where 40% were off sick the other week. Lots of conscripts from other departments, and mostly willing, but inexperienced in respiratory matters so needing supervision. Our Trust realised in March that this was a marathon rather than sprint, and honours leave requests. Indeed has instructed people to take, recognising that planned breaks are better than breakdown.
I was never into the "Clap for Carers", but now frontline staff are increasingly being abused and threatened by patients and relatives. Not me personally, but some of our HCAs have been brought to tears by mask refusers, and other non compliers with infection control policy, just for doing their jobs.
NB: Slight fluey feeling and sore deltoid after vaccination this AM, but no more than a usual flu jab. I suppose it is evidence of immunology at work, so a good thing perhaps.
My 80-something father has his first dose of the vaccine tomorrow. He gets the rest in early Jan.
Clearly the Tories mucked up the pandemic again in the latter part of this year.
I was talking about cases going out of control from July onwards and was laughed at by my peers. I was calling for a lockdown then and I was absolutely right.
Indeed. By September it was patently obvious that the measures they were announcing were insufficient and would lead to national lockdown.
Drakeford's errors are bizarre though. He had the courage and foresight to go firebreak earlier than other leaders. It seemed like he understood the virus. And now he has messed up all that good work.
I struggle to think of a time when a policy was a) so obviously the right call based on the evidence b) overwhelmingly popular according to the polls... and yet was so resisted by politicians.
Because lockdowns devastate economies. And ruined economies mean ruined lives. I don’t envy politicians who have to make the call.
I really think this is wrong. The virus devastates economies. Lockdowns are good for the economy because they reduce the virus faster.
Yes; most economists support them for that reason. It’s usually just casual commentators who are wedded to the need for a narrative that it must be a seesaw choice “protect public health OR protect the economy.”
In reality, the vast majority of economists point out that the choice is “protect public health AND the economy... or lose out on both.”
No. We simply don’t know yet. You could be right, you could be wrong. We are still in the middle of this pandemic (with maybe the worst yet to come - medically and/or economically). eg We have no idea what the long term effects will be, of closing down great world cities. We assume they will simply bounce back. What if they don’t? What if suicide rates soar? What if the vaccines don’t work as hoped?
It will be several long years before we can look back and say Yes, lockdowns were the best option. Or not.
Well, at least we've progressed from a bald statement that "lockdowns devastate economies" to "we simply don't know yet."
It's not my claim. It's that of economists who've spent careers studying what happened (and happens) to economies during pandemics, and comparing those who exercise more restrictions to protect public health to those who don't (and investigating confounding factors that confuse the situation and cause variance).
And, overwhelmingly, conclude that it's the precise opposite of "lockdowns devastate economies." Failing to take sufficient action (including lockdowns and other restrictions) is what devastates economies.
The problem is, though... I believe you are a writer? So you understand the overwhelming power of narrative. The so-attractive narrative siren-calling us is to mentally frame it as one or the other, antagonistic forces, requiring a difficult choice to be made by hard-nosed people.
What chance does something counterintuitive have against narrative? Any more than we would hope for a dog with stitches to accept that the Cone of Shame is better to have on him than not.
No, you’re wrong. If I was a western political leader I too would go for lockdowns. Once you lose the chance of a China/NZ/Korea solution they are the only obvious tool.
But remember, if all you have is a hammer, every problem must be treated like a nail. Even if you end up smashing your thumb to pieces.
One day we may realise there was an alternative. When we have no thumbs left.
I agree, as it happens. Lockdowns are a very blunt and crude tool. It’s just that it’s the only one that’s worked here. I’m almost jumping up and down in frustration over the Slovakia experience. Population-wide testing, three stages (Stage 1: the highest prevalence counties entire populations; Stage 2: the entire national population a week or two later; Stage 3: The half of all counties that still have the highest prevalence a week or two after that) and compulsory 10- day self-isolation for all positives and those who choose not to be tested.
Result: their infections dropped twice as far as ours did during our lockdown and more rapidly; in their worst-hit areas by over 80%.
If Slovakia can do that, why the hell can’t we?
Yes, it's completely ridiculous that we can't copy these kinds of schemes. Even the Liverpool citywide testing was a pile of crap.
Clearly the Tories mucked up the pandemic again in the latter part of this year.
I was talking about cases going out of control from July onwards and was laughed at by my peers. I was calling for a lockdown then and I was absolutely right.
Indeed. By September it was patently obvious that the measures they were announcing were insufficient and would lead to national lockdown.
Drakeford's errors are bizarre though. He had the courage and foresight to go firebreak earlier than other leaders. It seemed like he understood the virus. And now he has messed up all that good work.
I struggle to think of a time when a policy was a) so obviously the right call based on the evidence b) overwhelmingly popular according to the polls... and yet was so resisted by politicians.
Because lockdowns devastate economies. And ruined economies mean ruined lives. I don’t envy politicians who have to make the call.
I really think this is wrong. The virus devastates economies. Lockdowns are good for the economy because they reduce the virus faster.
Yes; most economists support them for that reason. It’s usually just casual commentators who are wedded to the need for a narrative that it must be a seesaw choice “protect public health OR protect the economy.”
In reality, the vast majority of economists point out that the choice is “protect public health AND the economy... or lose out on both.”
No. We simply don’t know yet. You could be right, you could be wrong. We are still in the middle of this pandemic (with maybe the worst yet to come - medically and/or economically). eg We have no idea what the long term effects will be, of closing down great world cities. We assume they will simply bounce back. What if they don’t? What if suicide rates soar? What if the vaccines don’t work as hoped?
It will be several long years before we can look back and say Yes, lockdowns were the best option. Or not.
Well, at least we've progressed from a bald statement that "lockdowns devastate economies" to "we simply don't know yet."
It's not my claim. It's that of economists who've spent careers studying what happened (and happens) to economies during pandemics, and comparing those who exercise more restrictions to protect public health to those who don't (and investigating confounding factors that confuse the situation and cause variance).
And, overwhelmingly, conclude that it's the precise opposite of "lockdowns devastate economies." Failing to take sufficient action (including lockdowns and other restrictions) is what devastates economies.
The problem is, though... I believe you are a writer? So you understand the overwhelming power of narrative. The so-attractive narrative siren-calling us is to mentally frame it as one or the other, antagonistic forces, requiring a difficult choice to be made by hard-nosed people.
What chance does something counterintuitive have against narrative? Any more than we would hope for a dog with stitches to accept that the Cone of Shame is better to have on him than not.
No, you’re wrong. If I was a western political leader I too would go for lockdowns. Once you lose the chance of a China/NZ/Korea solution they are the only obvious tool.
But remember, if all you have is a hammer, every problem must be treated like a nail. Even if you end up smashing your thumb to pieces.
One day we may realise there was an alternative. When we have no thumbs left.
I agree, as it happens. Lockdowns are a very blunt and crude tool. It’s just that it’s the only one that’s worked here. I’m almost jumping up and down in frustration over the Slovakia experience. Population-wide testing, three stages (Stage 1: the highest prevalence counties entire populations; Stage 2: the entire national population a week or two later; Stage 3: The half of all counties that still have the highest prevalence a week or two after that) and compulsory 10- day self-isolation for all positives and those who choose not to be tested.
Result: their infections dropped twice as far as ours did during our lockdown and more rapidly; in their worst-hit areas by over 80%.
If Slovakia can do that, why the hell can’t we?
Problems of scale? Just remember how hard it was to get capacity up this high.
"Outdated attitudes" with zero censorship is perfectly reasonable. Let the snowflakes not watch it having been warned let everyone else watch it unfiltered and uncensored.
I don't have a problem with the policy, 'outdated attitudes' just feels ill defined as a term.
Would you feel comfortable filming this today?
If no: it is outdated.
Who is 'you' in this scenario? I wouldn't film a dog called n****r, as that would feel gratuitously offensive, but I'd be quite comfortable to film characters that had a wide variety of views, including racist ones, as part of a story.
Well precisely. So it is outdated. You can film things today set in the past knowing it is outdated when you film it. Because it accurately reflects the era.
A slightly different example of this is the use of smoking in TV and films. There has been a long running campaign to rem
At the other extreme - and something I think is completely unacceptable - companies are now editing old films and photos to remove images of people smoking. In the UK this has included censoring photos of both Churchill and IKB to remove cigars from their hands.
I don't understand how difficult it is for some people not to appreciate that people in the past thought and acted differently, and people in the future will think and act differently.
I can't begin to think what his source would be for that. Nothing springs to mind from, say, Aristophanes or Menander or Plautus or Petronius which gives us a steer either way about master/slave sex initiation techniques, and I am not sure where else to look. There's a lot of contemporary evidence to suggest that Epsteinian transactions are dressed up in a pretence of flirtation and seduction even when the reality is recognised all round as basic, choice-free sex trafficking. So where is Mr Gabb getting this stuff from?
In Petronius' Satyricon, Trimalchio is quite frank that he was used for sex by his master, when he was a slave, and states that there is no shame in serving the master's pleasure. Martial remarks that his wife is willing to let him bugger her, but he tells her that his slave boy's backside is better than hers, for that purpose. Then there is Plato's Phaidon, in which Phaedo of Elis was kept as a sex slave, due to his personal beauty. Marcus Arelius was considered remarkably self-restrained, not to take advantage of the attractive slaves in his employ.
Not the point. We all agree that masters had sex with slaves, what we are talking about is how the transaction was initiated.
You instruct your slave what your slave is to do. The slave has no choice in the matter.
So what? That is also true of employer/employee relationships, and that doesn't stop employers dressing up instructions as courteously phrased requests. Not always, but sometimes. Sexual relations come in as many different flavours as master/servant ones. so what is the basis of the evidence-free assertion that the Crassus-Antoninus scene is impossible?
If I own a slave and want to have sex with him/her why would I be courting him/her? To take more modern examples, do we really think that master/slave sex was consensual in the Deep South or West Indies?
I can't speak for you personally, and once again you miss the point. We are not talking about consensual yes/no, we are talking about dressed up as consensual yes/no.
Don’t know if this is an authoritative source, but:
‘A Roman Citizen was allowed to exploit his own slaves for sex, no matter the age or circumstances of birth. A freeborn Roman could even rape, torture and abuse their property without charge or prosecution. A slave had no civil protection or authority pertaining to their body; in essence the body of a slave was to be used to appease the sexual appetites of their Dominus.’
Nobody disputes that. We are not asking whether they could but whether they invariably did. That was not, for instance, the relationship between Cicero and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Tullius_Tiro.
Well, I suppose it could be a piece of role-play, between Crassus and Antoninus. Crassus playing the role of the Erastes, Antoninus the part of the Eromenos.
But, I don't think it's probable. I don't have the impression that Antoninus is happy with the situation,
Top 5 killers of Americans in the history of their country (only death tolls of 100,000 and up):
1: Spanish Flu. ~675,000 2: Civil War. ~655,000 3. World War 2. 406,000 4. Covid 19. 300,000 and climbing 5. World War 1. 116,000
How long before Covid overtakes WW2 and takes 3rd place?
The Uni of Wash model now predicts 500,000 American dead by April 1. An incredible toll, but sadly possible. Who would have thought it? Worse than World War 2.
Indeed. London didn't see a big fall in lockdown, we're just going to have to live with a higher base level than the rest of the country because there is simply too much activity even under lockdown. The only thing that will save London is a rapid vaccine roll out for under 50s and the government needs to bite the bullet on that and take the bad headlines.
Under 50s don't need the vaccine though since they don't get hospitalised.
Vaccinate the over 50s and shielding under 50s and the under 50s can get back to normal automatically.
Not quite true. A quarter of all those critically ill are under 53.
Allow the rate to double in the under-50s just twice, and our hospitals would be just as overloaded with solely under 50s as they are with a full suite today.
Phillip includes shielding under 50s.
Very, very few healthy under 50s have been hospitalised.
Clearly the Tories mucked up the pandemic again in the latter part of this year.
I was talking about cases going out of control from July onwards and was laughed at by my peers. I was calling for a lockdown then and I was absolutely right.
Indeed. By September it was patently obvious that the measures they were announcing were insufficient and would lead to national lockdown.
Drakeford's errors are bizarre though. He had the courage and foresight to go firebreak earlier than other leaders. It seemed like he understood the virus. And now he has messed up all that good work.
I struggle to think of a time when a policy was a) so obviously the right call based on the evidence b) overwhelmingly popular according to the polls... and yet was so resisted by politicians.
Because lockdowns devastate economies. And ruined economies mean ruined lives. I don’t envy politicians who have to make the call.
I really think this is wrong. The virus devastates economies. Lockdowns are good for the economy because they reduce the virus faster.
Yes; most economists support them for that reason. It’s usually just casual commentators who are wedded to the need for a narrative that it must be a seesaw choice “protect public health OR protect the economy.”
In reality, the vast majority of economists point out that the choice is “protect public health AND the economy... or lose out on both.”
No. We simply don’t know yet. You could be right, you could be wrong. We are still in the middle of this pandemic (with maybe the worst yet to come - medically and/or economically). eg We have no idea what the long term effects will be, of closing down great world cities. We assume they will simply bounce back. What if they don’t? What if suicide rates soar? What if the vaccines don’t work as hoped?
It will be several long years before we can look back and say Yes, lockdowns were the best option. Or not.
Well, at least we've progressed from a bald statement that "lockdowns devastate economies" to "we simply don't know yet."
It's not my claim. It's that of economists who've spent careers studying what happened (and happens) to economies during pandemics, and comparing those who exercise more restrictions to protect public health to those who don't (and investigating confounding factors that confuse the situation and cause variance).
And, overwhelmingly, conclude that it's the precise opposite of "lockdowns devastate economies." Failing to take sufficient action (including lockdowns and other restrictions) is what devastates economies.
The problem is, though... I believe you are a writer? So you understand the overwhelming power of narrative. The so-attractive narrative siren-calling us is to mentally frame it as one or the other, antagonistic forces, requiring a difficult choice to be made by hard-nosed people.
What chance does something counterintuitive have against narrative? Any more than we would hope for a dog with stitches to accept that the Cone of Shame is better to have on him than not.
No, you’re wrong. If I was a western political leader I too would go for lockdowns. Once you lose the chance of a China/NZ/Korea solution they are the only obvious tool.
But remember, if all you have is a hammer, every problem must be treated like a nail. Even if you end up smashing your thumb to pieces.
One day we may realise there was an alternative. When we have no thumbs left.
I agree, as it happens. Lockdowns are a very blunt and crude tool. It’s just that it’s the only one that’s worked here. I’m almost jumping up and down in frustration over the Slovakia experience. Population-wide testing, three stages (Stage 1: the highest prevalence counties entire populations; Stage 2: the entire national population a week or two later; Stage 3: The half of all counties that still have the highest prevalence a week or two after that) and compulsory 10- day self-isolation for all positives and those who choose not to be tested.
Result: their infections dropped twice as far as ours did during our lockdown and more rapidly; in their worst-hit areas by over 80%.
If Slovakia can do that, why the hell can’t we?
Problems of scale? Just remember how hard it was to get capacity up this high.
No, the issue is that the bureaucrats and scientists have decided that antigen tests aren't useful so we're stuck with trying to do it with PCR testing which is too slow or lateral flow tests which are too expensive. The Slovakia national testing used 20 minute antigen tests which are a couple of dollars per test vs £35-45 per lateral flow test or £85 for a PCR test.
The other part of it is the government seem to be scared of knocking on doors and testing people. For whatever reason this is deemed as unacceptable by the government, PHE and the scientists but other countries have used door knocking to great effect for testing and quarantine/isolation adherence rates. Basically everything we're doing is rubbish except vaccines.
Clearly the Tories mucked up the pandemic again in the latter part of this year.
I was talking about cases going out of control from July onwards and was laughed at by my peers. I was calling for a lockdown then and I was absolutely right.
Indeed. By September it was patently obvious that the measures they were announcing were insufficient and would lead to national lockdown.
Drakeford's errors are bizarre though. He had the courage and foresight to go firebreak earlier than other leaders. It seemed like he understood the virus. And now he has messed up all that good work.
I struggle to think of a time when a policy was a) so obviously the right call based on the evidence b) overwhelmingly popular according to the polls... and yet was so resisted by politicians.
Because lockdowns devastate economies. And ruined economies mean ruined lives. I don’t envy politicians who have to make the call.
I really think this is wrong. The virus devastates economies. Lockdowns are good for the economy because they reduce the virus faster.
Yes; most economists support them for that reason. It’s usually just casual commentators who are wedded to the need for a narrative that it must be a seesaw choice “protect public health OR protect the economy.”
In reality, the vast majority of economists point out that the choice is “protect public health AND the economy... or lose out on both.”
No. We simply don’t know yet. You could be right, you could be wrong. We are still in the middle of this pandemic (with maybe the worst yet to come - medically and/or economically). eg We have no idea what the long term effects will be, of closing down great world cities. We assume they will simply bounce back. What if they don’t? What if suicide rates soar? What if the vaccines don’t work as hoped?
It will be several long years before we can look back and say Yes, lockdowns were the best option. Or not.
Well, at least we've progressed from a bald statement that "lockdowns devastate economies" to "we simply don't know yet."
It's not my claim. It's that of economists who've spent careers studying what happened (and happens) to economies during pandemics, and comparing those who exercise more restrictions to protect public health to those who don't (and investigating confounding factors that confuse the situation and cause variance).
And, overwhelmingly, conclude that it's the precise opposite of "lockdowns devastate economies." Failing to take sufficient action (including lockdowns and other restrictions) is what devastates economies.
The problem is, though... I believe you are a writer? So you understand the overwhelming power of narrative. The so-attractive narrative siren-calling us is to mentally frame it as one or the other, antagonistic forces, requiring a difficult choice to be made by hard-nosed people.
What chance does something counterintuitive have against narrative? Any more than we would hope for a dog with stitches to accept that the Cone of Shame is better to have on him than not.
No, you’re wrong. If I was a western political leader I too would go for lockdowns. Once you lose the chance of a China/NZ/Korea solution they are the only obvious tool.
But remember, if all you have is a hammer, every problem must be treated like a nail. Even if you end up smashing your thumb to pieces.
One day we may realise there was an alternative. When we have no thumbs left.
I agree, as it happens. Lockdowns are a very blunt and crude tool. It’s just that it’s the only one that’s worked here. I’m almost jumping up and down in frustration over the Slovakia experience. Population-wide testing, three stages (Stage 1: the highest prevalence counties entire populations; Stage 2: the entire national population a week or two later; Stage 3: The half of all counties that still have the highest prevalence a week or two after that) and compulsory 10- day self-isolation for all positives and those who choose not to be tested.
Result: their infections dropped twice as far as ours did during our lockdown and more rapidly; in their worst-hit areas by over 80%.
If Slovakia can do that, why the hell can’t we?
Well, Drakeford's mass testing scheme in Wales has been criticised by professional public health experts as a waste of resources.
"Outdated attitudes" with zero censorship is perfectly reasonable. Let the snowflakes not watch it having been warned let everyone else watch it unfiltered and uncensored.
I don't have a problem with the policy, 'outdated attitudes' just feels ill defined as a term.
Would you feel comfortable filming this today?
If no: it is outdated.
Who is 'you' in this scenario? I wouldn't film a dog called n****r, as that would feel gratuitously offensive, but I'd be quite comfortable to film characters that had a wide variety of views, including racist ones, as part of a story.
Well precisely. So it is outdated. You can film things today set in the past knowing it is outdated when you film it. Because it accurately reflects the era.
A slightly different example of this is the use of smoking in TV and films. There has been a long running campaign to rem
At the other extreme - and something I think is completely unacceptable - companies are now editing old films and photos to remove images of people smoking. In the UK this has included censoring photos of both Churchill and IKB to remove cigars from their hands.
I don't understand how difficult it is for some people not to appreciate that people in the past thought and acted differently, and people in the future will think and act differently.
I can't begin to think what his source would be for that. Nothing springs to mind from, say, Aristophanes or Menander or Plautus or Petronius which gives us a steer either way about master/slave sex initiation techniques, and I am not sure where else to look. There's a lot of contemporary evidence to suggest that Epsteinian transactions are dressed up in a pretence of flirtation and seduction even when the reality is recognised all round as basic, choice-free sex trafficking. So where is Mr Gabb getting this stuff from?
In Petronius' Satyricon, Trimalchio is quite frank that he was used for sex by his master, when he was a slave, and states that there is no shame in serving the master's pleasure. Martial remarks that his wife is willing to let him bugger her, but he tells her that his slave boy's backside is better than hers, for that purpose. Then there is Plato's Phaidon, in which Phaedo of Elis was kept as a sex slave, due to his personal beauty. Marcus Arelius was considered remarkably self-restrained, not to take advantage of the attractive slaves in his employ.
Not the point. We all agree that masters had sex with slaves, what we are talking about is how the transaction was initiated.
You instruct your slave what your slave is to do. The slave has no choice in the matter.
So what? That is also true of employer/employee relationships, and that doesn't stop employers dressing up instructions as courteously phrased requests. Not always, but sometimes. Sexual relations come in as many different flavours as master/servant ones. so what is the basis of the evidence-free assertion that the Crassus-Antoninus scene is impossible?
If I own a slave and want to have sex with him/her why would I be courting him/her? To take more modern examples, do we really think that master/slave sex was consensual in the Deep South or West Indies?
I can't speak for you personally, and once again you miss the point. We are not talking about consensual yes/no, we are talking about dressed up as consensual yes/no.
Don’t know if this is an authoritative source, but:
‘A Roman Citizen was allowed to exploit his own slaves for sex, no matter the age or circumstances of birth. A freeborn Roman could even rape, torture and abuse their property without charge or prosecution. A slave had no civil protection or authority pertaining to their body; in essence the body of a slave was to be used to appease the sexual appetites of their Dominus.’
Nobody disputes that. We are not asking whether they could but whether they invariably did. That was not, for instance, the relationship between Cicero and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Tullius_Tiro.
Well, I suppose it could be a piece of role-play, between Crassus and Antoninus. Crassus playing the role of the Erastes, Antoninus the part of the Eromenos.
But, I don't think it's probable. I don't have the impression that Antoninus is happy with the situation,
In the film it's his cue to leave and join Spartacus, so no, I don't think he was that happy...
Clearly the Tories mucked up the pandemic again in the latter part of this year.
I was talking about cases going out of control from July onwards and was laughed at by my peers. I was calling for a lockdown then and I was absolutely right.
Indeed. By September it was patently obvious that the measures they were announcing were insufficient and would lead to national lockdown.
Drakeford's errors are bizarre though. He had the courage and foresight to go firebreak earlier than other leaders. It seemed like he understood the virus. And now he has messed up all that good work.
I struggle to think of a time when a policy was a) so obviously the right call based on the evidence b) overwhelmingly popular according to the polls... and yet was so resisted by politicians.
Because lockdowns devastate economies. And ruined economies mean ruined lives. I don’t envy politicians who have to make the call.
I really think this is wrong. The virus devastates economies. Lockdowns are good for the economy because they reduce the virus faster.
Yes; most economists support them for that reason. It’s usually just casual commentators who are wedded to the need for a narrative that it must be a seesaw choice “protect public health OR protect the economy.”
In reality, the vast majority of economists point out that the choice is “protect public health AND the economy... or lose out on both.”
No. We simply don’t know yet. You could be right, you could be wrong. We are still in the middle of this pandemic (with maybe the worst yet to come - medically and/or economically). eg We have no idea what the long term effects will be, of closing down great world cities. We assume they will simply bounce back. What if they don’t? What if suicide rates soar? What if the vaccines don’t work as hoped?
It will be several long years before we can look back and say Yes, lockdowns were the best option. Or not.
Well, at least we've progressed from a bald statement that "lockdowns devastate economies" to "we simply don't know yet."
It's not my claim. It's that of economists who've spent careers studying what happened (and happens) to economies during pandemics, and comparing those who exercise more restrictions to protect public health to those who don't (and investigating confounding factors that confuse the situation and cause variance).
And, overwhelmingly, conclude that it's the precise opposite of "lockdowns devastate economies." Failing to take sufficient action (including lockdowns and other restrictions) is what devastates economies.
The problem is, though... I believe you are a writer? So you understand the overwhelming power of narrative. The so-attractive narrative siren-calling us is to mentally frame it as one or the other, antagonistic forces, requiring a difficult choice to be made by hard-nosed people.
What chance does something counterintuitive have against narrative? Any more than we would hope for a dog with stitches to accept that the Cone of Shame is better to have on him than not.
No, you’re wrong. If I was a western political leader I too would go for lockdowns. Once you lose the chance of a China/NZ/Korea solution they are the only obvious tool.
But remember, if all you have is a hammer, every problem must be treated like a nail. Even if you end up smashing your thumb to pieces.
One day we may realise there was an alternative. When we have no thumbs left.
I agree, as it happens. Lockdowns are a very blunt and crude tool. It’s just that it’s the only one that’s worked here. I’m almost jumping up and down in frustration over the Slovakia experience. Population-wide testing, three stages (Stage 1: the highest prevalence counties entire populations; Stage 2: the entire national population a week or two later; Stage 3: The half of all counties that still have the highest prevalence a week or two after that) and compulsory 10- day self-isolation for all positives and those who choose not to be tested.
Result: their infections dropped twice as far as ours did during our lockdown and more rapidly; in their worst-hit areas by over 80%.
If Slovakia can do that, why the hell can’t we?
Problems of scale? Just remember how hard it was to get capacity up this high.
Maybe - but each region in England is comparable or smaller than Slovakia population-wise, so why can’t we just have all regions keyed up to do what Slovakia did and do it simultaneously? Our GDP per capita is twice that of Slovakia.
I assume the usual collection of MEPs and EU bureaucrats are mixed up in the Brussels orgy.
These Continentals are struggling manfully (in more ways than one) at keeping their peckers up (ditto) now that they will NOT bee able to count on the English for their traditional leadership and unique contributions in this field of oh-so human endeavor.
Top 5 killers of Americans in the history of their country (only death tolls of 100,000 and up):
1: Spanish Flu. ~675,000 2: Civil War. ~655,000 3. World War 2. 406,000 4. Covid 19. 300,000 and climbing 5. World War 1. 116,000
How long before Covid overtakes WW2 and takes 3rd place?
The Uni of Wash model now predicts 500,000 American dead by April 1. An incredible toll, but sadly possible. Who would have thought it? Worse than World War 2.
"Outdated attitudes" with zero censorship is perfectly reasonable. Let the snowflakes not watch it having been warned let everyone else watch it unfiltered and uncensored.
I don't have a problem with the policy, 'outdated attitudes' just feels ill defined as a term.
Would you feel comfortable filming this today?
If no: it is outdated.
Who is 'you' in this scenario? I wouldn't film a dog called n****r, as that would feel gratuitously offensive, but I'd be quite comfortable to film characters that had a wide variety of views, including racist ones, as part of a story.
Well precisely. So it is outdated. You can film things today set in the past knowing it is outdated when you film it. Because it accurately reflects the era.
A slightly different example of this is the use of smoking in TV and films. There has been a long running campaign to rem
At the other extreme - and something I think is completely unacceptable - companies are now editing old films and photos to remove images of people smoking. In the UK this has included censoring photos of both Churchill and IKB to remove cigars from their hands.
I don't understand how difficult it is for some people not to appreciate that people in the past thought and acted differently, and people in the future will think and act differently.
I can't begin to think what his source would be for that. Nothing springs to mind from, say, Aristophanes or Menander or Plautus or Petronius which gives us a steer either way about master/slave sex initiation techniques, and I am not sure where else to look. There's a lot of contemporary evidence to suggest that Epsteinian transactions are dressed up in a pretence of flirtation and seduction even when the reality is recognised all round as basic, choice-free sex trafficking. So where is Mr Gabb getting this stuff from?
In Petronius' Satyricon, Trimalchio is quite frank that he was used for sex by his master, when he was a slave, and states that there is no shame in serving the master's pleasure. Martial remarks that his wife is willing to let him bugger her, but he tells her that his slave boy's backside is better than hers, for that purpose. Then there is Plato's Phaidon, in which Phaedo of Elis was kept as a sex slave, due to his personal beauty. Marcus Arelius was considered remarkably self-restrained, not to take advantage of the attractive slaves in his employ.
Not the point. We all agree that masters had sex with slaves, what we are talking about is how the transaction was initiated.
You instruct your slave what your slave is to do. The slave has no choice in the matter.
So what? That is also true of employer/employee relationships, and that doesn't stop employers dressing up instructions as courteously phrased requests. Not always, but sometimes. Sexual relations come in as many different flavours as master/servant ones. so what is the basis of the evidence-free assertion that the Crassus-Antoninus scene is impossible?
If I own a slave and want to have sex with him/her why would I be courting him/her? To take more modern examples, do we really think that master/slave sex was consensual in the Deep South or West Indies?
I can't speak for you personally, and once again you miss the point. We are not talking about consensual yes/no, we are talking about dressed up as consensual yes/no.
Don’t know if this is an authoritative source, but:
‘A Roman Citizen was allowed to exploit his own slaves for sex, no matter the age or circumstances of birth. A freeborn Roman could even rape, torture and abuse their property without charge or prosecution. A slave had no civil protection or authority pertaining to their body; in essence the body of a slave was to be used to appease the sexual appetites of their Dominus.’
Nobody disputes that. We are not asking whether they could but whether they invariably did. That was not, for instance, the relationship between Cicero and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Tullius_Tiro.
Well, I suppose it could be a piece of role-play, between Crassus and Antoninus. Crassus playing the role of the Erastes, Antoninus the part of the Eromenos.
But, I don't think it's probable. I don't have the impression that Antoninus is happy with the situation,
In the film it's his cue to leave and join Spartacus, so no, I don't think he was that happy...
Well, given what happened he was buggered either way.
Indeed. London didn't see a big fall in lockdown, we're just going to have to live with a higher base level than the rest of the country because there is simply too much activity even under lockdown. The only thing that will save London is a rapid vaccine roll out for under 50s and the government needs to bite the bullet on that and take the bad headlines.
Under 50s don't need the vaccine though since they don't get hospitalised.
Vaccinate the over 50s and shielding under 50s and the under 50s can get back to normal automatically.
Not quite true. A quarter of all those critically ill are under 53.
Allow the rate to double in the under-50s just twice, and our hospitals would be just as overloaded with solely under 50s as they are with a full suite today.
For example this thirty something local radio presenter died within days of admission in my hospital 10 days ago.
I assume the usual collection of MEPs and EU bureaucrats are mixed up in the Brussels orgy.
These Continentals are struggling manfully (in more ways than one) at keeping their peckers up (ditto) now that they will NOT bee able to count on the English for their traditional leadership and unique contributions in this field of oh-so human endeavor.
I wonder what will happen to Tegnell if this gets worse. Will the Swedes finally turn on him? It's a damn shame because their policy seemed humane and sensible
Indeed. London didn't see a big fall in lockdown, we're just going to have to live with a higher base level than the rest of the country because there is simply too much activity even under lockdown. The only thing that will save London is a rapid vaccine roll out for under 50s and the government needs to bite the bullet on that and take the bad headlines.
Under 50s don't need the vaccine though since they don't get hospitalised.
Vaccinate the over 50s and shielding under 50s and the under 50s can get back to normal automatically.
Not quite true. A quarter of all those critically ill are under 53.
Allow the rate to double in the under-50s just twice, and our hospitals would be just as overloaded with solely under 50s as they are with a full suite today.
Phillip includes shielding under 50s.
Very, very few healthy under 50s have been hospitalised.
I’d dearly love some data on that. The ICNARC data shows very low levels of very severe comorbidities in that number, but their definition of very severe comorbidities is severe indeed. On the other hand, if “healthy” excludes all with diabetes, asthma, and hypertension, then those who need to shield would be a very big number indeed (approaching half?)
Annoyingly, I’ve not found any reliable data on this beyond the ICNARC data, which, while excellent, is as I said limited to very severe comorbidities.
Indeed. London didn't see a big fall in lockdown, we're just going to have to live with a higher base level than the rest of the country because there is simply too much activity even under lockdown. The only thing that will save London is a rapid vaccine roll out for under 50s and the government needs to bite the bullet on that and take the bad headlines.
Under 50s don't need the vaccine though since they don't get hospitalised.
Vaccinate the over 50s and shielding under 50s and the under 50s can get back to normal automatically.
Not quite true. A quarter of all those critically ill are under 53.
Allow the rate to double in the under-50s just twice, and our hospitals would be just as overloaded with solely under 50s as they are with a full suite today.
Phillip includes shielding under 50s.
Very, very few healthy under 50s have been hospitalised.
I’d dearly love some data on that. The ICNARC data shows very low levels of very severe comorbidities in that number, but their definition of very severe comorbidities is severe indeed. On the other hand, if “healthy” excludes all with diabetes, asthma, and hypertension, then those who need to shield would be a very big number indeed (approaching half?)
Annoyingly, I’ve not found any reliable data on this beyond the ICNARC data, which, while excellent, is as I said limited to very severe comorbidities.
Clearly the Tories mucked up the pandemic again in the latter part of this year.
I was talking about cases going out of control from July onwards and was laughed at by my peers. I was calling for a lockdown then and I was absolutely right.
Indeed. By September it was patently obvious that the measures they were announcing were insufficient and would lead to national lockdown.
Drakeford's errors are bizarre though. He had the courage and foresight to go firebreak earlier than other leaders. It seemed like he understood the virus. And now he has messed up all that good work.
I struggle to think of a time when a policy was a) so obviously the right call based on the evidence b) overwhelmingly popular according to the polls... and yet was so resisted by politicians.
Because lockdowns devastate economies. And ruined economies mean ruined lives. I don’t envy politicians who have to make the call.
I really think this is wrong. The virus devastates economies. Lockdowns are good for the economy because they reduce the virus faster.
Yes; most economists support them for that reason. It’s usually just casual commentators who are wedded to the need for a narrative that it must be a seesaw choice “protect public health OR protect the economy.”
In reality, the vast majority of economists point out that the choice is “protect public health AND the economy... or lose out on both.”
No. We simply don’t know yet. You could be right, you could be wrong. We are still in the middle of this pandemic (with maybe the worst yet to come - medically and/or economically). eg We have no idea what the long term effects will be, of closing down great world cities. We assume they will simply bounce back. What if they don’t? What if suicide rates soar? What if the vaccines don’t work as hoped?
It will be several long years before we can look back and say Yes, lockdowns were the best option. Or not.
Well, at least we've progressed from a bald statement that "lockdowns devastate economies" to "we simply don't know yet."
It's not my claim. It's that of economists who've spent careers studying what happened (and happens) to economies during pandemics, and comparing those who exercise more restrictions to protect public health to those who don't (and investigating confounding factors that confuse the situation and cause variance).
And, overwhelmingly, conclude that it's the precise opposite of "lockdowns devastate economies." Failing to take sufficient action (including lockdowns and other restrictions) is what devastates economies.
The problem is, though... I believe you are a writer? So you understand the overwhelming power of narrative. The so-attractive narrative siren-calling us is to mentally frame it as one or the other, antagonistic forces, requiring a difficult choice to be made by hard-nosed people.
What chance does something counterintuitive have against narrative? Any more than we would hope for a dog with stitches to accept that the Cone of Shame is better to have on him than not.
No, you’re wrong. If I was a western political leader I too would go for lockdowns. Once you lose the chance of a China/NZ/Korea solution they are the only obvious tool.
But remember, if all you have is a hammer, every problem must be treated like a nail. Even if you end up smashing your thumb to pieces.
One day we may realise there was an alternative. When we have no thumbs left.
I agree, as it happens. Lockdowns are a very blunt and crude tool. It’s just that it’s the only one that’s worked here. I’m almost jumping up and down in frustration over the Slovakia experience. Population-wide testing, three stages (Stage 1: the highest prevalence counties entire populations; Stage 2: the entire national population a week or two later; Stage 3: The half of all counties that still have the highest prevalence a week or two after that) and compulsory 10- day self-isolation for all positives and those who choose not to be tested.
Result: their infections dropped twice as far as ours did during our lockdown and more rapidly; in their worst-hit areas by over 80%.
If Slovakia can do that, why the hell can’t we?
Problems of scale? Just remember how hard it was to get capacity up this high.
No, the issue is that the bureaucrats and scientists have decided that antigen tests aren't useful so we're stuck with trying to do it with PCR testing which is too slow or lateral flow tests which are too expensive. The Slovakia national testing used 20 minute antigen tests which are a couple of dollars per test vs £35-45 per lateral flow test or £85 for a PCR test.
The other part of it is the government seem to be scared of knocking on doors and testing people. For whatever reason this is deemed as unacceptable by the government, PHE and the scientists but other countries have used door knocking to great effect for testing and quarantine/isolation adherence rates. Basically everything we're doing is rubbish except vaccines.
Door knocking and testing has been going on in Leicester since June. Organised by the local council, not Dido mob.
Lateral Flow testing is not well suited for asymptomatic people, but studies are ongoing.
Suitability for screening is rather different to diagnostic testing, due to large numbers of false negatives. For screening it is better to have false positives, as they can be tested again, while false negatives and missed disease are the problem.
My Trust is part of the trial with 2,500 front line staff testing twice weekly, in the first 10 days there have been a half dozen or so positive.
Referring to DavidL’s comments earlier, about his family life (and my sympathies on all that) I echo his observation of a new Covid depression - as in mental depression. I’m witnessing it in a lot of friends, and yes it surely has a lot to do with stunted family life, limited social life, etc
But I wonder if it is even more basic than that. Humans are tactile animals. We like to touch each other: to hug, shake hands, embrace, slap backs, high five, kiss and cuddle, make love. Normally we do this all day every day. Yet right now there is possibly less human-to-human touch going on than at any time in the history of the species.
What is this doing to our brains? Not good things, I suspect. Some people may be going without the firm touch of another human from one month to the next.
This is bound to cause depression. It may do worse things than that.
It is no secret that I suffer bouts of depression and my "cure" is to be around people. I am finding Covid very difficult
I am also finding it hard. And I am quite used to isolation, working alone, and so on.
I am sure simple lack of human touch is part of the problem. My mood improves immeasurably after warm, affectionate physical contact. Quite a few friends are buying cats and dogs for the first time in their lives.
Apparently "dog-napping" is on the increase since the demand now outstrips the supply of puppies.
It makes you wonder how Mark Watney survived on Mars
Puppy prices are up to about 400% of the previous figures. Labradoodle puppy = 2k more or less.
Clearly the Tories mucked up the pandemic again in the latter part of this year.
I was talking about cases going out of control from July onwards and was laughed at by my peers. I was calling for a lockdown then and I was absolutely right.
Indeed. By September it was patently obvious that the measures they were announcing were insufficient and would lead to national lockdown.
Drakeford's errors are bizarre though. He had the courage and foresight to go firebreak earlier than other leaders. It seemed like he understood the virus. And now he has messed up all that good work.
I struggle to think of a time when a policy was a) so obviously the right call based on the evidence b) overwhelmingly popular according to the polls... and yet was so resisted by politicians.
Because lockdowns devastate economies. And ruined economies mean ruined lives. I don’t envy politicians who have to make the call.
I really think this is wrong. The virus devastates economies. Lockdowns are good for the economy because they reduce the virus faster.
Yes; most economists support them for that reason. It’s usually just casual commentators who are wedded to the need for a narrative that it must be a seesaw choice “protect public health OR protect the economy.”
In reality, the vast majority of economists point out that the choice is “protect public health AND the economy... or lose out on both.”
No. We simply don’t know yet. You could be right, you could be wrong. We are still in the middle of this pandemic (with maybe the worst yet to come - medically and/or economically). eg We have no idea what the long term effects will be, of closing down great world cities. We assume they will simply bounce back. What if they don’t? What if suicide rates soar? What if the vaccines don’t work as hoped?
It will be several long years before we can look back and say Yes, lockdowns were the best option. Or not.
Well, at least we've progressed from a bald statement that "lockdowns devastate economies" to "we simply don't know yet."
It's not my claim. It's that of economists who've spent careers studying what happened (and happens) to economies during pandemics, and comparing those who exercise more restrictions to protect public health to those who don't (and investigating confounding factors that confuse the situation and cause variance).
And, overwhelmingly, conclude that it's the precise opposite of "lockdowns devastate economies." Failing to take sufficient action (including lockdowns and other restrictions) is what devastates economies.
The problem is, though... I believe you are a writer? So you understand the overwhelming power of narrative. The so-attractive narrative siren-calling us is to mentally frame it as one or the other, antagonistic forces, requiring a difficult choice to be made by hard-nosed people.
What chance does something counterintuitive have against narrative? Any more than we would hope for a dog with stitches to accept that the Cone of Shame is better to have on him than not.
No, you’re wrong. If I was a western political leader I too would go for lockdowns. Once you lose the chance of a China/NZ/Korea solution they are the only obvious tool.
But remember, if all you have is a hammer, every problem must be treated like a nail. Even if you end up smashing your thumb to pieces.
One day we may realise there was an alternative. When we have no thumbs left.
I agree, as it happens. Lockdowns are a very blunt and crude tool. It’s just that it’s the only one that’s worked here. I’m almost jumping up and down in frustration over the Slovakia experience. Population-wide testing, three stages (Stage 1: the highest prevalence counties entire populations; Stage 2: the entire national population a week or two later; Stage 3: The half of all counties that still have the highest prevalence a week or two after that) and compulsory 10- day self-isolation for all positives and those who choose not to be tested.
Result: their infections dropped twice as far as ours did during our lockdown and more rapidly; in their worst-hit areas by over 80%.
If Slovakia can do that, why the hell can’t we?
Problems of scale? Just remember how hard it was to get capacity up this high.
Maybe - but each region in England is comparable or smaller than Slovakia population-wise, so why can’t we just have all regions keyed up to do what Slovakia did and do it simultaneously? Our GDP per capita is twice that of Slovakia.
Another reason for calling Newcastle "the Bratislava of the North"?
I wonder what will happen to Tegnell if this gets worse. Will the Swedes finally turn on him? It's a damn shame because their policy seemed humane and sensible
He's already been effectively sidelined in Sweden.
I'm not angry at him or the Swedes, they decided to try something different when there was no definitive wrong or right answer, I'm angry at all those idiots that constantly misrepresented what Sweden was actually doing, and misreported the stats.
I assume the usual collection of MEPs and EU bureaucrats are mixed up in the Brussels orgy.
These Continentals are struggling manfully (in more ways than one) at keeping their peckers up (ditto) now that they will NOT bee able to count on the English for their traditional leadership and unique contributions in this field of oh-so human endeavor.
I wonder what will happen to Tegnell if this gets worse. Will the Swedes finally turn on him? It's a damn shame because their policy seemed humane and sensible
Tegnell wasn't actively seeking herd immunity, was he? Just accepting that this could be a slog, and that the best way to endure was to hold the infection rate flat, rather than trying to squash it. A bit scandinoir, but humane, and arguably better than whackamole. He got it wrong (anyone know what has sent rates through the roof recently?), but justifiably so. Certainly he has less to explain than herd immunity proponents (who have clearly pushed data which were trivially wrong since about May), or their cheerleaders in the media or government.
Top 5 killers of Americans in the history of their country (only death tolls of 100,000 and up):
1: Spanish Flu. ~675,000 2: Civil War. ~655,000 3. World War 2. 406,000 4. Covid 19. 300,000 and climbing 5. World War 1. 116,000
How long before Covid overtakes WW2 and takes 3rd place?
The Uni of Wash model now predicts 500,000 American dead by April 1. An incredible toll, but sadly possible. Who would have thought it? Worse than World War 2.
Top 5 killers of Americans in the history of their country (only death tolls of 100,000 and up):
1: Spanish Flu. ~675,000 2: Civil War. ~655,000 3. World War 2. 406,000 4. Covid 19. 300,000 and climbing 5. World War 1. 116,000
How long before Covid overtakes WW2 and takes 3rd place?
The Uni of Wash model now predicts 500,000 American dead by April 1. An incredible toll, but sadly possible. Who would have thought it? Worse than World War 2.
It's not impossible that the final total could exceed Spanish Flu. It will certainly be a lot more possible if those who have been in denial so far continue with it to the extent that they refuse to take the vaccine.
That could be a very haigh proportion of the population.
Isn't it irritating when football commentators apologise for inappropriate language they have obviously got nothing to do with and can't control. It sounds fake and as you never heard it anyway it just makes you curious to know what was said.
I kind of feel that way whenever someone says something offensive. Sometimes reports will mention what was said, but quite often they won't, so you have no idea how offended you are supposed to be.
I wonder what will happen to Tegnell if this gets worse. Will the Swedes finally turn on him? It's a damn shame because their policy seemed humane and sensible
He's already been effectively sidelined in Sweden.
I'm not angry at him or the Swedes, they decided to try something different when there was no definitive wrong or right answer, I'm angry at all those idiots that constantly misrepresented what Sweden was actually doing, and misreported the stats.
The latter is the key. Plenty of places, us included, have done things that have not worked, or not worked as well as some other things, and few places will have been all terrible or all great, but people were clearly selling a dream of Sweden without a care for real Sweden.
I wonder what will happen to Tegnell if this gets worse. Will the Swedes finally turn on him? It's a damn shame because their policy seemed humane and sensible
He's already been effectively sidelined in Sweden.
I'm not angry at him or the Swedes, they decided to try something different when there was no definitive wrong or right answer, I'm angry at all those idiots that constantly misrepresented what Sweden was actually doing, and misreported the stats.
TBH I'm not really angry at anyone any more. All countries outside Asia and Oz/NZ have fucked up. Maybe major fuck ups were just inevitable. This was a novel coronavirus with asymptomatic transmission, a high CFR, and weird side effects and long term sequelae. We had no immunity, no experience of it.
We are all jut human and so are our governments. Most of them tried to do their best, they didn't want their citizens to die. But plague is a bitch, and new, unexpected plagues are even bitchier
About the only people who do make me angry are the Chinese who concealed the original outbreak in Wuhan, silenced doctors, kidnapped journalists etc
I assume the usual collection of MEPs and EU bureaucrats are mixed up in the Brussels orgy.
These Continentals are struggling manfully (in more ways than one) at keeping their peckers up (ditto) now that they will NOT bee able to count on the English for their traditional leadership and unique contributions in this field of oh-so human endeavor.
Some googling reveals the orgy was not in Brussels, but in Saint-Mard. It seems to have been a bizarre affair, being held "En pleine nuit en face d’une clinique où des patients Covid sont soignés".
I was also quite wrong to blame MEPs and EU bureaucrats. It's far worse.
The orgiasts are clearly described as "d’origine française" and equipped with "capsules de gaz hilarant".
If we'd had the two week firebreak we would be in the position where Drakeford is now which is even worse.
Thanks to taking the time to try the Tiers we found out that the original Tier system didn't work, took a 4 week lockdown that did and put in stricter Tiers as a result afterwards.
So how is taking time to consider all the evidence as we did a bad thing?
There's a graph in the paper that shows it wonderfully well.
But here's two bits that stood out.
As a result, more than 1.3 million extra infections are estimated to have spread across the country. We heard evidence that one intensive care ward in Manchester became so overwhelmed that patients were left to die without the life-saving care they needed......
..The next day in the Commons, Wednesday, October 14, Sunak hit back, accusing Labour of being “detached from reality” and being irresponsible for not acknowledging “the economic cost of a blunt national lockdown”. This was little more than two weeks before the government would perform a U-turn and announce a lockdown.
Does the graph show England doing worse than Wales? 🤔
A blunt lockdown failed where it was tried.
By taking time to test Tiers we surely have a better outcome now than if we had just gone for a 2 weeks firebreak then back to the status quo ante which is what the advice was and Wales tried.
Fake news again! The Wales Lockdown worked in the short term, it only failed in the medium term because it was too short and the moment we exited it was party time.
I reluctantly went hunter-gathering this afternoon to Waitrose in Cowbridge. Sunday afternoon, just before closing time, it'll be quiet I thought. Waitrose was rammed to the extent that trolley usage was like the dodgems. I got what was on my list and left.
Drakeford might be clueless, but his citizens seem even dafter.
I estimate that England is ten to fourteen days behind, so good luck.
Short term is meaningless which was my precise point! Medium term is relevant.
The fact they reverted from the firebreak back to the status quo ante restrictions was Drakeford's policy and Drakeford gave the attitude that the two weeks was sufficient so why not party afterwards?
In contrast in England as they had tried the Tiers first post lockdown they knew NOT to go back into the original Tiers afterwards so the post lockdown Tiers were different to the pre lockdown Tiers.
I see no reason why if we had followed the 2 week firebreak advice we wouldn't have followed Drakeford's path which seems worse than what has actually happened in the medium term.
We should have been in a long lock down in September.
I had a quarterly appointment at Manchester Royal Infirmary last week with a specialist endocrine nurse.
When I saw her in September she was shattered, she had spent the summer on the positive C-19 ward as she was deemed 'safe' as she is young (in her 30s).
Each day getting home after hours in PPE, getting totally undressed at the front door, putting all her clothes in the washing machine and then ages in the shower petrified she'd bring the virus into her family.
Since Sept she is back on the endocrine side of things.
There are no consultants available, there have been none since March, they are all running and working on the C-19 positive wards.
Patients are getting very impatient, she commented that clap for carers on a Thursday night seems a long time ago and the public have turned against them as they are not getting the care they expect.
There are staff on the positive C-19 wards and positive C-19 ICU ward in Manchester that have worked 6 and 7 days weeks, every week, with no holiday, since March, 10+ hours every single day.
She said the staff are at breaking point in Manchester on the positive wards, the patients are at breaking point through lack of any healthcare service.
Once we do see a reduction in C-19 when vaccines start to have a material impact a vast swathe of the NHS needs a long holiday, a very long holiday.
The awful management of this by the government has let this continue, they have permitted levels to stay high so long as the NHS is not totally overwhelmed with zero care whatsoever on the impact of those working in the NHS or those who desperately require the healthcare that is provides.
A terrible strategy that they deserve to be absolutely hammered for.
Not quite as bad where I am, but fatigue is certainly telling on our respiratory unit, where 40% were off sick the other week. Lots of conscripts from other departments, and mostly willing, but inexperienced in respiratory matters so needing supervision. Our Trust realised in March that this was a marathon rather than sprint, and honours leave requests. Indeed has instructed people to take, recognising that planned breaks are better than breakdown.
I was never into the "Clap for Carers", but now frontline staff are increasingly being abused and threatened by patients and relatives. Not me personally, but some of our HCAs have been brought to tears by mask refusers, and other non compliers with infection control policy, just for doing their jobs.
NB: Slight fluey feeling and sore deltoid after vaccination this AM, but no more than a usual flu jab. I suppose it is evidence of immunology at work, so a good thing perhaps.
My 80-something father has his first dose of the vaccine tomorrow. He gets the rest in early Jan.
It is happening. God speed the vaccinators
I'm concerned what my 70 something father will do, given he's not convinced Covid is real. He seems to be following most rules regardless, so hopefully when it is his turn won't refuse.
Rishi Sunak has blood on his hands, he's made several terrible calls.
He's not a super chancellor at all.
What call has he made that was bad? Contrasting it with an alternative devolved nation that took a different path?
You're not moaning about the fact he wasn't keen on the absolutely awful and disastrous firebreak policy that Starmer called for that has been a catastrophic failure in Wales are you?
"Outdated attitudes" with zero censorship is perfectly reasonable. Let the snowflakes not watch it having been warned let everyone else watch it unfiltered and uncensored.
I don't have a problem with the policy, 'outdated attitudes' just feels ill defined as a term.
Would you feel comfortable filming this today?
If no: it is outdated.
Who is 'you' in this scenario? I wouldn't film a dog called n****r, as that would feel gratuitously offensive, but I'd be quite comfortable to film characters that had a wide variety of views, including racist ones, as part of a story.
Well precisely. So it is outdated. You can film things today set in the past knowing it is outdated when you film it. Because it accurately reflects the era.
A slightly different example of this is the use of smoking in TV and films. There has been a long running campaign to rem
At the other extreme - and something I think is completely unacceptable - companies are now editing old films and photos to remove images of people smoking. In the UK this has included censoring photos of both Churchill and IKB to remove cigars from their hands.
I don't understand how difficult it is for some people not to appreciate that people in the past thought and acted differently, and people in the future will think and act differently.
I can't begin to think what his source would be for that. Nothing springs to mind from, say, Aristophanes or Menander or Plautus or Petronius which gives us a steer either way about master/slave sex initiation techniques, and I am not sure where else to look. There's a lot of contemporary evidence to suggest that Epsteinian transactions are dressed up in a pretence of flirtation and seduction even when the reality is recognised all round as basic, choice-free sex trafficking. So where is Mr Gabb getting this stuff from?
In Petronius' Satyricon, Trimalchio is quite frank that he was used for sex by his master, when he was a slave, and states that there is no shame in serving the master's pleasure. Martial remarks that his wife is willing to let him bugger her, but he tells her that his slave boy's backside is better than hers, for that purpose. Then there is Plato's Phaidon, in which Phaedo of Elis was kept as a sex slave, due to his personal beauty. Marcus Arelius was considered remarkably self-restrained, not to take advantage of the attractive slaves in his employ.
Not the point. We all agree that masters had sex with slaves, what we are talking about is how the transaction was initiated.
You instruct your slave what your slave is to do. The slave has no choice in the matter.
So what? That is also true of employer/employee relationships, and that doesn't stop employers dressing up instructions as courteously phrased requests. Not always, but sometimes. Sexual relations come in as many different flavours as master/servant ones. so what is the basis of the evidence-free assertion that the Crassus-Antoninus scene is impossible?
If I own a slave and want to have sex with him/her why would I be courting him/her? To take more modern examples, do we really think that master/slave sex was consensual in the Deep South or West Indies?
I can't speak for you personally, and once again you miss the point. We are not talking about consensual yes/no, we are talking about dressed up as consensual yes/no.
Don’t know if this is an authoritative source, but:
‘A Roman Citizen was allowed to exploit his own slaves for sex, no matter the age or circumstances of birth. A freeborn Roman could even rape, torture and abuse their property without charge or prosecution. A slave had no civil protection or authority pertaining to their body; in essence the body of a slave was to be used to appease the sexual appetites of their Dominus.’
Nobody disputes that. We are not asking whether they could but whether they invariably did. That was not, for instance, the relationship between Cicero and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Tullius_Tiro.
Is that what we are arguing? Then there is no argument. Of course there were some Romans who treated their slaves well, some even fell in love, and freed them, and so on.
But the main point is that Romans had absolute sexual ownership of their slaves, and many regularly exploited this. It was the norm.
I wonder what will happen to Tegnell if this gets worse. Will the Swedes finally turn on him? It's a damn shame because their policy seemed humane and sensible
He's already been effectively sidelined in Sweden.
I'm not angry at him or the Swedes, they decided to try something different when there was no definitive wrong or right answer, I'm angry at all those idiots that constantly misrepresented what Sweden was actually doing, and misreported the stats.
TBH I'm not really angry at anyone any more. All countries outside Asia and Oz/NZ have fucked up. Maybe major fuck ups were just inevitable. This was a novel coronavirus with asymptomatic transmission, a high CFR, and weird side effects and long term sequelae. We had no immunity, no experience of it.
We are all jut human and so are our governments. Most of them tried to do their best, they didn't want their citizens to die. But plague is a bitch, and new, unexpected plagues are even bitchier
About the only people who do make me angry are the Chinese who concealed the original outbreak in Wuhan, silenced doctors, kidnapped journalists etc
I'm angry right now, I gave the government a pass in March because things were fluid, but right now they are making mistakes that so avoidable.
The Christmas hall pass is going to see an increase, Boris Johnson should say
'Look we've got vaccines, we're going to have them rolled out by around Easter, stay at home as much as possible, and we'll have an epic Christmas next July.'
But no, we're going to have new lockdowns in January.
Buckingham Palace has refused to deny reports that the Queen is delaying the recording of her Christmas speech until after a decision on a Brexit deal is reached.
The monarch usually films the annual address in early to mid December, but has reportedly pushed back the recording to next week due to uncertainty about the UK’s future relationship with the EU, after the deadline for a deal passed.
She'll do it live from the White Cliffs of Dover, as a remake of the Tango ad......
I wonder what will happen to Tegnell if this gets worse. Will the Swedes finally turn on him? It's a damn shame because their policy seemed humane and sensible
He's already been effectively sidelined in Sweden.
I'm not angry at him or the Swedes, they decided to try something different when there was no definitive wrong or right answer, I'm angry at all those idiots that constantly misrepresented what Sweden was actually doing, and misreported the stats.
TBH I'm not really angry at anyone any more. All countries outside Asia and Oz/NZ have fucked up. Maybe major fuck ups were just inevitable. This was a novel coronavirus with asymptomatic transmission, a high CFR, and weird side effects and long term sequelae. We had no immunity, no experience of it.
We are all jut human and so are our governments. Most of them tried to do their best, they didn't want their citizens to die. But plague is a bitch, and new, unexpected plagues are even bitchier
About the only people who do make me angry are the Chinese who concealed the original outbreak in Wuhan, silenced doctors, kidnapped journalists etc
I'm angry right now, I gave the government a pass in March because things were fluid, but right now they are making mistakes that so avoidable.
The Christmas hall pass is going to see an increase, Boris Johnson should say
'Look we've got vaccines, we're going to have them rolled out by around Easter, stay at home as much as possible, and we'll have an epic Christmas next July.'
But no, we're going to have new lockdowns in January.
Are you surprised that the saintly Germans are doing very badly now, and are having a Christmas pass (albeit three days)?
I wonder what will happen to Tegnell if this gets worse. Will the Swedes finally turn on him? It's a damn shame because their policy seemed humane and sensible
He's already been effectively sidelined in Sweden.
I'm not angry at him or the Swedes, they decided to try something different when there was no definitive wrong or right answer, I'm angry at all those idiots that constantly misrepresented what Sweden was actually doing, and misreported the stats.
TBH I'm not really angry at anyone any more. All countries outside Asia and Oz/NZ have fucked up. Maybe major fuck ups were just inevitable. This was a novel coronavirus with asymptomatic transmission, a high CFR, and weird side effects and long term sequelae. We had no immunity, no experience of it.
We are all jut human and so are our governments. Most of them tried to do their best, they didn't want their citizens to die. But plague is a bitch, and new, unexpected plagues are even bitchier
About the only people who do make me angry are the Chinese who concealed the original outbreak in Wuhan, silenced doctors, kidnapped journalists etc
I'm angry right now, I gave the government a pass in March because things were fluid, but right now they are making mistakes that so avoidable.
The Christmas hall pass is going to see an increase, Boris Johnson should say
'Look we've got vaccines, we're going to have them rolled out by around Easter, stay at home as much as possible, and we'll have an epic Christmas next July.'
But no, we're going to have new lockdowns in January.
Isn't it irritating when football commentators apologise for inappropriate language they have obviously got nothing to do with and can't control. It sounds fake and as you never heard it anyway it just makes you curious to know what was said.
I kind of feel that way whenever someone says something offensive. Sometimes reports will mention what was said, but quite often they won't, so you have no idea how offended you are supposed to be.
I wonder what will happen to Tegnell if this gets worse. Will the Swedes finally turn on him? It's a damn shame because their policy seemed humane and sensible
He's already been effectively sidelined in Sweden.
I'm not angry at him or the Swedes, they decided to try something different when there was no definitive wrong or right answer, I'm angry at all those idiots that constantly misrepresented what Sweden was actually doing, and misreported the stats.
The latter is the key. Plenty of places, us included, have done things that have not worked, or not worked as well as some other things, and few places will have been all terrible or all great, but people were clearly selling a dream of Sweden without a care for real Sweden.
Top 5 killers of Americans in the history of their country (only death tolls of 100,000 and up):
1: Spanish Flu. ~675,000 2: Civil War. ~655,000 3. World War 2. 406,000 4. Covid 19. 300,000 and climbing 5. World War 1. 116,000
How long before Covid overtakes WW2 and takes 3rd place?
The Uni of Wash model now predicts 500,000 American dead by April 1. An incredible toll, but sadly possible. Who would have thought it? Worse than World War 2.
Top 5 killers of Americans in the history of their country (only death tolls of 100,000 and up):
1: Spanish Flu. ~675,000 2: Civil War. ~655,000 3. World War 2. 406,000 4. Covid 19. 300,000 and climbing 5. World War 1. 116,000
How long before Covid overtakes WW2 and takes 3rd place?
The Uni of Wash model now predicts 500,000 American dead by April 1. An incredible toll, but sadly possible. Who would have thought it? Worse than World War 2.
It's not impossible that the final total could exceed Spanish Flu. It will certainly be a lot more possible if those who have been in denial so far continue with it to the extent that they refuse to take the vaccine.
That could be a very haigh proportion of the population.
Good point. The ultimate nightmare is if a large proportion of Americans say no to the Vax. Then the virus just continues, rampaging, and they could see a million dead
I guess eventually the US government would make it mandatory, de facto or de jure. There will be so many things you can't do without a vaccine certificate - travel, work, get benefits - even the nuttiest anti-vaxxers will surrender
I wonder what will happen to Tegnell if this gets worse. Will the Swedes finally turn on him? It's a damn shame because their policy seemed humane and sensible
He's already been effectively sidelined in Sweden.
I'm not angry at him or the Swedes, they decided to try something different when there was no definitive wrong or right answer, I'm angry at all those idiots that constantly misrepresented what Sweden was actually doing, and misreported the stats.
TBH I'm not really angry at anyone any more. All countries outside Asia and Oz/NZ have fucked up. Maybe major fuck ups were just inevitable. This was a novel coronavirus with asymptomatic transmission, a high CFR, and weird side effects and long term sequelae. We had no immunity, no experience of it.
We are all jut human and so are our governments. Most of them tried to do their best, they didn't want their citizens to die. But plague is a bitch, and new, unexpected plagues are even bitchier
About the only people who do make me angry are the Chinese who concealed the original outbreak in Wuhan, silenced doctors, kidnapped journalists etc
I'm angry right now, I gave the government a pass in March because things were fluid, but right now they are making mistakes that so avoidable.
The Christmas hall pass is going to see an increase, Boris Johnson should say
'Look we've got vaccines, we're going to have them rolled out by around Easter, stay at home as much as possible, and we'll have an epic Christmas next July.'
But no, we're going to have new lockdowns in January.
I have been genuinely surprised that the opposition and the devolved administrations are not coming out very strongly against the hall pass, as far as I am aware. Regardless of whether they backed the idea to begin with, it really doesn't seem like there has been sufficient reduction yet to justify it, even if it could have been justified previously.
Covid ICU occupancy is half of their peak so I presume they have scope for turfing out regular ICU patients otherwise this would have been a far bigger issue back in April.
I wonder what will happen to Tegnell if this gets worse. Will the Swedes finally turn on him? It's a damn shame because their policy seemed humane and sensible
He's already been effectively sidelined in Sweden.
I'm not angry at him or the Swedes, they decided to try something different when there was no definitive wrong or right answer, I'm angry at all those idiots that constantly misrepresented what Sweden was actually doing, and misreported the stats.
TBH I'm not really angry at anyone any more. All countries outside Asia and Oz/NZ have fucked up. Maybe major fuck ups were just inevitable. This was a novel coronavirus with asymptomatic transmission, a high CFR, and weird side effects and long term sequelae. We had no immunity, no experience of it.
We are all jut human and so are our governments. Most of them tried to do their best, they didn't want their citizens to die. But plague is a bitch, and new, unexpected plagues are even bitchier
About the only people who do make me angry are the Chinese who concealed the original outbreak in Wuhan, silenced doctors, kidnapped journalists etc
I'm angry right now, I gave the government a pass in March because things were fluid, but right now they are making mistakes that so avoidable.
The Christmas hall pass is going to see an increase, Boris Johnson should say
'Look we've got vaccines, we're going to have them rolled out by around Easter, stay at home as much as possible, and we'll have an epic Christmas next July.'
But no, we're going to have new lockdowns in January.
He should say that.
But I'm not sure how much attention would be paid.
I wonder what will happen to Tegnell if this gets worse. Will the Swedes finally turn on him? It's a damn shame because their policy seemed humane and sensible
He's already been effectively sidelined in Sweden.
I'm not angry at him or the Swedes, they decided to try something different when there was no definitive wrong or right answer, I'm angry at all those idiots that constantly misrepresented what Sweden was actually doing, and misreported the stats.
TBH I'm not really angry at anyone any more. All countries outside Asia and Oz/NZ have fucked up. Maybe major fuck ups were just inevitable. This was a novel coronavirus with asymptomatic transmission, a high CFR, and weird side effects and long term sequelae. We had no immunity, no experience of it.
We are all jut human and so are our governments. Most of them tried to do their best, they didn't want their citizens to die. But plague is a bitch, and new, unexpected plagues are even bitchier
About the only people who do make me angry are the Chinese who concealed the original outbreak in Wuhan, silenced doctors, kidnapped journalists etc
I'm angry right now, I gave the government a pass in March because things were fluid, but right now they are making mistakes that so avoidable.
The Christmas hall pass is going to see an increase, Boris Johnson should say
'Look we've got vaccines, we're going to have them rolled out by around Easter, stay at home as much as possible, and we'll have an epic Christmas next July.'
But no, we're going to have new lockdowns in January.
Yep. The 'Save Xmas' policy has been a disaster.
Also inexplicable. I have not met a single person who is so desperate for a big family Xmas they will risk another massive lockdown in January. If anything it's the tiers and pub closures and "substantial meals" that are annoying folk. Christmas being postponed? Not so much
I guess eventually the US government would make it mandatory, de facto or de jure. There will be so many things you can't do without a vaccine certificate - travel, work, get benefits - even the nuttiest anti-vaxxers will surrender
The people here who wanted the "Swedish model" have gone oddly silent, will they ever admit they got it wrong?
Sweden's deaths per million figure is lower than UK.
We're very different countries and comparison between the two was never useful, and the UK being wrong about various things doesn't mean Sweden got it right.
It was never really about Sweden. It was people not supporting the UK measures and picking somewhere else to follow, even if other places responded better, were more appropriate comparators, and whether or not the description of what Sweden was doing was accurate.
I wonder what will happen to Tegnell if this gets worse. Will the Swedes finally turn on him? It's a damn shame because their policy seemed humane and sensible
He's already been effectively sidelined in Sweden.
I'm not angry at him or the Swedes, they decided to try something different when there was no definitive wrong or right answer, I'm angry at all those idiots that constantly misrepresented what Sweden was actually doing, and misreported the stats.
TBH I'm not really angry at anyone any more. All countries outside Asia and Oz/NZ have fucked up. Maybe major fuck ups were just inevitable. This was a novel coronavirus with asymptomatic transmission, a high CFR, and weird side effects and long term sequelae. We had no immunity, no experience of it.
We are all jut human and so are our governments. Most of them tried to do their best, they didn't want their citizens to die. But plague is a bitch, and new, unexpected plagues are even bitchier
About the only people who do make me angry are the Chinese who concealed the original outbreak in Wuhan, silenced doctors, kidnapped journalists etc
I'm angry right now, I gave the government a pass in March because things were fluid, but right now they are making mistakes that so avoidable.
The Christmas hall pass is going to see an increase, Boris Johnson should say
'Look we've got vaccines, we're going to have them rolled out by around Easter, stay at home as much as possible, and we'll have an epic Christmas next July.'
But no, we're going to have new lockdowns in January.
Yep. The 'Save Xmas' policy has been a disaster.
Also inexplicable. I have not met a single person who is so desperate for a big family Xmas they will risk another massive lockdown in January. If anything it's the tiers and pub closures and "substantial meals" that are annoying folk. Christmas being postponed? Not so much
They exist.
Some people are unable to go without their big Christmas.
Just like there are some people who are unable to go without their week in Benidorm.
While others are unable to go without their Friday nights out.
Some good news: what you have just experienced or are about to (if you are in the UK) is the earliest nightfall of the year. This doesn't make it the longest night because mornings keep getting worse till the end of the month, but mornings suck anyway.
Top 5 killers of Americans in the history of their country (only death tolls of 100,000 and up):
1: Spanish Flu. ~675,000 2: Civil War. ~655,000 3. World War 2. 406,000 4. Covid 19. 300,000 and climbing 5. World War 1. 116,000
How long before Covid overtakes WW2 and takes 3rd place?
The Uni of Wash model now predicts 500,000 American dead by April 1. An incredible toll, but sadly possible. Who would have thought it? Worse than World War 2.
Top 5 killers of Americans in the history of their country (only death tolls of 100,000 and up):
1: Spanish Flu. ~675,000 2: Civil War. ~655,000 3. World War 2. 406,000 4. Covid 19. 300,000 and climbing 5. World War 1. 116,000
How long before Covid overtakes WW2 and takes 3rd place?
The Uni of Wash model now predicts 500,000 American dead by April 1. An incredible toll, but sadly possible. Who would have thought it? Worse than World War 2.
It's not impossible that the final total could exceed Spanish Flu. It will certainly be a lot more possible if those who have been in denial so far continue with it to the extent that they refuse to take the vaccine.
That could be a very haigh proportion of the population.
Good point. The ultimate nightmare is if a large proportion of Americans say no to the Vax. Then the virus just continues, rampaging, and they could see a million dead
I guess eventually the US government would make it mandatory, de facto or de jure. There will be so many things you can't do without a vaccine certificate - travel, work, get benefits - even the nuttiest anti-vaxxers will surrender
The problem is the same one that underlies the USA's epic failure to control the virus thus far - the Federal structure. Even if there had been a decent President in the White House he or she would have had very great difficulty imposing a nationwide policy against the wishes of some States. What President could have beanned inter-State travel, for example?
Biden can try and impose compulsory mask-wearing if he likes and he probably will but how much notice will they take in West Virginia?
Ok, Trump is an asshole and his handling of the Covid crisis was catastrophic, but it would have presented huge difficulties to any US President. Reining in the virus now isn't goint to be easy, despite the vaccine.
I reckon this time next year the US will have topped 500,000 covid-related deaths.
Some good news: what you have just experienced or are about to (if you are in the UK) is the earliest nightfall of the year. This doesn't make it the longest night because mornings keep getting worse till the end of the month, but mornings suck anyway.
I wonder what will happen to Tegnell if this gets worse. Will the Swedes finally turn on him? It's a damn shame because their policy seemed humane and sensible
He's already been effectively sidelined in Sweden.
I'm not angry at him or the Swedes, they decided to try something different when there was no definitive wrong or right answer, I'm angry at all those idiots that constantly misrepresented what Sweden was actually doing, and misreported the stats.
TBH I'm not really angry at anyone any more. All countries outside Asia and Oz/NZ have fucked up. Maybe major fuck ups were just inevitable. This was a novel coronavirus with asymptomatic transmission, a high CFR, and weird side effects and long term sequelae. We had no immunity, no experience of it.
We are all jut human and so are our governments. Most of them tried to do their best, they didn't want their citizens to die. But plague is a bitch, and new, unexpected plagues are even bitchier
About the only people who do make me angry are the Chinese who concealed the original outbreak in Wuhan, silenced doctors, kidnapped journalists etc
I'm angry right now, I gave the government a pass in March because things were fluid, but right now they are making mistakes that so avoidable.
The Christmas hall pass is going to see an increase, Boris Johnson should say
'Look we've got vaccines, we're going to have them rolled out by around Easter, stay at home as much as possible, and we'll have an epic Christmas next July.'
But no, we're going to have new lockdowns in January.
Yep. The 'Save Xmas' policy has been a disaster.
Also inexplicable. I have not met a single person who is so desperate for a big family Xmas they will risk another massive lockdown in January. If anything it's the tiers and pub closures and "substantial meals" that are annoying folk. Christmas being postponed? Not so much
They exist.
Some people are unable to go without their big Christmas.
Just like there are some people who are unable to go without their week in Benidorm.
While others are unable to go without their Friday nights out.
And others without their shopping trips.
Some would not have followed any rules around a 'proper' Christmas. Frankly I'm surprised people are still adhering to restrictions as well as they are. But it wasn't a reason to just give up for a Christmas hall pass.
Buckingham Palace has refused to deny reports that the Queen is delaying the recording of her Christmas speech until after a decision on a Brexit deal is reached.
The monarch usually films the annual address in early to mid December, but has reportedly pushed back the recording to next week due to uncertainty about the UK’s future relationship with the EU, after the deadline for a deal passed.
She'll do it live from the White Cliffs of Dover, as a remake of the Tango ad......
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yzY-HUvavU
It reminds me of the time I was teaching about evolution and a girl asked what would happen if a human and a cabbage had sex.
But remember, if all you have is a hammer, every problem must be treated like a nail. Even if you end up smashing your thumb to pieces.
One day we may realise there was an alternative. When we have no thumbs left.
It makes you wonder how Mark Watney survived on Mars
And what was Corbyn's Big Announcement? I looked in the news and saw nothing
The evidence is clear, it doesn't.
All it does is reduce the lockdown 'ammunition' available.
He was amused by the amount of people that believed it.
I'll never understand these wind up merchants/trolls.
Lockdowns are a very blunt and crude tool. It’s just that it’s the only one that’s worked here.
I’m almost jumping up and down in frustration over the Slovakia experience. Population-wide testing, three stages (Stage 1: the highest prevalence counties entire populations; Stage 2: the entire national population a week or two later; Stage 3: The half of all counties that still have the highest prevalence a week or two after that) and compulsory 10- day self-isolation for all positives and those who choose not to be tested.
Result: their infections dropped twice as far as ours did during our lockdown and more rapidly; in their worst-hit areas by over 80%.
If Slovakia can do that, why the hell can’t we?
My answer would be this scene is just about plausible, but was probably very rare
A quarter of all those critically ill are under 53.
Allow the rate to double in the under-50s just twice, and our hospitals would be just as overloaded with solely under 50s as they are with a full suite today.
It is happening. God speed the vaccinators
1: Spanish Flu. ~675,000
2: Civil War. ~655,000
3. World War 2. 406,000
4. Covid 19. 300,000 and climbing
5. World War 1. 116,000
How long before Covid overtakes WW2 and takes 3rd place?
But, I don't think it's probable. I don't have the impression that Antoninus is happy with the situation,
Very, very few healthy under 50s have been hospitalised.
The other part of it is the government seem to be scared of knocking on doors and testing people. For whatever reason this is deemed as unacceptable by the government, PHE and the scientists but other countries have used door knocking to great effect for testing and quarantine/isolation adherence rates. Basically everything we're doing is rubbish except vaccines.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55283183
I have no idea whether Dr Raffle knows what she is talking about, but her webpage does suggest she has some relevant expertise.
Good night.
https://www.itv.com/news/central/2020-12-09/former-sabras-radio-presenter-rishi-modi-dies-after-short-battle-with-covid-19
The ICNARC data shows very low levels of very severe comorbidities in that number, but their definition of very severe comorbidities is severe indeed.
On the other hand, if “healthy” excludes all with diabetes, asthma, and hypertension, then those who need to shield would be a very big number indeed (approaching half?)
Annoyingly, I’ve not found any reliable data on this beyond the ICNARC data, which, while excellent, is as I said limited to very severe comorbidities.
He's not a super chancellor at all.
Aged 45.
Mild asthma.
Didn't go well.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=210745387111178
Lateral Flow testing is not well suited for asymptomatic people, but studies are ongoing.
Suitability for screening is rather different to diagnostic testing, due to large numbers of false negatives. For screening it is better to have false positives, as they can be tested again, while false negatives and missed disease are the problem.
My Trust is part of the trial with 2,500 front line staff testing twice weekly, in the first 10 days there have been a half dozen or so positive.
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4744
I'm not angry at him or the Swedes, they decided to try something different when there was no definitive wrong or right answer, I'm angry at all those idiots that constantly misrepresented what Sweden was actually doing, and misreported the stats.
Certainly he has less to explain than herd immunity proponents (who have clearly pushed data which were trivially wrong since about May), or their cheerleaders in the media or government.
That could be a very haigh proportion of the population.
We are all jut human and so are our governments. Most of them tried to do their best, they didn't want their citizens to die. But plague is a bitch, and new, unexpected plagues are even bitchier
About the only people who do make me angry are the Chinese who concealed the original outbreak in Wuhan, silenced doctors, kidnapped journalists etc
I was also quite wrong to blame MEPs and EU bureaucrats. It's far worse.
The orgiasts are clearly described as "d’origine française" and equipped with "capsules de gaz hilarant".
You're not moaning about the fact he wasn't keen on the absolutely awful and disastrous firebreak policy that Starmer called for that has been a catastrophic failure in Wales are you?
The Christmas hall pass is going to see an increase, Boris Johnson should say
'Look we've got vaccines, we're going to have them rolled out by around Easter, stay at home as much as possible, and we'll have an epic Christmas next July.'
But no, we're going to have new lockdowns in January.
I did like his unintentional seeming to back up Trump's attacks at one point.
"[Trump]'s calling them corrupt. And also telling people things that aren't true'
https://twitter.com/Sahveeyo/status/1333157375499448320
I guess eventually the US government would make it mandatory, de facto or de jure. There will be so many things you can't do without a vaccine certificate - travel, work, get benefits - even the nuttiest anti-vaxxers will surrender
But I'm not sure how much attention would be paid.
People are bored with covid.
Republicans would never win another race...
That's despite a light sustainable lockdown that relied on public being cautious rather than locking and unlocking.
It was never really about Sweden. It was people not supporting the UK measures and picking somewhere else to follow, even if other places responded better, were more appropriate comparators, and whether or not the description of what Sweden was doing was accurate.
Some people are unable to go without their big Christmas.
Just like there are some people who are unable to go without their week in Benidorm.
While others are unable to go without their Friday nights out.
And others without their shopping trips.
Biden can try and impose compulsory mask-wearing if he likes and he probably will but how much notice will they take in West Virginia?
Ok, Trump is an asshole and his handling of the Covid crisis was catastrophic, but it would have presented huge difficulties to any US President. Reining in the virus now isn't goint to be easy, despite the vaccine.
I reckon this time next year the US will have topped 500,000 covid-related deaths.
NEW THREAD
With a rate in England of 174/100 000 for comparison, roughly a third of Sweden's rate.
https://twitter.com/JonnyGeller/status/1338239733638508547