Howdy, Stranger!

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

The other side of the bet. The ethics of political gambling. – politicalbetting.com

1235713

Comments

  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Tres said:

    Scott_xP said:

    How can the timing of their report be seen as anything other than telling the UK governmet negotiators "You MUST accept whatever is on the table from the EU"?

    Once again Brexiteers outraged by a statement of the bleeding obvious.

    We need a deal. It must be done now.

    Neither of these statements is controversial, unless your head is up your ass.
    But "it must be done now" is only because the Johnson/Cummings/Gove dream team refuse to even consider an additional extension due to the covid crisis.

    Any half rational person facing the situation we are in would roll these discussions on until this time next year. It would still be completed well in time for 2024 when Johnson faces the voters again.
    We needed a deal months ago. Even if one materialises tomorrow Q1 21 will be fucked.
    Yep. When the deal is announced it will be clear it could easily have been done months ago. The last minute shenanigans aspect - and maintaining the public and commentariat fear of no deal - is to help Johnson politically. It will create relief and the optics of battling to the wire with the EU and late concessions being wrung. Also a deal announced a long time before end of Transition would have given more time for critical scrutiny of the detail, not something Johnson would welcome. So, sure, it makes sense from Johnson's point of view to do things this way. It's objectively crazy, though, and unfair on many people. As you say, and as Rochdale's post explains, the effect is to inject the "Deal" outcome with some of the chaos of "No Deal".
    I could not disagree more.

    Yes a deal "could" have been agreed months ago but more importantly one "could not" as without time pressure neither side would compromise. It is why to do it any other way is objectively crazy because to do it any other way means like May/Robbins you're the only one that compromises.

    Asking for an extension as rottenborough and others have suggested is crazy too because again it would just remove the pressure and the can would be kicked.

    I don't often agree with Guy Verhofstadt but completely agree with him the other day when he said compromises are only ever made at the last minute and "if you give extra time to politicians they will take all that extra time and still only compromise at the last minute".
    No - THIS deal could have been done months ago. The reason it wasn't is primarily for the reasons I explained.
    No.

    THIS deal could NOT have been done months ago since the EU have moved in recent months under the time pressure. And they may likely still move again.

    If we move back months ago how would you get the EU to move? Why wouldn't Barnier do what he did under Robbins and May and just take British movements while standing firm?
    The narrative Johnson wants is exactly this. That by making the EU take "no deal" seriously and taking negotiations to the wire, we have forced them to make serious concessions which were otherwise not achievable. He'll be pleased - and not a little relieved - that Leavers such as yourself are buying into this. He'll be hoping that some agnostics and even some Remainers will too. We will see. Not long to wait now.
    It is the truth.

    How could he have gotten the EU to move prematurely? They never have done that? May failed to do that, Robbins failed to do that, Frost and Johnson were unable to do that months ago. It is only now that they're moving.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,128

    HYUFD said:

    The SNP got 63 seats in 2016 so not a vast change since, plenty of time to squeeze it back.

    It only needs 7 SNP constituency seats to be lost to the Unionist parties thanks to tactical voting on those numbers for the SNP to fail to win a majority
    The greens aren't a Unionist Party you knobber. That projection gives the SNP a working majority of 17. I know that as a leading GOPper your only interest in democracy is overturning it, but barring a major scandal or massive change of opinions the SNP will have a comfortable majority on a manifesto of independence.
    He denies being a Trumpist but has as much respect for democracy as him.

    A 17 majority for an independence referendum is as comprehensive as it gets. Anyone who denies that is not a democrat. No if's or buts.
    Says the man determined to push through a No Deal Brexit despite zero evidence in any poll a majority of the public want that
  • kjh said:

    Is this "mutant" bug just in the UK?

    If so shouldn't we close our borders to not export it to the rest of the world?

    Or is it just we know about it and the genie is already out of the bottle?

    It is elsewhere as well.
    Thanks so too late to act. Nevermind.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Inspired the gob smacking article posted by @ydoethur in the last thread I have a second topic for the Truth and Reconciliation committee after they have dealt with "Why the fuck were the airports kept completely open"

    It is "WTF was up with schools". The idea that someone can state that schools being open did not increase spread of virus is either an astonishing lie or and attempt at word play to avoid rating the truth.

    When the half term break happened cases stopped growing/fell. The attempt to claim no correlation is staggering. Who is so invested in this?

    The Department for Education.

    But the academics concerned should be facing disciplinary.

    Edit - for those who have not read it, this was the article in question:

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/schools-not-increasing-covid-spread-stay-open-experts-b352746.html

    SAGE, notably, are arguing the exact opposite.

    Edit to the edit - I should point out that Ladhani has spent most of the pandemic downplaying the issue of infections among children.

    https://www.sgul.ac.uk/news/children-found-to-have-made-up-just-1-of-covid-19-cases-during-first-wave-in-england
    Nobody rational or capable of even the most basic analysis could possibly conclude that keeping schools open did not increase the spread of the virus. Of course it did. The much trickier bit is whether the risk of the virus to that age group (and the teaching staff) is sufficient to offset the clear harm of disrupting children's education. The even trickier thing is if your target is an R rate of less than 1, how much of your "1" does having schools open cost and what do you need to do to offset it?

    These are very difficult judgments indeed and I have sympathy with those having to make them. I agree with the government that in constructing the "wish list" of things we can do whilst keeping under R1 schools should be right up there, right at the top. But sometimes it seems even a wish list is a bit of a delusion and we have to accept that no kind of normal life is possible whilst this virus is at play in our society.
    I would agree with much of that. But lying to justify a policy that has failed in the first place due to a wilful blindness to obvious facts is absolutely not on. That’s not Trumpian, it’s Bolivarian.
    What did the late Simon do, to deserve that comment?
    Bolivarian socialism - ie the lying, cheating, thieving, murdering scumbags Chavez and Maduro.
    Half a moment, YDoethur, before you assemble the disciplinary committees, as a good historian, you need to check the primary source, not the journalistic write-up

    Here, it is (I believe):

    https://tinyurl.com/y72pasrl

    I agree it is a pretty unimpressive, middle-of-the-pack piece of work. But, there is not a huge amount to disagree with there -- it is all pretty unarguable, even mundane.

    In fact, the paper does not even set out to answer the interesting questions, such as the role of asymptomatic cases in schools. It is just a bald statistical analysis of some data that could be done by a semi-competent A Level student.

    The paper does not appear to have any real conclusions -- always the mark of a poorish paper.

    It is the write-up in the Standard which is sloppy & seems to put a spin on the paper which is not present in the original paper & conclusions. Arts graduates, probably 😁

    Certainly, the title in the Standard "Schools do not appear to be increasing the spread of covid and should remain open" does not appear in the scientific paper anywhere, at least as far as I can see.
    Here’s what the author retweeted:
    https://twitter.com/PHE_uk/status/1339517263729274887
    So he has endorsed the idea that transmission happens outside schools, not within them, and that schools are therefore suffering because of incidence elsewhere rather than the other way around.

    Which is one possible reading of the evidence they had, but as that ignored the minor detail that case numbers correlate closely with the opening/reopening of schools and universities, not at all the most likely one. That evidence has been ignored, and given his past research record has been to consistently downplay the level of infection among children, it’s hard to believe it’s not deliberate.
    Correlation isn't causation of course. They reopened at a time of year when the weather was getting cooler and cases were already rising. Importation of the virus by holidaymakers over the summer also seems to have been an issue.
    We are at a stage in this God-awful business where, all at once, mass vaccination has started and a new and more easily transmissible strain of the virus is running amok and appears to be expanding its reach across the land. The best thing to do, I would suggest, is therefore to abandon the epidemiological debate and experimentation with schools and lock the kids back up, along with everybody else, as was done in March.

    Alas, I fear what will actually happen is that some token travel restrictions that do almost no good will be announced today, whilst the idiotic Christmas plans will go ahead and all the kids will troop back to the petri dishes in January. The Government will insist that children's rights to education trump everybody else's right to life, presumably because to do otherwise would upset Red Wall voters and cost it a few percentage points in the opinion polls.

    Well I'm sorry, but I'm past caring about two or three months' disruption to education at this stage. I really couldn't give a flying wotsit if little Annabel is bored sat at home, or gets an indifferent set of GCSEs this Summer because her Zoom lessons were crap. Everybody I love has survived this thing so far and I'd like that still to be the case at Easter. We can sift through the rubble and start rebuilding once the driving cause of the destruction has been crushed.
  • Is this "mutant" bug just in the UK?

    If so shouldn't we close our borders to not export it to the rest of the world?

    Or is it just we know about it and the genie is already out of the bottle?

    I think "mutant bug" is how Allegra Mostyn-Owen, Marina Wheeler, Petronella Wyatt, Anna Fazackerley, Helen MacIntyre etc describe the Prime Minister
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,128
    edited December 2020

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The SNP got 63 seats in 2016 so not a vast change since, plenty of time to squeeze it back.

    It only needs 7 SNP constituency seats to be lost to the Unionist parties thanks to tactical voting on those numbers for the SNP to fail to win a majority
    The greens aren't a Unionist Party you knobber. That projection gives the SNP a working majority of 17. I know that as a leading GOPper your only interest in democracy is overturning it, but barring a major scandal or massive change of opinions the SNP will have a comfortable majority on a manifesto of independence.
    There is already an SNP and Green majority now.

    If the SNP fail to get a thumping majority next year after all the hype and huge SNP poll leads it will be as humiliating for Sturgeon as May's failure to get a majority in 2017 was.

    I know that you are deliberately blinkered. But right now we have a secessionist majority in Holyrood. If we get another secessionist majority in Holyrood - and its highly likely - then your "humiliation" for the SNP will be the opposite.

    You really would be better off sticking to local politics as you know literally nothing about anywhere outside of Essicks.
    I know what UK government policy is, 2014 was a once in a generation vote, if the SNP cannot even match the majority they got in 2011 it will be a humiliation for them and a confirmation of UK government policy.

    Indeed Survation last week had only 40% of Scots wanting a second independence referendum within the next 2 years
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868

    If you have a steady full-time job, have lived in the same house for at least 3 years and have a good credit rating it is ridiculously easy to instantly get loans and liquidity.

    I tapped a few numbers in on TSB's website on Tuesday morning and had £8k in my bank account by Wednesday afternoon at only 2.8% interest*. All the interest will barely cost £200 over 2 years so the opportunity cost is very low. In fact, I'd probably make money sticking it in a stocks &shares ISA

    (*It's to pay off a car loan and help fund a new bathroom, if you must know.)

    That would have been a cracking strategy back in June. Today, maybe not so much.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,751

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Inspired the gob smacking article posted by @ydoethur in the last thread I have a second topic for the Truth and Reconciliation committee after they have dealt with "Why the fuck were the airports kept completely open"

    It is "WTF was up with schools". The idea that someone can state that schools being open did not increase spread of virus is either an astonishing lie or and attempt at word play to avoid rating the truth.

    When the half term break happened cases stopped growing/fell. The attempt to claim no correlation is staggering. Who is so invested in this?

    The Department for Education.

    But the academics concerned should be facing disciplinary.

    Edit - for those who have not read it, this was the article in question:

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/schools-not-increasing-covid-spread-stay-open-experts-b352746.html

    SAGE, notably, are arguing the exact opposite.

    Edit to the edit - I should point out that Ladhani has spent most of the pandemic downplaying the issue of infections among children.

    https://www.sgul.ac.uk/news/children-found-to-have-made-up-just-1-of-covid-19-cases-during-first-wave-in-england
    Nobody rational or capable of even the most basic analysis could possibly conclude that keeping schools open did not increase the spread of the virus. Of course it did. The much trickier bit is whether the risk of the virus to that age group (and the teaching staff) is sufficient to offset the clear harm of disrupting children's education. The even trickier thing is if your target is an R rate of less than 1, how much of your "1" does having schools open cost and what do you need to do to offset it?

    These are very difficult judgments indeed and I have sympathy with those having to make them. I agree with the government that in constructing the "wish list" of things we can do whilst keeping under R1 schools should be right up there, right at the top. But sometimes it seems even a wish list is a bit of a delusion and we have to accept that no kind of normal life is possible whilst this virus is at play in our society.
    I would agree with much of that. But lying to justify a policy that has failed in the first place due to a wilful blindness to obvious facts is absolutely not on. That’s not Trumpian, it’s Bolivarian.
    What did the late Simon do, to deserve that comment?
    Bolivarian socialism - ie the lying, cheating, thieving, murdering scumbags Chavez and Maduro.
    Half a moment, YDoethur, before you assemble the disciplinary committees, as a good historian, you need to check the primary source, not the journalistic write-up

    Here, it is (I believe):

    https://tinyurl.com/y72pasrl

    I agree it is a pretty unimpressive, middle-of-the-pack piece of work. But, there is not a huge amount to disagree with there -- it is all pretty unarguable, even mundane.

    In fact, the paper does not even set out to answer the interesting questions, such as the role of asymptomatic cases in schools. It is just a bald statistical analysis of some data that could be done by a semi-competent A Level student.

    The paper does not appear to have any real conclusions -- always the mark of a poorish paper.

    It is the write-up in the Standard which is sloppy & seems to put a spin on the paper which is not present in the original paper & conclusions. Arts graduates, probably 😁

    Certainly, the title in the Standard "Schools do not appear to be increasing the spread of covid and should remain open" does not appear in the scientific paper anywhere, at least as far as I can see.
    Here’s what the author retweeted:
    https://twitter.com/PHE_uk/status/1339517263729274887
    So he has endorsed the idea that transmission happens outside schools, not within them, and that schools are therefore suffering because of incidence elsewhere rather than the other way around.

    Which is one possible reading of the evidence they had, but as that ignored the minor detail that case numbers correlate closely with the opening/reopening of schools and universities, not at all the most likely one. That evidence has been ignored, and given his past research record has been to consistently downplay the level of infection among children, it’s hard to believe it’s not deliberate.
    Correlation isn't causation of course. They reopened at a time of year when the weather was getting cooler and cases were already rising. Importation of the virus by holidaymakers over the summer also seems to have been an issue.
    Of course causation can't be demonstrated without contact tracing with a precision that we can only dream of.

    But the fact that infection rates are so much higher among those at school than among the rest of the population is a pretty strong indicator of what is happening.

    What was the main difference between the Spring lockdown - the one that worked - and the November lockdown - the one that made little difference? Schools remained open in November.
  • Dura_Ace said:

    Scott_xP said:
    That's a great photo of Johnson. I reckon he keeps that hard hat on when he's giving PNN a sorting out.
    When he gets the mask on, that's the sign that PNN is going to be in the driving seat.

    NSFW

    https://tinyurl.com/yczuwro9
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The SNP got 63 seats in 2016 so not a vast change since, plenty of time to squeeze it back.

    It only needs 7 SNP constituency seats to be lost to the Unionist parties thanks to tactical voting on those numbers for the SNP to fail to win a majority
    The greens aren't a Unionist Party you knobber. That projection gives the SNP a working majority of 17. I know that as a leading GOPper your only interest in democracy is overturning it, but barring a major scandal or massive change of opinions the SNP will have a comfortable majority on a manifesto of independence.
    He denies being a Trumpist but has as much respect for democracy as him.

    A 17 majority for an independence referendum is as comprehensive as it gets. Anyone who denies that is not a democrat. No if's or buts.
    Says the man determined to push through a No Deal Brexit despite zero evidence in any poll a majority of the public want that
    I'm not wanting a No Deal Brexit pushed through. I want a deal that honours the government's manifesto: the UK takes back control of laws, money etc.

    If that deal isn't available then c'est la vie go no deal.

    That was the Tory Manifesto. It's a shame you prioritise opinion polls over actual election results.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The SNP got 63 seats in 2016 so not a vast change since, plenty of time to squeeze it back.

    It only needs 7 SNP constituency seats to be lost to the Unionist parties thanks to tactical voting on those numbers for the SNP to fail to win a majority
    You didn't answer the last 3 times I asked a similar question. You said if the SNP didn't get an overall majority there was zero chance of another indy referendum being granted. What difference would them getting an overall majority make?
    There would be absolutely zero chance of Boris giving the SNP a referendum if the SNP fail to even match the Holyrood majority they got in 2011 before the 2014 independence referendum.

    If the SNP do get a majority Boris will still likely refuse the referendum as UK government policy is 2014 was a once in a generation referendum but Sturgeon would be able to put more pressure on him as a result
    If he refuses to grant a referendum then he is a bloody fool and a hypocrite. At the moment - in spite of what the polls are showing, the Unionists have a reasonable chance of winning another referendum. If he refuses to allow one they will go ahead anyway and the Independence side will win very easily. Now I want Independence to win but if Boris does not then he would be a fool to refuse a referendum.
  • Is this "mutant" bug just in the UK?

    If so shouldn't we close our borders to not export it to the rest of the world?

    Or is it just we know about it and the genie is already out of the bottle?

    Something remarkably similar is already in South Africa although it looks like that might be due to a similar but separate mutation on the same gene. I suspect this is going to be widespread already.

    That said if I were in charge I would shut down our borders now as it is still possible that the mutation is limited to the UK and South Africa. It seems to me to be the moral thing to do.
    Looking at infection rates in Europe I would be amazed if other countries didn't have it.

    In any case I can't see the government restricting movement to stop the virus being exported when they did sod all to stop the virus being imported.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,217
    Scott_xP said:

    kinabalu said:

    He'll be pleased - and not a little relieved - that Leavers such as yourself are buying into this.

    He is reliant on them still being totally gullible
    I'm afraid you could put it that way, yes. Although imo he is suckering far more than just Leavers with all of this hype about No Deal being likely unless there is serious late movement from the EU. The media (Peston and Laura & Co) seem to swallow his shit whole. Surprised they don't fall ill.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    It looks like the hassle of getting the superfrozen vaccine into care homes is pushing the government to revise its plans and earmark the AZ virus for them. Not such an illogical strategy, given that the AZ is much easier to transport and store, and appears to provide near complete protection against symptoms, if not infection. But not the priority plan for the Pfizer one that was intended.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677
    The SNP have to find a way to have Indyref2 in this parliament as they cannot afford to waste Johnson. He is an absolute machine at generating secessionist sentiment.
  • Can the PM order a lockdown from 27/12 using emergency powers legislation? Or would he need to recall Parliament to do so?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,128
    edited December 2020
    Dura_Ace said:

    The SNP have to find a way to have Indyref2 in this parliament as they cannot afford to waste Johnson. He is an absolute machine at generating secessionist sentiment.

    They can't, without UK government consent any referendum would be illegal and Unionist voters would boycott it.

    The pro independence side won the 2017 Catalan independence referendum but without consent from the Spanish government it was illegal and Spanish Unionist voters boycotted it
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868

    kle4 said:

    Nice reflective header. I like the anecdote about Bridge in California.

    Yes, very good header but I was intrigued about the bridge reference.

    I once had a friend who was a top class player at both bridge and chess. He reckoned bridge was the more skilful game.
    Probably true. I am not top class at either, but every chess game starts from the same configuration of pieces and every opening variation has been analysed so much that top players are on autopilot for quite a lot of the opening moves. In Bridge, every starting hand is different and quite a lot is concealed from you.
    Chess with a random, but equal for both players, distribution of the pieces across the sixteen (or perhaps back eight) squares would make an interesting variant.
  • Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Inspired the gob smacking article posted by @ydoethur in the last thread I have a second topic for the Truth and Reconciliation committee after they have dealt with "Why the fuck were the airports kept completely open"

    It is "WTF was up with schools". The idea that someone can state that schools being open did not increase spread of virus is either an astonishing lie or and attempt at word play to avoid rating the truth.

    When the half term break happened cases stopped growing/fell. The attempt to claim no correlation is staggering. Who is so invested in this?

    The Department for Education.

    But the academics concerned should be facing disciplinary.

    Edit - for those who have not read it, this was the article in question:

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/schools-not-increasing-covid-spread-stay-open-experts-b352746.html

    SAGE, notably, are arguing the exact opposite.

    Edit to the edit - I should point out that Ladhani has spent most of the pandemic downplaying the issue of infections among children.

    https://www.sgul.ac.uk/news/children-found-to-have-made-up-just-1-of-covid-19-cases-during-first-wave-in-england
    Nobody rational or capable of even the most basic analysis could possibly conclude that keeping schools open did not increase the spread of the virus. Of course it did. The much trickier bit is whether the risk of the virus to that age group (and the teaching staff) is sufficient to offset the clear harm of disrupting children's education. The even trickier thing is if your target is an R rate of less than 1, how much of your "1" does having schools open cost and what do you need to do to offset it?

    These are very difficult judgments indeed and I have sympathy with those having to make them. I agree with the government that in constructing the "wish list" of things we can do whilst keeping under R1 schools should be right up there, right at the top. But sometimes it seems even a wish list is a bit of a delusion and we have to accept that no kind of normal life is possible whilst this virus is at play in our society.
    I would agree with much of that. But lying to justify a policy that has failed in the first place due to a wilful blindness to obvious facts is absolutely not on. That’s not Trumpian, it’s Bolivarian.
    What did the late Simon do, to deserve that comment?
    Bolivarian socialism - ie the lying, cheating, thieving, murdering scumbags Chavez and Maduro.
    Half a moment, YDoethur, before you assemble the disciplinary committees, as a good historian, you need to check the primary source, not the journalistic write-up

    Here, it is (I believe):

    https://tinyurl.com/y72pasrl

    I agree it is a pretty unimpressive, middle-of-the-pack piece of work. But, there is not a huge amount to disagree with there -- it is all pretty unarguable, even mundane.

    In fact, the paper does not even set out to answer the interesting questions, such as the role of asymptomatic cases in schools. It is just a bald statistical analysis of some data that could be done by a semi-competent A Level student.

    The paper does not appear to have any real conclusions -- always the mark of a poorish paper.

    It is the write-up in the Standard which is sloppy & seems to put a spin on the paper which is not present in the original paper & conclusions. Arts graduates, probably 😁

    Certainly, the title in the Standard "Schools do not appear to be increasing the spread of covid and should remain open" does not appear in the scientific paper anywhere, at least as far as I can see.
    Here’s what the author retweeted:
    https://twitter.com/PHE_uk/status/1339517263729274887
    So he has endorsed the idea that transmission happens outside schools, not within them, and that schools are therefore suffering because of incidence elsewhere rather than the other way around.

    Which is one possible reading of the evidence they had, but as that ignored the minor detail that case numbers correlate closely with the opening/reopening of schools and universities, not at all the most likely one. That evidence has been ignored, and given his past research record has been to consistently downplay the level of infection among children, it’s hard to believe it’s not deliberate.
    Correlation isn't causation of course. They reopened at a time of year when the weather was getting cooler and cases were already rising. Importation of the virus by holidaymakers over the summer also seems to have been an issue.
    Of course causation can't be demonstrated without contact tracing with a precision that we can only dream of.

    But the fact that infection rates are so much higher among those at school than among the rest of the population is a pretty strong indicator of what is happening.

    What was the main difference between the Spring lockdown - the one that worked - and the November lockdown - the one that made little difference? Schools remained open in November.
    The November 'lockdown' ** did halve the number of people infected.

    ** more of a partial shutdown than a lockdown.

    But the problem is that we're well into the law of diminishing returns - people are bored of covid and the young know they are not at risk.
  • kinabalu said:

    Scott_xP said:

    kinabalu said:

    He'll be pleased - and not a little relieved - that Leavers such as yourself are buying into this.

    He is reliant on them still being totally gullible
    I'm afraid you could put it that way, yes. Although imo he is suckering far more than just Leavers with all of this hype about No Deal being likely unless there is serious late movement from the EU. The media (Peston and Laura & Co) seem to swallow his shit whole. Surprised they don't fall ill.
    There already has been recent movement by the EU. For example they recently offered the UK 18% of quota's - that wasn't there months ago.

    So let's set that as a baseline as an example. If the UK regains 18% of quota's (or more) then that is a deal not offered months ago so the EU have moved. And if you deny that then in your own words you lose all credibility since it is a black and white fact.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,001
    HYUFD said:

    They can't, without UK government consent any referendum would be illegal and Unionist voters would boycott it.

    The pro independence side won the 2017 Catalan independence referendum but without consent from the Spanish government it was illegal and Spanish Unionist voters boycotted it

    It's not illegal to hold a referendum
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    IanB2 said:

    It looks like the hassle of getting the superfrozen vaccine into care homes is pushing the government to revise its plans and earmark the AZ virus for them. Not such an illogical strategy, given that the AZ is much easier to transport and store, and appears to provide near complete protection against symptoms, if not infection. But not the priority plan for the Pfizer one that was intended.

    If so then that sounds like it might be a sensible decision, which is a rarity coming from this lot. If they're having real trouble getting the BioNTech effort into Shady Pines, then they're better off being flexible and jumping forward to the next group in the queue. There's little point in slowing down the delivery of treatment to over 80s still living in their own homes just to stick rigidly to a list, when that group is about four or five times larger than the total population in care.
  • Dura_Ace said:

    The SNP have to find a way to have Indyref2 in this parliament as they cannot afford to waste Johnson. He is an absolute machine at generating secessionist sentiment.

    He has me wanting an independent London!
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868

    RobD said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Am very busy working.

    Wander in briefly to see what is going on.

    Note that within a few opening posts people are again being called "traitors" for pointing out the obvious.

    Wanders off again.

    The only people who have used the "traitor" word today are Remainers, finding it the only way to obfuscate their inability to defend the timing of the Select Committee report - because it is aimed at helping only the EU, not the UK.....
    It doesn’t help the EU because the EU are already aware we are not ready. Everyone is aware.

    What part of that do you not understand?
    To be honest the EU are not ready either and chaos beckons across Europe, not just in the UK
    though they can trade normally with the other 26 countries, we cannot trade with any of them, not quite the same kind of disaster or chaos.
    We are integrated into their economies and a sudden severance is going to effect them as well
    No one is denying that, but for them it will be an inconvenience. For the UK it will be much worse.
    Net over the entire EU it'll be an inconvenience. For some it'll be much worse.
    But for the UK it will be a major screw-up worse than any EU country will experience
    Not sure Ireland will not be very badly effected
    But it’ll be badly affected.
  • HYUFD said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    The SNP have to find a way to have Indyref2 in this parliament as they cannot afford to waste Johnson. He is an absolute machine at generating secessionist sentiment.

    They can't, without UK government consent any referendum would be illegal and Unionist voters would boycott it.

    The pro independence side won the 2017 Catalan independence referendum but without consent from the Spanish government it was illegal and Spanish Unionist voters boycotted it
    If you are using Spain as an example of how a modern first world Government should behave then you have already lost the argument.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,128
    edited December 2020

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The SNP got 63 seats in 2016 so not a vast change since, plenty of time to squeeze it back.

    It only needs 7 SNP constituency seats to be lost to the Unionist parties thanks to tactical voting on those numbers for the SNP to fail to win a majority
    The greens aren't a Unionist Party you knobber. That projection gives the SNP a working majority of 17. I know that as a leading GOPper your only interest in democracy is overturning it, but barring a major scandal or massive change of opinions the SNP will have a comfortable majority on a manifesto of independence.
    He denies being a Trumpist but has as much respect for democracy as him.

    A 17 majority for an independence referendum is as comprehensive as it gets. Anyone who denies that is not a democrat. No if's or buts.
    Says the man determined to push through a No Deal Brexit despite zero evidence in any poll a majority of the public want that
    I'm not wanting a No Deal Brexit pushed through. I want a deal that honours the government's manifesto: the UK takes back control of laws, money etc.

    If that deal isn't available then c'est la vie go no deal.

    That was the Tory Manifesto. It's a shame you prioritise opinion polls over actual election results.
    The Tory manifesto of 2019 which won the Tories a majority of 80 seats promised 'We will negotiate a trade agreement next
    year – one that will strengthen our Union –and we will not extend the implementation period beyond December 2020.'
    https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan

    The Tories therefore won with a manifesto commitment promising a trade deal with the EU by the New Year when the UK will leave the SM and CU
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,221
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Inspired the gob smacking article posted by @ydoethur in the last thread I have a second topic for the Truth and Reconciliation committee after they have dealt with "Why the fuck were the airports kept completely open"

    It is "WTF was up with schools". The idea that someone can state that schools being open did not increase spread of virus is either an astonishing lie or and attempt at word play to avoid rating the truth.

    When the half term break happened cases stopped growing/fell. The attempt to claim no correlation is staggering. Who is so invested in this?

    The Department for Education.

    But the academics concerned should be facing disciplinary.

    Edit - for those who have not read it, this was the article in question:

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/schools-not-increasing-covid-spread-stay-open-experts-b352746.html

    SAGE, notably, are arguing the exact opposite.

    Edit to the edit - I should point out that Ladhani has spent most of the pandemic downplaying the issue of infections among children.

    https://www.sgul.ac.uk/news/children-found-to-have-made-up-just-1-of-covid-19-cases-during-first-wave-in-england
    Nobody rational or capable of even the most basic analysis could possibly conclude that keeping schools open did not increase the spread of the virus. Of course it did. The much trickier bit is whether the risk of the virus to that age group (and the teaching staff) is sufficient to offset the clear harm of disrupting children's education. The even trickier thing is if your target is an R rate of less than 1, how much of your "1" does having schools open cost and what do you need to do to offset it?

    These are very difficult judgments indeed and I have sympathy with those having to make them. I agree with the government that in constructing the "wish list" of things we can do whilst keeping under R1 schools should be right up there, right at the top. But sometimes it seems even a wish list is a bit of a delusion and we have to accept that no kind of normal life is possible whilst this virus is at play in our society.
    I would agree with much of that. But lying to justify a policy that has failed in the first place due to a wilful blindness to obvious facts is absolutely not on. That’s not Trumpian, it’s Bolivarian.
    What did the late Simon do, to deserve that comment?
    Bolivarian socialism - ie the lying, cheating, thieving, murdering scumbags Chavez and Maduro.
    Half a moment, YDoethur, before you assemble the disciplinary committees, as a good historian, you need to check the primary source, not the journalistic write-up

    Here, it is (I believe):

    https://tinyurl.com/y72pasrl

    I agree it is a pretty unimpressive, middle-of-the-pack piece of work. But, there is not a huge amount to disagree with there -- it is all pretty unarguable, even mundane.

    In fact, the paper does not even set out to answer the interesting questions, such as the role of asymptomatic cases in schools. It is just a bald statistical analysis of some data that could be done by a semi-competent A Level student.

    The paper does not appear to have any real conclusions -- always the mark of a poorish paper.

    It is the write-up in the Standard which is sloppy & seems to put a spin on the paper which is not present in the original paper & conclusions. Arts graduates, probably 😁

    Certainly, the title in the Standard "Schools do not appear to be increasing the spread of covid and should remain open" does not appear in the scientific paper anywhere, at least as far as I can see.
    Here’s what the author retweeted:
    https://twitter.com/PHE_uk/status/1339517263729274887
    So he has endorsed the idea that transmission happens outside schools, not within them, and that schools are therefore suffering because of incidence elsewhere rather than the other way around.

    Which is one possible reading of the evidence they had, but as that ignored the minor detail that case numbers correlate closely with the opening/reopening of schools and universities, not at all the most likely one. That evidence has been ignored, and given his past research record has been to consistently downplay the level of infection among children, it’s hard to believe it’s not deliberate.
    There’s also this.

    https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/national/18951631.school-covid-outbreaks-may-several-introductions-virus---expert/
    ... The data does not take account of pupils and teachers who were at home with coronavirus or who were isolating because they were close contacts....
  • Crabbie said:

    kle4 said:

    Nice reflective header. I like the anecdote about Bridge in California.

    Yes, very good header but I was intrigued about the bridge reference.

    I once had a friend who was a top class player at both bridge and chess. He reckoned bridge was the more skilful game.
    There’s no luck involved in duplicate bridge.

    I played both bridge and chess to a reasonable standard. Chess is much more complex. Bridge is ‘just’ probabilities if you can remember where all the cards are. Bridge is more fun to play though if yiu can get four players of a similar standard together.

    Crabbie said:

    kle4 said:

    Nice reflective header. I like the anecdote about Bridge in California.

    Yes, very good header but I was intrigued about the bridge reference.

    I once had a friend who was a top class player at both bridge and chess. He reckoned bridge was the more skilful game.
    There’s no luck involved in duplicate bridge.

    I played both bridge and chess to a reasonable standard. Chess is much more complex. Bridge is ‘just’ probabilities if you can remember where all the cards are. Bridge is more fun to play though if yiu can get four players of a similar standard together.

    One of the (few) downsides to chess is that you do have to find opponents roughly the same strength as yourself. There has only to be a small difference in ability and the results will be boringly inevitable.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,128

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The SNP got 63 seats in 2016 so not a vast change since, plenty of time to squeeze it back.

    It only needs 7 SNP constituency seats to be lost to the Unionist parties thanks to tactical voting on those numbers for the SNP to fail to win a majority
    You didn't answer the last 3 times I asked a similar question. You said if the SNP didn't get an overall majority there was zero chance of another indy referendum being granted. What difference would them getting an overall majority make?
    There would be absolutely zero chance of Boris giving the SNP a referendum if the SNP fail to even match the Holyrood majority they got in 2011 before the 2014 independence referendum.

    If the SNP do get a majority Boris will still likely refuse the referendum as UK government policy is 2014 was a once in a generation referendum but Sturgeon would be able to put more pressure on him as a result
    If he refuses to grant a referendum then he is a bloody fool and a hypocrite. At the moment - in spite of what the polls are showing, the Unionists have a reasonable chance of winning another referendum. If he refuses to allow one they will go ahead anyway and the Independence side will win very easily. Now I want Independence to win but if Boris does not then he would be a fool to refuse a referendum.
    If the Nationalists hold a referendum without Westminster consent it will be illegal, so the result would be irrelevant even if they won
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868

    Scott_xP said:
    A no deal exit would not be Black Wednesday redux.

    The difference is that on Black Wednesday the UK did everything possible to avoid being ejected from the ERM and failed. Even 15% interest rates couldn't prevent failure. It didn't matter what happened next the Tories had been shown to fail.

    This time is totally different. Walking away wouldn't be a failure it would be a choice. Some may call it a good choice, others may call it a disastrous one. We wouldn't be humiliatingly ejected we would have a rally to the flag cry and say to Europe "so long and thanks for all the fish"

    Totally different circumstances.
    Until we go try selling those fish to the Europeans who normally buy them
  • IanB2 said:

    It looks like the hassle of getting the superfrozen vaccine into care homes is pushing the government to revise its plans and earmark the AZ virus for them. Not such an illogical strategy, given that the AZ is much easier to transport and store, and appears to provide near complete protection against symptoms, if not infection. But not the priority plan for the Pfizer one that was intended.

    If so then that sounds like it might be a sensible decision, which is a rarity coming from this lot. If they're having real trouble getting the BioNTech effort into Shady Pines, then they're better off being flexible and jumping forward to the next group in the queue. There's little point in slowing down the delivery of treatment to over 80s still living in their own homes just to stick rigidly to a list, when that group is about four or five times larger than the total population in care.
    And to be brutally honest its a better idea to prioritise the oldies who still have years of high quality of life ahead of them rather than those in care homes.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,128

    HYUFD said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    The SNP have to find a way to have Indyref2 in this parliament as they cannot afford to waste Johnson. He is an absolute machine at generating secessionist sentiment.

    They can't, without UK government consent any referendum would be illegal and Unionist voters would boycott it.

    The pro independence side won the 2017 Catalan independence referendum but without consent from the Spanish government it was illegal and Spanish Unionist voters boycotted it
    If you are using Spain as an example of how a modern first world Government should behave then you have already lost the argument.
    No, as Catalonia remains part of Spain
  • Concerning given the U.K. move to 10 day quarantine

    https://twitter.com/Govgg/status/1340253040692047872?s=20
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Inspired the gob smacking article posted by @ydoethur in the last thread I have a second topic for the Truth and Reconciliation committee after they have dealt with "Why the fuck were the airports kept completely open"

    It is "WTF was up with schools". The idea that someone can state that schools being open did not increase spread of virus is either an astonishing lie or and attempt at word play to avoid rating the truth.

    When the half term break happened cases stopped growing/fell. The attempt to claim no correlation is staggering. Who is so invested in this?

    The Department for Education.

    But the academics concerned should be facing disciplinary.

    Edit - for those who have not read it, this was the article in question:

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/schools-not-increasing-covid-spread-stay-open-experts-b352746.html

    SAGE, notably, are arguing the exact opposite.

    Edit to the edit - I should point out that Ladhani has spent most of the pandemic downplaying the issue of infections among children.

    https://www.sgul.ac.uk/news/children-found-to-have-made-up-just-1-of-covid-19-cases-during-first-wave-in-england
    Nobody rational or capable of even the most basic analysis could possibly conclude that keeping schools open did not increase the spread of the virus. Of course it did. The much trickier bit is whether the risk of the virus to that age group (and the teaching staff) is sufficient to offset the clear harm of disrupting children's education. The even trickier thing is if your target is an R rate of less than 1, how much of your "1" does having schools open cost and what do you need to do to offset it?

    These are very difficult judgments indeed and I have sympathy with those having to make them. I agree with the government that in constructing the "wish list" of things we can do whilst keeping under R1 schools should be right up there, right at the top. But sometimes it seems even a wish list is a bit of a delusion and we have to accept that no kind of normal life is possible whilst this virus is at play in our society.
    I would agree with much of that. But lying to justify a policy that has failed in the first place due to a wilful blindness to obvious facts is absolutely not on. That’s not Trumpian, it’s Bolivarian.
    What did the late Simon do, to deserve that comment?
    Bolivarian socialism - ie the lying, cheating, thieving, murdering scumbags Chavez and Maduro.
    Half a moment, YDoethur, before you assemble the disciplinary committees, as a good historian, you need to check the primary source, not the journalistic write-up

    Here, it is (I believe):

    https://tinyurl.com/y72pasrl

    I agree it is a pretty unimpressive, middle-of-the-pack piece of work. But, there is not a huge amount to disagree with there -- it is all pretty unarguable, even mundane.

    In fact, the paper does not even set out to answer the interesting questions, such as the role of asymptomatic cases in schools. It is just a bald statistical analysis of some data that could be done by a semi-competent A Level student.

    The paper does not appear to have any real conclusions -- always the mark of a poorish paper.

    It is the write-up in the Standard which is sloppy & seems to put a spin on the paper which is not present in the original paper & conclusions. Arts graduates, probably 😁

    Certainly, the title in the Standard "Schools do not appear to be increasing the spread of covid and should remain open" does not appear in the scientific paper anywhere, at least as far as I can see.
    Here’s what the author retweeted:
    https://twitter.com/PHE_uk/status/1339517263729274887
    So he has endorsed the idea that transmission happens outside schools, not within them, and that schools are therefore suffering because of incidence elsewhere rather than the other way around.

    Which is one possible reading of the evidence they had, but as that ignored the minor detail that case numbers correlate closely with the opening/reopening of schools and universities, not at all the most likely one. That evidence has been ignored, and given his past research record has been to consistently downplay the level of infection among children, it’s hard to believe it’s not deliberate.
    Correlation isn't causation of course. They reopened at a time of year when the weather was getting cooler and cases were already rising. Importation of the virus by holidaymakers over the summer also seems to have been an issue.
    We are at a stage in this God-awful business where, all at once, mass vaccination has started and a new and more easily transmissible strain of the virus is running amok and appears to be expanding its reach across the land. The best thing to do, I would suggest, is therefore to abandon the epidemiological debate and experimentation with schools and lock the kids back up, along with everybody else, as was done in March.

    Alas, I fear what will actually happen is that some token travel restrictions that do almost no good will be announced today, whilst the idiotic Christmas plans will go ahead and all the kids will troop back to the petri dishes in January. The Government will insist that children's rights to education trump everybody else's right to life, presumably because to do otherwise would upset Red Wall voters and cost it a few percentage points in the opinion polls.

    Well I'm sorry, but I'm past caring about two or three months' disruption to education at this stage. I really couldn't give a flying wotsit if little Annabel is bored sat at home, or gets an indifferent set of GCSEs this Summer because her Zoom lessons were crap. Everybody I love has survived this thing so far and I'd like that still to be the case at Easter. We can sift through the rubble and start rebuilding once the driving cause of the destruction has been crushed.
    What we need to see is an analysis of infection rates in parents and teachers. I'm not sure I've seen one but as you are so keen on closing down education I presume you have. That would tell us whether kids were spreading the virus into the wider population, or just among themselves.
  • Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Inspired the gob smacking article posted by @ydoethur in the last thread I have a second topic for the Truth and Reconciliation committee after they have dealt with "Why the fuck were the airports kept completely open"

    It is "WTF was up with schools". The idea that someone can state that schools being open did not increase spread of virus is either an astonishing lie or and attempt at word play to avoid rating the truth.

    When the half term break happened cases stopped growing/fell. The attempt to claim no correlation is staggering. Who is so invested in this?

    The Department for Education.

    But the academics concerned should be facing disciplinary.

    Edit - for those who have not read it, this was the article in question:

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/schools-not-increasing-covid-spread-stay-open-experts-b352746.html

    SAGE, notably, are arguing the exact opposite.

    Edit to the edit - I should point out that Ladhani has spent most of the pandemic downplaying the issue of infections among children.

    https://www.sgul.ac.uk/news/children-found-to-have-made-up-just-1-of-covid-19-cases-during-first-wave-in-england
    Nobody rational or capable of even the most basic analysis could possibly conclude that keeping schools open did not increase the spread of the virus. Of course it did. The much trickier bit is whether the risk of the virus to that age group (and the teaching staff) is sufficient to offset the clear harm of disrupting children's education. The even trickier thing is if your target is an R rate of less than 1, how much of your "1" does having schools open cost and what do you need to do to offset it?

    These are very difficult judgments indeed and I have sympathy with those having to make them. I agree with the government that in constructing the "wish list" of things we can do whilst keeping under R1 schools should be right up there, right at the top. But sometimes it seems even a wish list is a bit of a delusion and we have to accept that no kind of normal life is possible whilst this virus is at play in our society.
    I would agree with much of that. But lying to justify a policy that has failed in the first place due to a wilful blindness to obvious facts is absolutely not on. That’s not Trumpian, it’s Bolivarian.
    What did the late Simon do, to deserve that comment?
    Bolivarian socialism - ie the lying, cheating, thieving, murdering scumbags Chavez and Maduro.
    Half a moment, YDoethur, before you assemble the disciplinary committees, as a good historian, you need to check the primary source, not the journalistic write-up

    Here, it is (I believe):

    https://tinyurl.com/y72pasrl

    I agree it is a pretty unimpressive, middle-of-the-pack piece of work. But, there is not a huge amount to disagree with there -- it is all pretty unarguable, even mundane.

    In fact, the paper does not even set out to answer the interesting questions, such as the role of asymptomatic cases in schools. It is just a bald statistical analysis of some data that could be done by a semi-competent A Level student.

    The paper does not appear to have any real conclusions -- always the mark of a poorish paper.

    It is the write-up in the Standard which is sloppy & seems to put a spin on the paper which is not present in the original paper & conclusions. Arts graduates, probably 😁

    Certainly, the title in the Standard "Schools do not appear to be increasing the spread of covid and should remain open" does not appear in the scientific paper anywhere, at least as far as I can see.
    Here’s what the author retweeted:
    https://twitter.com/PHE_uk/status/1339517263729274887
    So he has endorsed the idea that transmission happens outside schools, not within them, and that schools are therefore suffering because of incidence elsewhere rather than the other way around.

    Which is one possible reading of the evidence they had, but as that ignored the minor detail that case numbers correlate closely with the opening/reopening of schools and universities, not at all the most likely one. That evidence has been ignored, and given his past research record has been to consistently downplay the level of infection among children, it’s hard to believe it’s not deliberate.
    Correlation isn't causation of course. They reopened at a time of year when the weather was getting cooler and cases were already rising. Importation of the virus by holidaymakers over the summer also seems to have been an issue.
    Of course causation can't be demonstrated without contact tracing with a precision that we can only dream of.

    But the fact that infection rates are so much higher among those at school than among the rest of the population is a pretty strong indicator of what is happening.

    What was the main difference between the Spring lockdown - the one that worked - and the November lockdown - the one that made little difference? Schools remained open in November.
    The November 'lockdown' ** did halve the number of people infected.

    ** more of a partial shutdown than a lockdown.

    But the problem is that we're well into the law of diminishing returns - people are bored of covid and the young know they are not at risk.
    I've been super careful since March since despite none of my household being vulnerable my wife does work with the vulnerable and I couldn't live with myself if I knew I'd take a stuoid risk, got her infected and then others died because of that.

    She's been vaccinated now. Two of my grandparents have been vaccinated now. It will take a fortnight before those vaccines take full effect but to be honest it makes it less concerning for me now if I catch the bug. Still want to be careful but the perceived direct pressure is reduced.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 3,028
    New virus strain - really not looking good at all.

    Looks like Christmas cancelled. Can't see how we get out of this one - vaccines seem the only hope..
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The SNP got 63 seats in 2016 so not a vast change since, plenty of time to squeeze it back.

    It only needs 7 SNP constituency seats to be lost to the Unionist parties thanks to tactical voting on those numbers for the SNP to fail to win a majority
    You didn't answer the last 3 times I asked a similar question. You said if the SNP didn't get an overall majority there was zero chance of another indy referendum being granted. What difference would them getting an overall majority make?
    There would be absolutely zero chance of Boris giving the SNP a referendum if the SNP fail to even match the Holyrood majority they got in 2011 before the 2014 independence referendum.

    If the SNP do get a majority Boris will still likely refuse the referendum as UK government policy is 2014 was a once in a generation referendum but Sturgeon would be able to put more pressure on him as a result
    If he refuses to grant a referendum then he is a bloody fool and a hypocrite. At the moment - in spite of what the polls are showing, the Unionists have a reasonable chance of winning another referendum. If he refuses to allow one they will go ahead anyway and the Independence side will win very easily. Now I want Independence to win but if Boris does not then he would be a fool to refuse a referendum.
    If the Nationalists hold a referendum without Westminster consent it will be illegal, so the result would be irrelevant even if they won
    Yep you really are going to win hearts and minds that way. What you fail to realise is that at some point in the very near future there will be a referendum and if anyone is dumb enough to follow your advice about how Westminster should respond to it then you are making a win for independence almost certain.
  • IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    Nice reflective header. I like the anecdote about Bridge in California.

    Yes, very good header but I was intrigued about the bridge reference.

    I once had a friend who was a top class player at both bridge and chess. He reckoned bridge was the more skilful game.
    Probably true. I am not top class at either, but every chess game starts from the same configuration of pieces and every opening variation has been analysed so much that top players are on autopilot for quite a lot of the opening moves. In Bridge, every starting hand is different and quite a lot is concealed from you.
    Chess with a random, but equal for both players, distribution of the pieces across the sixteen (or perhaps back eight) squares would make an interesting variant.
    Bobby Fischer pioneered this form of the game and it is becoming increasingly popular.

    I've tried it. It's weird, and it does throw you back on native ability rather than 'book' learning.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,128

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The SNP got 63 seats in 2016 so not a vast change since, plenty of time to squeeze it back.

    It only needs 7 SNP constituency seats to be lost to the Unionist parties thanks to tactical voting on those numbers for the SNP to fail to win a majority
    You didn't answer the last 3 times I asked a similar question. You said if the SNP didn't get an overall majority there was zero chance of another indy referendum being granted. What difference would them getting an overall majority make?
    There would be absolutely zero chance of Boris giving the SNP a referendum if the SNP fail to even match the Holyrood majority they got in 2011 before the 2014 independence referendum.

    If the SNP do get a majority Boris will still likely refuse the referendum as UK government policy is 2014 was a once in a generation referendum but Sturgeon would be able to put more pressure on him as a result
    If he refuses to grant a referendum then he is a bloody fool and a hypocrite. At the moment - in spite of what the polls are showing, the Unionists have a reasonable chance of winning another referendum. If he refuses to allow one they will go ahead anyway and the Independence side will win very easily. Now I want Independence to win but if Boris does not then he would be a fool to refuse a referendum.
    If the Nationalists hold a referendum without Westminster consent it will be illegal, so the result would be irrelevant even if they won
    Yep you really are going to win hearts and minds that way. What you fail to realise is that at some point in the very near future there will be a referendum and if anyone is dumb enough to follow your advice about how Westminster should respond to it then you are making a win for independence almost certain.
    There will be no legal referendum under this Tory government on Scottish independence, 2014 was a once in a generation vote and indeed Survation last week had only 40% of Scots wanting indyref2 within 2 years anyway ie the SNP base, 60% of Scots do not want indyref2 within the near future and the UK government will respect that.

    If Starmer became PM after 2024 and granted the SNP an indyref2 that would be up to him, Boris will not
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,882
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The SNP got 63 seats in 2016 so not a vast change since, plenty of time to squeeze it back.

    It only needs 7 SNP constituency seats to be lost to the Unionist parties thanks to tactical voting on those numbers for the SNP to fail to win a majority
    The greens aren't a Unionist Party you knobber. That projection gives the SNP a working majority of 17. I know that as a leading GOPper your only interest in democracy is overturning it, but barring a major scandal or massive change of opinions the SNP will have a comfortable majority on a manifesto of independence.
    He denies being a Trumpist but has as much respect for democracy as him.

    A 17 majority for an independence referendum is as comprehensive as it gets. Anyone who denies that is not a democrat. No if's or buts.
    Says the man determined to push through a No Deal Brexit despite zero evidence in any poll a majority of the public want that
    I'm not wanting a No Deal Brexit pushed through. I want a deal that honours the government's manifesto: the UK takes back control of laws, money etc.

    If that deal isn't available then c'est la vie go no deal.

    That was the Tory Manifesto. It's a shame you prioritise opinion polls over actual election results.
    The Tory manifesto of 2019 which won the Tories a majority of 80 seats promised 'We will negotiate a trade agreement next
    year – one that will strengthen our Union –and we will not extend the implementation period beyond December 2020.'
    https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan

    The Tories therefore won with a manifesto commitment promising a trade deal with the EU by the New Year when the UK will leave the SM and CU
    Your party's current administration has already made a point of trying to tear up its manifesto.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    The SNP have to find a way to have Indyref2 in this parliament as they cannot afford to waste Johnson. He is an absolute machine at generating secessionist sentiment.

    They can't, without UK government consent any referendum would be illegal and Unionist voters would boycott it.

    The pro independence side won the 2017 Catalan independence referendum but without consent from the Spanish government it was illegal and Spanish Unionist voters boycotted it
    If you are using Spain as an example of how a modern first world Government should behave then you have already lost the argument.
    No, as Catalonia remains part of Spain
    And support for independence has increased within the region. Way to go. Meanwhile the Spanish government are viewed as little better than Franco.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    Scott_xP said:
    I understand viruses mutate all the time....???

    From what I can see there is no real cast iron proof yet this mutant strain does travel faster than other strains, and there is no proof whatever it is any more or less threatening than the ordinary, common or garden, boring strain. And there won;t be evidence of the latter for weeks.

    But our lives have to be destroyed even more in the meantime.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,882
    Dura_Ace said:

    Scott_xP said:
    That's a great photo of Johnson. I reckon he keeps that hard hat on when he's giving PNN a sorting out.
    He looks, not inappropriately given current affairs, alarmingly piscine.
  • The strips in the palace v liverpool game are far too similar - daft

    Some strips are more troublesome than others. I once refereed a game between red and white stripes versus blue and white stripes. At distances of less than 20 yards it was fine but beyond that, hopeless.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,222

    IanB2 said:

    It looks like the hassle of getting the superfrozen vaccine into care homes is pushing the government to revise its plans and earmark the AZ virus for them. Not such an illogical strategy, given that the AZ is much easier to transport and store, and appears to provide near complete protection against symptoms, if not infection. But not the priority plan for the Pfizer one that was intended.

    If so then that sounds like it might be a sensible decision, which is a rarity coming from this lot. If they're having real trouble getting the BioNTech effort into Shady Pines, then they're better off being flexible and jumping forward to the next group in the queue. There's little point in slowing down the delivery of treatment to over 80s still living in their own homes just to stick rigidly to a list, when that group is about four or five times larger than the total population in care.
    And to be brutally honest its a better idea to prioritise the oldies who still have years of high quality of life ahead of them rather than those in care homes.
    I`ve made this point before, God`s waiting room and all that. But the argument against is that vaccinating those in care homes may relieve more pressure on health services and, of course, those of us with relatives in care homes are waiting for vaccinations so that we can visit our loved ones.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818

    New virus strain - really not looking good at all.

    Looks like Christmas cancelled. Can't see how we get out of this one - vaccines seem the only hope..

    What does really not looking good at all mean?

    Our liberty has to be destroyed and our country bankrupted because something 'really does not look good at all?''
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,713
    Fear not, Trump is now in command of the Guardians of the Galaxy.

    https://twitter.com/ChenueHer/status/1340059689430749188?s=19
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,361
    IanB2 said:

    If you have a steady full-time job, have lived in the same house for at least 3 years and have a good credit rating it is ridiculously easy to instantly get loans and liquidity.

    I tapped a few numbers in on TSB's website on Tuesday morning and had £8k in my bank account by Wednesday afternoon at only 2.8% interest*. All the interest will barely cost £200 over 2 years so the opportunity cost is very low. In fact, I'd probably make money sticking it in a stocks &shares ISA

    (*It's to pay off a car loan and help fund a new bathroom, if you must know.)

    That would have been a cracking strategy back in June. Today, maybe not so much.
    I am reminded of school friend. His family made its money in the 29 crash in America. His grandfather was working as a stockbroker. Many, many people had borrowed their way into the market....

    He (the grandfather) had not touched the market - or had cashed out in the rise (I forget). But he made a fortune selling other peoples stocks. And then bought at the very bottom of the crash.
  • Concerning given the U.K. move to 10 day quarantine

    https://twitter.com/Govgg/status/1340253040692047872?s=20

    By day 13 you may test positive, but no longer be infectious.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The SNP got 63 seats in 2016 so not a vast change since, plenty of time to squeeze it back.

    It only needs 7 SNP constituency seats to be lost to the Unionist parties thanks to tactical voting on those numbers for the SNP to fail to win a majority
    The greens aren't a Unionist Party you knobber. That projection gives the SNP a working majority of 17. I know that as a leading GOPper your only interest in democracy is overturning it, but barring a major scandal or massive change of opinions the SNP will have a comfortable majority on a manifesto of independence.
    He denies being a Trumpist but has as much respect for democracy as him.

    A 17 majority for an independence referendum is as comprehensive as it gets. Anyone who denies that is not a democrat. No if's or buts.
    Says the man determined to push through a No Deal Brexit despite zero evidence in any poll a majority of the public want that
    Correct me if I am wrong, but haven’t you delighted in posting claims of such evidence in the past? At least as far as Tory voters are concerned, who are the only people that matter in HY world?
  • New virus strain - really not looking good at all.

    Looks like Christmas cancelled. Can't see how we get out of this one - vaccines seem the only hope..

    What does really not looking good at all mean?

    Our liberty has to be destroyed and our country bankrupted because something 'really does not look good at all?''
    It means lot more people are going to die.

    If you want to see what the alternative looks like look across the Atlantic. The US has now lost more people than they lost in WW1 and the Vietnam war combined. They are now losing the equivalent of a 9/11 every day.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,080
    Scott_xP said:
    I really believe the mainstream churches should have cancelled their Christmas services weeks ago. Every year they like to remind us that Christ is the reason for the season. They should show some compassion and give a lead to government and public alike.

    I'm a Christian myself. There's too much striving after old-style normality for a comfort blanket. There are plenty of ways to celebrate the spiritual season of Christmas without meeting up in a church, or even outside for a carol service.
  • Scott_xP said:
    I understand viruses mutate all the time....???

    From what I can see there is no real cast iron proof yet this mutant strain does travel faster than other strains, and there is no proof whatever it is any more or less threatening than the ordinary, common or garden, boring strain. And there won;t be evidence of the latter for weeks.

    But our lives have to be destroyed even more in the meantime.
    The reports this morning are that Porton Down have confirmed it is far more infectious than the previous strain.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The SNP got 63 seats in 2016 so not a vast change since, plenty of time to squeeze it back.

    It only needs 7 SNP constituency seats to be lost to the Unionist parties thanks to tactical voting on those numbers for the SNP to fail to win a majority
    The greens aren't a Unionist Party you knobber. That projection gives the SNP a working majority of 17. I know that as a leading GOPper your only interest in democracy is overturning it, but barring a major scandal or massive change of opinions the SNP will have a comfortable majority on a manifesto of independence.
    He denies being a Trumpist but has as much respect for democracy as him.

    A 17 majority for an independence referendum is as comprehensive as it gets. Anyone who denies that is not a democrat. No if's or buts.
    Says the man determined to push through a No Deal Brexit despite zero evidence in any poll a majority of the public want that
    I'm not wanting a No Deal Brexit pushed through. I want a deal that honours the government's manifesto: the UK takes back control of laws, money etc.

    If that deal isn't available then c'est la vie go no deal.

    That was the Tory Manifesto. It's a shame you prioritise opinion polls over actual election results.
    The Tory manifesto of 2019 which won the Tories a majority of 80 seats promised 'We will negotiate a trade agreement next
    year – one that will strengthen our Union –and we will not extend the implementation period beyond December 2020.'
    https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan

    The Tories therefore won with a manifesto commitment promising a trade deal with the EU by the New Year when the UK will leave the SM and CU
    No that is not all the manifesto said. You have deliberately lied by omission snipping out much of what was said. Including parts that were actually put on the site in bold:

    'There will be no political alignment with the EU. We will keep the UK out of the single market, out of any form of customs union, and end the role of the European Court of Justice.

    This future relationship will be one that allows us to:
    • Take back control of our laws.
    • Take back control of our money.
    • Control our own trade policy.
    • Introduce an Australian-style points-based immigration system.
    • Raise standards in areas like workers’ rights, animal welfare, agriculture and the environment.
    • Ensure we are in full control of our fishing waters.'
    That bold was from the Tories I haven't added it. If there's no trade agreement that allows us to meet the elements listed then the PM has been clear all along what the priority is. It's the bit he bolded.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    edited December 2020

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Inspired the gob smacking article posted by @ydoethur in the last thread I have a second topic for the Truth and Reconciliation committee after they have dealt with "Why the fuck were the airports kept completely open"

    It is "WTF was up with schools". The idea that someone can state that schools being open did not increase spread of virus is either an astonishing lie or and attempt at word play to avoid rating the truth.

    When the half term break happened cases stopped growing/fell. The attempt to claim no correlation is staggering. Who is so invested in this?

    The Department for Education.

    But the academics concerned should be facing disciplinary.

    Edit - for those who have not read it, this was the article in question:

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/schools-not-increasing-covid-spread-stay-open-experts-b352746.html

    SAGE, notably, are arguing the exact opposite.

    Edit to the edit - I should point out that Ladhani has spent most of the pandemic downplaying the issue of infections among children.

    https://www.sgul.ac.uk/news/children-found-to-have-made-up-just-1-of-covid-19-cases-during-first-wave-in-england
    Nobody rational or capable of even the most basic analysis could possibly conclude that keeping schools open did not increase the spread of the virus. Of course it did. The much trickier bit is whether the risk of the virus to that age group (and the teaching staff) is sufficient to offset the clear harm of disrupting children's education. The even trickier thing is if your target is an R rate of less than 1, how much of your "1" does having schools open cost and what do you need to do to offset it?

    These are very difficult judgments indeed and I have sympathy with those having to make them. I agree with the government that in constructing the "wish list" of things we can do whilst keeping under R1 schools should be right up there, right at the top. But sometimes it seems even a wish list is a bit of a delusion and we have to accept that no kind of normal life is possible whilst this virus is at play in our society.
    I would agree with much of that. But lying to justify a policy that has failed in the first place due to a wilful blindness to obvious facts is absolutely not on. That’s not Trumpian, it’s Bolivarian.
    What did the late Simon do, to deserve that comment?
    Bolivarian socialism - ie the lying, cheating, thieving, murdering scumbags Chavez and Maduro.
    Half a moment, YDoethur, before you assemble the disciplinary committees, as a good historian, you need to check the primary source, not the journalistic write-up

    Here, it is (I believe):

    https://tinyurl.com/y72pasrl

    I agree it is a pretty unimpressive, middle-of-the-pack piece of work. But, there is not a huge amount to disagree with there -- it is all pretty unarguable, even mundane.

    In fact, the paper does not even set out to answer the interesting questions, such as the role of asymptomatic cases in schools. It is just a bald statistical analysis of some data that could be done by a semi-competent A Level student.

    The paper does not appear to have any real conclusions -- always the mark of a poorish paper.

    It is the write-up in the Standard which is sloppy & seems to put a spin on the paper which is not present in the original paper & conclusions. Arts graduates, probably 😁

    Certainly, the title in the Standard "Schools do not appear to be increasing the spread of covid and should remain open" does not appear in the scientific paper anywhere, at least as far as I can see.
    Here’s what the author retweeted:
    https://twitter.com/PHE_uk/status/1339517263729274887
    So he has endorsed the idea that transmission happens outside schools, not within them, and that schools are therefore suffering because of incidence elsewhere rather than the other way around.

    Which is one possible reading of the evidence they had, but as that ignored the minor detail that case numbers correlate closely with the opening/reopening of schools and universities, not at all the most likely one. That evidence has been ignored, and given his past research record has been to consistently downplay the level of infection among children, it’s hard to believe it’s not deliberate.
    Correlation isn't causation of course. They reopened at a time of year when the weather was getting cooler and cases were already rising. Importation of the virus by holidaymakers over the summer also seems to have been an issue.
    We are at a stage in this God-awful business where, all at once, mass vaccination has started and a new and more easily transmissible strain of the virus is running amok and appears to be expanding its reach across the land. The best thing to do, I would suggest, is therefore to abandon the epidemiological debate and experimentation with schools and lock the kids back up, along with everybody else, as was done in March.

    Alas, I fear what will actually happen is that some token travel restrictions that do almost no good will be announced today, whilst the idiotic Christmas plans will go ahead and all the kids will troop back to the petri dishes in January. The Government will insist that children's rights to education trump everybody else's right to life, presumably because to do otherwise would upset Red Wall voters and cost it a few percentage points in the opinion polls.

    Well I'm sorry, but I'm past caring about two or three months' disruption to education at this stage. I really couldn't give a flying wotsit if little Annabel is bored sat at home, or gets an indifferent set of GCSEs this Summer because her Zoom lessons were crap. Everybody I love has survived this thing so far and I'd like that still to be the case at Easter. We can sift through the rubble and start rebuilding once the driving cause of the destruction has been crushed.
    What we need to see is an analysis of infection rates in parents and teachers. I'm not sure I've seen one but as you are so keen on closing down education I presume you have. That would tell us whether kids were spreading the virus into the wider population, or just among themselves.
    Unless there's a readily available, plentiful and reliable source of such data compiled and ready to be shoved through a computer (and insofar as I'm aware there isn't, because no reports of such analyses have emerged, although others may know different) then we don't have time to cock about doing the work from scratch.

    The bottom line is that social contact encourages spread, and there's now a new variant of the virus in widespread circulation which is even easier to pass around, and appears to have the Government and the medics in full panic mode. Therefore, apply the precautionary principle and lock down. It may not be enough to stop the bloody thing in its tracks but at least it ought to slow it down.

    It would be a different matter, granted, if there were not millions of doses of an effective vaccine available and already being administered, but the reality is that there are. Reopening schools and universities in the New Year is an unnecessary risk. Students can make do with Zoom until Easter. It's crap, it affects the poor disproportionately badly, and I hate having to suggest it because I loathe the restrictions and I know they'll cause suffering, but the alternative is to carry on as we are, which clearly isn't working.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,713
    AnneJGP said:

    Scott_xP said:
    I really believe the mainstream churches should have cancelled their Christmas services weeks ago. Every year they like to remind us that Christ is the reason for the season. They should show some compassion and give a lead to government and public alike.

    I'm a Christian myself. There's too much striving after old-style normality for a comfort blanket. There are plenty of ways to celebrate the spiritual season of Christmas without meeting up in a church, or even outside for a carol service.
    They pretty much have cancelled around my way, or gone online.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    What is 'concerning' and 'worrying' is that we will spending GBP400bn pounds in a fiscal year more than we are gathering in taxes. At least. A year.

    IF we carrying on like that for much longer, we won;t have a health service, a whole range of other public services or much of a life worth living at all for the 99.5% who survive covid, for ever.

    I reckon voters know this. And that's the real reason they are starting to get restive, and starting to walk away from the main parties (judging from that poll).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,128
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The SNP got 63 seats in 2016 so not a vast change since, plenty of time to squeeze it back.

    It only needs 7 SNP constituency seats to be lost to the Unionist parties thanks to tactical voting on those numbers for the SNP to fail to win a majority
    The greens aren't a Unionist Party you knobber. That projection gives the SNP a working majority of 17. I know that as a leading GOPper your only interest in democracy is overturning it, but barring a major scandal or massive change of opinions the SNP will have a comfortable majority on a manifesto of independence.
    He denies being a Trumpist but has as much respect for democracy as him.

    A 17 majority for an independence referendum is as comprehensive as it gets. Anyone who denies that is not a democrat. No if's or buts.
    Says the man determined to push through a No Deal Brexit despite zero evidence in any poll a majority of the public want that
    Correct me if I am wrong, but haven’t you delighted in posting claims of such evidence in the past? At least as far as Tory voters are concerned, who are the only people that matter in HY world?
    Even Tory voters support a Canadian style trade deal
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868

    IanB2 said:

    It looks like the hassle of getting the superfrozen vaccine into care homes is pushing the government to revise its plans and earmark the AZ virus for them. Not such an illogical strategy, given that the AZ is much easier to transport and store, and appears to provide near complete protection against symptoms, if not infection. But not the priority plan for the Pfizer one that was intended.

    If so then that sounds like it might be a sensible decision, which is a rarity coming from this lot. If they're having real trouble getting the BioNTech effort into Shady Pines, then they're better off being flexible and jumping forward to the next group in the queue. There's little point in slowing down the delivery of treatment to over 80s still living in their own homes just to stick rigidly to a list, when that group is about four or five times larger than the total population in care.
    Indeed, I agree it’s a sensible approach. Care home residents are hardly likely to be spreading the virus to many others, assuming the staff are all vaccinated as top priority folks, and if the AZ ensures they don’t suffer symptoms, that is job done.

    The surprise is how long it is taking those in power to be reaching such logical conclusions, and how often the goalposts keep moving. None of us can assume that anything the government legislates for, by regulation, has more than a few days longevity before the rules and plan changes again, and that really isn’t healthy.
  • Scott_xP said:
    I understand viruses mutate all the time....???

    From what I can see there is no real cast iron proof yet this mutant strain does travel faster than other strains, and there is no proof whatever it is any more or less threatening than the ordinary, common or garden, boring strain. And there won;t be evidence of the latter for weeks.

    But our lives have to be destroyed even more in the meantime.
    The reports this morning are that Porton Down have confirmed it is far more infectious than the previous strain.
    I hate lockdowns but being realistic a lockdown in January while the vaccine is rolled out seems to be logical. If you're going to do it though, do it before NYE. I see no logical reason to lockdown in January but not be locked down on NYE - forget Christmas, if people have NYE parties or bars are open for NYE (I know they're currently closed before midnight in theory if they don't have lock ins) then that will be the real superspreader event.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,128
    edited December 2020

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    The SNP have to find a way to have Indyref2 in this parliament as they cannot afford to waste Johnson. He is an absolute machine at generating secessionist sentiment.

    They can't, without UK government consent any referendum would be illegal and Unionist voters would boycott it.

    The pro independence side won the 2017 Catalan independence referendum but without consent from the Spanish government it was illegal and Spanish Unionist voters boycotted it
    If you are using Spain as an example of how a modern first world Government should behave then you have already lost the argument.
    No, as Catalonia remains part of Spain
    And support for independence has increased within the region. Way to go. Meanwhile the Spanish government are viewed as little better than Franco.
    There is now a Socialist government in power in Spain who have started talks with Catalan nationalists.

    However the PP conservative government that were in power in Spain in 2017 and refused a legal Catalan independence referendum are the sister party of the UK Tories, the Spanish Socialists are the sister party of UK Labour
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Inspired the gob smacking article posted by @ydoethur in the last thread I have a second topic for the Truth and Reconciliation committee after they have dealt with "Why the fuck were the airports kept completely open"

    It is "WTF was up with schools". The idea that someone can state that schools being open did not increase spread of virus is either an astonishing lie or and attempt at word play to avoid rating the truth.

    When the half term break happened cases stopped growing/fell. The attempt to claim no correlation is staggering. Who is so invested in this?

    The Department for Education.

    But the academics concerned should be facing disciplinary.

    Edit - for those who have not read it, this was the article in question:

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/schools-not-increasing-covid-spread-stay-open-experts-b352746.html

    SAGE, notably, are arguing the exact opposite.

    Edit to the edit - I should point out that Ladhani has spent most of the pandemic downplaying the issue of infections among children.

    https://www.sgul.ac.uk/news/children-found-to-have-made-up-just-1-of-covid-19-cases-during-first-wave-in-england
    Nobody rational or capable of even the most basic analysis could possibly conclude that keeping schools open did not increase the spread of the virus. Of course it did. The much trickier bit is whether the risk of the virus to that age group (and the teaching staff) is sufficient to offset the clear harm of disrupting children's education. The even trickier thing is if your target is an R rate of less than 1, how much of your "1" does having schools open cost and what do you need to do to offset it?

    These are very difficult judgments indeed and I have sympathy with those having to make them. I agree with the government that in constructing the "wish list" of things we can do whilst keeping under R1 schools should be right up there, right at the top. But sometimes it seems even a wish list is a bit of a delusion and we have to accept that no kind of normal life is possible whilst this virus is at play in our society.
    I would agree with much of that. But lying to justify a policy that has failed in the first place due to a wilful blindness to obvious facts is absolutely not on. That’s not Trumpian, it’s Bolivarian.
    What did the late Simon do, to deserve that comment?
    Bolivarian socialism - ie the lying, cheating, thieving, murdering scumbags Chavez and Maduro.
    Half a moment, YDoethur, before you assemble the disciplinary committees, as a good historian, you need to check the primary source, not the journalistic write-up

    Here, it is (I believe):

    https://tinyurl.com/y72pasrl

    I agree it is a pretty unimpressive, middle-of-the-pack piece of work. But, there is not a huge amount to disagree with there -- it is all pretty unarguable, even mundane.

    In fact, the paper does not even set out to answer the interesting questions, such as the role of asymptomatic cases in schools. It is just a bald statistical analysis of some data that could be done by a semi-competent A Level student.

    The paper does not appear to have any real conclusions -- always the mark of a poorish paper.

    It is the write-up in the Standard which is sloppy & seems to put a spin on the paper which is not present in the original paper & conclusions. Arts graduates, probably 😁

    Certainly, the title in the Standard "Schools do not appear to be increasing the spread of covid and should remain open" does not appear in the scientific paper anywhere, at least as far as I can see.
    Here’s what the author retweeted:
    https://twitter.com/PHE_uk/status/1339517263729274887
    So he has endorsed the idea that transmission happens outside schools, not within them, and that schools are therefore suffering because of incidence elsewhere rather than the other way around.

    Which is one possible reading of the evidence they had, but as that ignored the minor detail that case numbers correlate closely with the opening/reopening of schools and universities, not at all the most likely one. That evidence has been ignored, and given his past research record has been to consistently downplay the level of infection among children, it’s hard to believe it’s not deliberate.
    Correlation isn't causation of course. They reopened at a time of year when the weather was getting cooler and cases were already rising. Importation of the virus by holidaymakers over the summer also seems to have been an issue.
    We are at a stage in this God-awful business where, all at once, mass vaccination has started and a new and more easily transmissible strain of the virus is running amok and appears to be expanding its reach across the land. The best thing to do, I would suggest, is therefore to abandon the epidemiological debate and experimentation with schools and lock the kids back up, along with everybody else, as was done in March.

    Alas, I fear what will actually happen is that some token travel restrictions that do almost no good will be announced today, whilst the idiotic Christmas plans will go ahead and all the kids will troop back to the petri dishes in January. The Government will insist that children's rights to education trump everybody else's right to life, presumably because to do otherwise would upset Red Wall voters and cost it a few percentage points in the opinion polls.

    Well I'm sorry, but I'm past caring about two or three months' disruption to education at this stage. I really couldn't give a flying wotsit if little Annabel is bored sat at home, or gets an indifferent set of GCSEs this Summer because her Zoom lessons were crap. Everybody I love has survived this thing so far and I'd like that still to be the case at Easter. We can sift through the rubble and start rebuilding once the driving cause of the destruction has been crushed.
    What we need to see is an analysis of infection rates in parents and teachers. I'm not sure I've seen one but as you are so keen on closing down education I presume you have. That would tell us whether kids were spreading the virus into the wider population, or just among themselves.
    Unless there's a readily available, plentiful and reliable source of such data compiled and ready to be shoved through a computer (and insofar as I'm aware there isn't, because no reports of such analyses have emerged, although others may know different) then we don't have time to cock about doing the work from scratch.

    The bottom line is that social contact encourages spread, and there's now a new variant of the virus in widespread circulation which is even easier to pass around, and appears to have the Government and the medics in full panic mode. Therefore, apply the precautionary principle and lock down. It may not be enough to stop the bloody thing in its tracks but at least it ought to slow it down.

    It would be a different matter, granted, if there were not millions of doses of an effective vaccine available and already being administered, but the reality is that there are. Reopening schools and universities in the New Year is an unnecessary risk. Students can make do with Zoom until Easter. It's crap, it affects the poor disproportionately badly, and I hate having to suggest it because I loathe the restrictions and I know they'll cause suffering, but the alternative is to carry on as we are, which clearly isn't working.
    Well I see Boris is doing a 4pm presser with both Vallance and Whitty so something draconian is probably likely.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    edited December 2020

    Crabbie said:

    kle4 said:

    Nice reflective header. I like the anecdote about Bridge in California.

    Yes, very good header but I was intrigued about the bridge reference.

    I once had a friend who was a top class player at both bridge and chess. He reckoned bridge was the more skilful game.
    There’s no luck involved in duplicate bridge.

    I played both bridge and chess to a reasonable standard. Chess is much more complex. Bridge is ‘just’ probabilities if you can remember where all the cards are. Bridge is more fun to play though if yiu can get four players of a similar standard together.

    Crabbie said:

    kle4 said:

    Nice reflective header. I like the anecdote about Bridge in California.

    Yes, very good header but I was intrigued about the bridge reference.

    I once had a friend who was a top class player at both bridge and chess. He reckoned bridge was the more skilful game.
    There’s no luck involved in duplicate bridge.

    I played both bridge and chess to a reasonable standard. Chess is much more complex. Bridge is ‘just’ probabilities if you can remember where all the cards are. Bridge is more fun to play though if yiu can get four players of a similar standard together.

    One of the (few) downsides to chess is that you do have to find opponents roughly the same strength as yourself. There has only to be a small difference in ability and the results will be boringly inevitable.
    But the downside of bridge - which I used to meet up every month to play with friends, prior to the virus - is that, in an evening’s play, the outcome depends mostly on luck. Probably if someone analysed our play over the years they could identify some winners and losers, but since we play with takeaway curry and a couple of bottles of wine in front of us, that isn’t ever going to happen. The losers of the night simply moan about the rotten deal they have had.
  • HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The SNP got 63 seats in 2016 so not a vast change since, plenty of time to squeeze it back.

    It only needs 7 SNP constituency seats to be lost to the Unionist parties thanks to tactical voting on those numbers for the SNP to fail to win a majority
    The greens aren't a Unionist Party you knobber. That projection gives the SNP a working majority of 17. I know that as a leading GOPper your only interest in democracy is overturning it, but barring a major scandal or massive change of opinions the SNP will have a comfortable majority on a manifesto of independence.
    He denies being a Trumpist but has as much respect for democracy as him.

    A 17 majority for an independence referendum is as comprehensive as it gets. Anyone who denies that is not a democrat. No if's or buts.
    Says the man determined to push through a No Deal Brexit despite zero evidence in any poll a majority of the public want that
    Correct me if I am wrong, but haven’t you delighted in posting claims of such evidence in the past? At least as far as Tory voters are concerned, who are the only people that matter in HY world?
    Even Tory voters support a Canadian style trade deal
    If one is available of course.

    The EU are currently insisting it isn't. 🤦🏻‍♂️

    If the EU compromise then absolutely we should take that deal. If they don't though the manifeso was clear. Our priority is our own sovereignty first.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    Stocky said:

    IanB2 said:

    It looks like the hassle of getting the superfrozen vaccine into care homes is pushing the government to revise its plans and earmark the AZ virus for them. Not such an illogical strategy, given that the AZ is much easier to transport and store, and appears to provide near complete protection against symptoms, if not infection. But not the priority plan for the Pfizer one that was intended.

    If so then that sounds like it might be a sensible decision, which is a rarity coming from this lot. If they're having real trouble getting the BioNTech effort into Shady Pines, then they're better off being flexible and jumping forward to the next group in the queue. There's little point in slowing down the delivery of treatment to over 80s still living in their own homes just to stick rigidly to a list, when that group is about four or five times larger than the total population in care.
    And to be brutally honest its a better idea to prioritise the oldies who still have years of high quality of life ahead of them rather than those in care homes.
    I`ve made this point before, God`s waiting room and all that. But the argument against is that vaccinating those in care homes may relieve more pressure on health services and, of course, those of us with relatives in care homes are waiting for vaccinations so that we can visit our loved ones.
    You don't need to vaccinate the people resident in care homes at all.

    You need to vaccinate everyone entering & leaving the care homes. Much more efficient.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,128

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The SNP got 63 seats in 2016 so not a vast change since, plenty of time to squeeze it back.

    It only needs 7 SNP constituency seats to be lost to the Unionist parties thanks to tactical voting on those numbers for the SNP to fail to win a majority
    The greens aren't a Unionist Party you knobber. That projection gives the SNP a working majority of 17. I know that as a leading GOPper your only interest in democracy is overturning it, but barring a major scandal or massive change of opinions the SNP will have a comfortable majority on a manifesto of independence.
    He denies being a Trumpist but has as much respect for democracy as him.

    A 17 majority for an independence referendum is as comprehensive as it gets. Anyone who denies that is not a democrat. No if's or buts.
    Says the man determined to push through a No Deal Brexit despite zero evidence in any poll a majority of the public want that
    I'm not wanting a No Deal Brexit pushed through. I want a deal that honours the government's manifesto: the UK takes back control of laws, money etc.

    If that deal isn't available then c'est la vie go no deal.

    That was the Tory Manifesto. It's a shame you prioritise opinion polls over actual election results.
    The Tory manifesto of 2019 which won the Tories a majority of 80 seats promised 'We will negotiate a trade agreement next
    year – one that will strengthen our Union –and we will not extend the implementation period beyond December 2020.'
    https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan

    The Tories therefore won with a manifesto commitment promising a trade deal with the EU by the New Year when the UK will leave the SM and CU
    No that is not all the manifesto said. You have deliberately lied by omission snipping out much of what was said. Including parts that were actually put on the site in bold:

    'There will be no political alignment with the EU. We will keep the UK out of the single market, out of any form of customs union, and end the role of the European Court of Justice.

    This future relationship will be one that allows us to:
    • Take back control of our laws.
    • Take back control of our money.
    • Control our own trade policy.
    • Introduce an Australian-style points-based immigration system.
    • Raise standards in areas like workers’ rights, animal welfare, agriculture and the environment.
    • Ensure we are in full control of our fishing waters.'
    That bold was from the Tories I haven't added it. If there's no trade agreement that allows us to meet the elements listed then the PM has been clear all along what the priority is. It's the bit he bolded.
    A basic trade deal with the EU still leaves the single market and customs union
  • Can it mutate the other way please? I mean, into something less contagious and dangerous please?

    2020 has had far too many shit sandwiches as it is.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818

    Scott_xP said:
    I understand viruses mutate all the time....???

    From what I can see there is no real cast iron proof yet this mutant strain does travel faster than other strains, and there is no proof whatever it is any more or less threatening than the ordinary, common or garden, boring strain. And there won;t be evidence of the latter for weeks.

    But our lives have to be destroyed even more in the meantime.
    The reports this morning are that Porton Down have confirmed it is far more infectious than the previous strain.
    I'm not sure that's correct.

    Read what Whitty has said. His comments are actually difficult to interpret. Perhaps intentionally. They refer to modelling, which makes me suspicious.

    Is this a fact? its difficult for ordinary people to determine. As it is meant to be.

    The whole idea is we do what they say now, the proof's in the post.


  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The SNP got 63 seats in 2016 so not a vast change since, plenty of time to squeeze it back.

    It only needs 7 SNP constituency seats to be lost to the Unionist parties thanks to tactical voting on those numbers for the SNP to fail to win a majority
    The greens aren't a Unionist Party you knobber. That projection gives the SNP a working majority of 17. I know that as a leading GOPper your only interest in democracy is overturning it, but barring a major scandal or massive change of opinions the SNP will have a comfortable majority on a manifesto of independence.
    He denies being a Trumpist but has as much respect for democracy as him.

    A 17 majority for an independence referendum is as comprehensive as it gets. Anyone who denies that is not a democrat. No if's or buts.
    Says the man determined to push through a No Deal Brexit despite zero evidence in any poll a majority of the public want that
    I'm not wanting a No Deal Brexit pushed through. I want a deal that honours the government's manifesto: the UK takes back control of laws, money etc.

    If that deal isn't available then c'est la vie go no deal.

    That was the Tory Manifesto. It's a shame you prioritise opinion polls over actual election results.
    The Tory manifesto of 2019 which won the Tories a majority of 80 seats promised 'We will negotiate a trade agreement next
    year – one that will strengthen our Union –and we will not extend the implementation period beyond December 2020.'
    https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan

    The Tories therefore won with a manifesto commitment promising a trade deal with the EU by the New Year when the UK will leave the SM and CU
    No that is not all the manifesto said. You have deliberately lied by omission snipping out much of what was said. Including parts that were actually put on the site in bold:

    'There will be no political alignment with the EU. We will keep the UK out of the single market, out of any form of customs union, and end the role of the European Court of Justice.

    This future relationship will be one that allows us to:
    • Take back control of our laws.
    • Take back control of our money.
    • Control our own trade policy.
    • Introduce an Australian-style points-based immigration system.
    • Raise standards in areas like workers’ rights, animal welfare, agriculture and the environment.
    • Ensure we are in full control of our fishing waters.'
    That bold was from the Tories I haven't added it. If there's no trade agreement that allows us to meet the elements listed then the PM has been clear all along what the priority is. It's the bit he bolded.
    A basic trade deal with the EU still leaves the single market and customs union
    The EU currently are not offering that. What part of that do you fail to see? 🤦🏻‍♂️

    If the EU compromise on the LPF then fantastic. If they don't we can't sign that deal since they're not offering it.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    The SNP have to find a way to have Indyref2 in this parliament as they cannot afford to waste Johnson. He is an absolute machine at generating secessionist sentiment.

    They can't, without UK government consent any referendum would be illegal and Unionist voters would boycott it.

    The pro independence side won the 2017 Catalan independence referendum but without consent from the Spanish government it was illegal and Spanish Unionist voters boycotted it
    If you are using Spain as an example of how a modern first world Government should behave then you have already lost the argument.
    No, as Catalonia remains part of Spain
    Wasn’t it destined to be part of the UK? Or am I struggling to keep up with the warp speed evolution of HY foreign policy?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    New virus strain - really not looking good at all.

    Looks like Christmas cancelled. Can't see how we get out of this one - vaccines seem the only hope..

    What does really not looking good at all mean?

    Our liberty has to be destroyed and our country bankrupted because something 'really does not look good at all?''
    It means lot more people are going to die.

    If you want to see what the alternative looks like look across the Atlantic. The US has now lost more people than they lost in WW1 and the Vietnam war combined. They are now losing the equivalent of a 9/11 every day.
    contrarian firmly believes that Covid was over in America in Mid July.
  • Can it mutate the other way please? I mean, into something less contagious and dangerous please?

    2020 has had far too many shit sandwiches as it is.

    It probably already has. Those strains haven't survived though. What we need is a strain that is highly contagious, harmless, and similar enough to the current one so it still confers immunity to it.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,217
    edited December 2020

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Tres said:

    Scott_xP said:

    How can the timing of their report be seen as anything other than telling the UK governmet negotiators "You MUST accept whatever is on the table from the EU"?

    Once again Brexiteers outraged by a statement of the bleeding obvious.

    We need a deal. It must be done now.

    Neither of these statements is controversial, unless your head is up your ass.
    But "it must be done now" is only because the Johnson/Cummings/Gove dream team refuse to even consider an additional extension due to the covid crisis.

    Any half rational person facing the situation we are in would roll these discussions on until this time next year. It would still be completed well in time for 2024 when Johnson faces the voters again.
    We needed a deal months ago. Even if one materialises tomorrow Q1 21 will be fucked.
    Yep. When the deal is announced it will be clear it could easily have been done months ago. The last minute shenanigans aspect - and maintaining the public and commentariat fear of no deal - is to help Johnson politically. It will create relief and the optics of battling to the wire with the EU and late concessions being wrung. Also a deal announced a long time before end of Transition would have given more time for critical scrutiny of the detail, not something Johnson would welcome. So, sure, it makes sense from Johnson's point of view to do things this way. It's objectively crazy, though, and unfair on many people. As you say, and as Rochdale's post explains, the effect is to inject the "Deal" outcome with some of the chaos of "No Deal".
    I could not disagree more.

    Yes a deal "could" have been agreed months ago but more importantly one "could not" as without time pressure neither side would compromise. It is why to do it any other way is objectively crazy because to do it any other way means like May/Robbins you're the only one that compromises.

    Asking for an extension as rottenborough and others have suggested is crazy too because again it would just remove the pressure and the can would be kicked.

    I don't often agree with Guy Verhofstadt but completely agree with him the other day when he said compromises are only ever made at the last minute and "if you give extra time to politicians they will take all that extra time and still only compromise at the last minute".
    No - THIS deal could have been done months ago. The reason it wasn't is primarily for the reasons I explained.
    No.

    THIS deal could NOT have been done months ago since the EU have moved in recent months under the time pressure. And they may likely still move again.

    If we move back months ago how would you get the EU to move? Why wouldn't Barnier do what he did under Robbins and May and just take British movements while standing firm?
    The narrative Johnson wants is exactly this. That by making the EU take "no deal" seriously and taking negotiations to the wire, we have forced them to make serious concessions which were otherwise not achievable. He'll be pleased - and not a little relieved - that Leavers such as yourself are buying into this. He'll be hoping that some agnostics and even some Remainers will too. We will see. Not long to wait now.
    It is the truth.

    How could he have gotten the EU to move prematurely? They never have done that? May failed to do that, Robbins failed to do that, Frost and Johnson were unable to do that months ago. It is only now that they're moving.
    Mmm. As I say, it would be quite something if YOU didn't view the mainly fictional Johnson narrative as The Truth. More interesting will be how many of the less committed Johnsonite Leavers do. I predict take-up there will be significantly less than 100% - albeit still fairly high. But we're in the usual loop so I think "move" is indeed the word. For both of us. As in "on". TBC when the deal is announced.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818

    Can it mutate the other way please? I mean, into something less contagious and dangerous please?

    2020 has had far too many shit sandwiches as it is.

    The notion of whether it is more or less dangerous won;t be know for weeks.

    The government has allowed a bunch of unaccountable scientists whose livelihoods are not at risk to turn Britain into a giant laboratory playground for their own experiments.

    The costs are.....well.......its almost unfathomable.
  • Can it mutate the other way please? I mean, into something less contagious and dangerous please?

    2020 has had far too many shit sandwiches as it is.

    It probably already has. Those strains haven't survived though. What we need is a strain that is highly contagious, harmless, and similar enough to the current one so it still confers immunity to it.
    Or mass vaccinations asap.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    Alistair said:

    New virus strain - really not looking good at all.

    Looks like Christmas cancelled. Can't see how we get out of this one - vaccines seem the only hope..

    What does really not looking good at all mean?

    Our liberty has to be destroyed and our country bankrupted because something 'really does not look good at all?''
    It means lot more people are going to die.

    If you want to see what the alternative looks like look across the Atlantic. The US has now lost more people than they lost in WW1 and the Vietnam war combined. They are now losing the equivalent of a 9/11 every day.
    contrarian firmly believes that Covid was over in America in Mid July.
    I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth, matey.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,128

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The SNP got 63 seats in 2016 so not a vast change since, plenty of time to squeeze it back.

    It only needs 7 SNP constituency seats to be lost to the Unionist parties thanks to tactical voting on those numbers for the SNP to fail to win a majority
    The greens aren't a Unionist Party you knobber. That projection gives the SNP a working majority of 17. I know that as a leading GOPper your only interest in democracy is overturning it, but barring a major scandal or massive change of opinions the SNP will have a comfortable majority on a manifesto of independence.
    He denies being a Trumpist but has as much respect for democracy as him.

    A 17 majority for an independence referendum is as comprehensive as it gets. Anyone who denies that is not a democrat. No if's or buts.
    Says the man determined to push through a No Deal Brexit despite zero evidence in any poll a majority of the public want that
    I'm not wanting a No Deal Brexit pushed through. I want a deal that honours the government's manifesto: the UK takes back control of laws, money etc.

    If that deal isn't available then c'est la vie go no deal.

    That was the Tory Manifesto. It's a shame you prioritise opinion polls over actual election results.
    The Tory manifesto of 2019 which won the Tories a majority of 80 seats promised 'We will negotiate a trade agreement next
    year – one that will strengthen our Union –and we will not extend the implementation period beyond December 2020.'
    https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan

    The Tories therefore won with a manifesto commitment promising a trade deal with the EU by the New Year when the UK will leave the SM and CU
    No that is not all the manifesto said. You have deliberately lied by omission snipping out much of what was said. Including parts that were actually put on the site in bold:

    'There will be no political alignment with the EU. We will keep the UK out of the single market, out of any form of customs union, and end the role of the European Court of Justice.

    This future relationship will be one that allows us to:
    • Take back control of our laws.
    • Take back control of our money.
    • Control our own trade policy.
    • Introduce an Australian-style points-based immigration system.
    • Raise standards in areas like workers’ rights, animal welfare, agriculture and the environment.
    • Ensure we are in full control of our fishing waters.'
    That bold was from the Tories I haven't added it. If there's no trade agreement that allows us to meet the elements listed then the PM has been clear all along what the priority is. It's the bit he bolded.
    A basic trade deal with the EU still leaves the single market and customs union
    The EU currently are not offering that. What part of that do you fail to see? 🤦🏻‍♂️

    If the EU compromise on the LPF then fantastic. If they don't we can't sign that deal since they're not offering it.
    Even Canada has some regulatory alignment for its trade deal with the EU, any deal agreed will have some element of LPF ,the final negotiations are just about the extent of it.

    If you refuse to accept any LPF at all then Farage's party is the best place for you
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The SNP got 63 seats in 2016 so not a vast change since, plenty of time to squeeze it back.

    It only needs 7 SNP constituency seats to be lost to the Unionist parties thanks to tactical voting on those numbers for the SNP to fail to win a majority
    The greens aren't a Unionist Party you knobber. That projection gives the SNP a working majority of 17. I know that as a leading GOPper your only interest in democracy is overturning it, but barring a major scandal or massive change of opinions the SNP will have a comfortable majority on a manifesto of independence.
    He denies being a Trumpist but has as much respect for democracy as him.

    A 17 majority for an independence referendum is as comprehensive as it gets. Anyone who denies that is not a democrat. No if's or buts.
    Says the man determined to push through a No Deal Brexit despite zero evidence in any poll a majority of the public want that
    Correct me if I am wrong, but haven’t you delighted in posting claims of such evidence in the past? At least as far as Tory voters are concerned, who are the only people that matter in HY world?
    Even Tory voters support a Canadian style trade deal
    Nick Robinson (a Tory) is asking you whether Canada has a tunnel link to the United Kingdom?
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,080
    Foxy said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Scott_xP said:
    I really believe the mainstream churches should have cancelled their Christmas services weeks ago. Every year they like to remind us that Christ is the reason for the season. They should show some compassion and give a lead to government and public alike.

    I'm a Christian myself. There's too much striving after old-style normality for a comfort blanket. There are plenty of ways to celebrate the spiritual season of Christmas without meeting up in a church, or even outside for a carol service.
    They pretty much have cancelled around my way, or gone online.
    That's good to hear. We (URC) have online services but started meeting again when lock-down 2 ended. The URC leaves the decision to local congregations.
  • IanB2 said:

    Crabbie said:

    kle4 said:

    Nice reflective header. I like the anecdote about Bridge in California.

    Yes, very good header but I was intrigued about the bridge reference.

    I once had a friend who was a top class player at both bridge and chess. He reckoned bridge was the more skilful game.
    There’s no luck involved in duplicate bridge.

    I played both bridge and chess to a reasonable standard. Chess is much more complex. Bridge is ‘just’ probabilities if you can remember where all the cards are. Bridge is more fun to play though if yiu can get four players of a similar standard together.

    Crabbie said:

    kle4 said:

    Nice reflective header. I like the anecdote about Bridge in California.

    Yes, very good header but I was intrigued about the bridge reference.

    I once had a friend who was a top class player at both bridge and chess. He reckoned bridge was the more skilful game.
    There’s no luck involved in duplicate bridge.

    I played both bridge and chess to a reasonable standard. Chess is much more complex. Bridge is ‘just’ probabilities if you can remember where all the cards are. Bridge is more fun to play though if yiu can get four players of a similar standard together.

    One of the (few) downsides to chess is that you do have to find opponents roughly the same strength as yourself. There has only to be a small difference in ability and the results will be boringly inevitable.
    But the downside of bridge - which I used to meet up every month to play with friends, prior to the virus - is that, in an evening’s play, the outcome depends mostly on luck. Probably if someone analysed our play over the years they could identify some winners and losers, but since we play with takeaway curry and a couple of bottles of wine in front of us, that isn’t ever going to happen. The losers of the night simply moan about the rotten deal they have had.
    Yeah, but that's part of the fun.

    Anyway my Dad used to tell me that anyone can play a good hand but it takes a great player to play a bad one well.

    This is what I always told myself whenever I traipsed home penniless.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,355

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The SNP got 63 seats in 2016 so not a vast change since, plenty of time to squeeze it back.

    It only needs 7 SNP constituency seats to be lost to the Unionist parties thanks to tactical voting on those numbers for the SNP to fail to win a majority
    You didn't answer the last 3 times I asked a similar question. You said if the SNP didn't get an overall majority there was zero chance of another indy referendum being granted. What difference would them getting an overall majority make?
    There would be absolutely zero chance of Boris giving the SNP a referendum if the SNP fail to even match the Holyrood majority they got in 2011 before the 2014 independence referendum.

    If the SNP do get a majority Boris will still likely refuse the referendum as UK government policy is 2014 was a once in a generation referendum but Sturgeon would be able to put more pressure on him as a result
    If he refuses to grant a referendum then he is a bloody fool and a hypocrite. At the moment - in spite of what the polls are showing, the Unionists have a reasonable chance of winning another referendum. If he refuses to allow one they will go ahead anyway and the Independence side will win very easily. Now I want Independence to win but if Boris does not then he would be a fool to refuse a referendum.
    If the Nationalists hold a referendum without Westminster consent it will be illegal, so the result would be irrelevant even if they won
    Yep you really are going to win hearts and minds that way. What you fail to realise is that at some point in the very near future there will be a referendum and if anyone is dumb enough to follow your advice about how Westminster should respond to it then you are making a win for independence almost certain.
    He is not too bright I am afraid. He can parrot from a cue card but unable to think.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,128

    New virus strain - really not looking good at all.

    Looks like Christmas cancelled. Can't see how we get out of this one - vaccines seem the only hope..

    What does really not looking good at all mean?

    Our liberty has to be destroyed and our country bankrupted because something 'really does not look good at all?''
    It means lot more people are going to die.

    If you want to see what the alternative looks like look across the Atlantic. The US has now lost more people than they lost in WW1 and the Vietnam war combined. They are now losing the equivalent of a 9/11 every day.
    That is slightly misleading as many of those who will have died are over 80 and would have died even without Covid
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Tres said:

    Scott_xP said:

    How can the timing of their report be seen as anything other than telling the UK governmet negotiators "You MUST accept whatever is on the table from the EU"?

    Once again Brexiteers outraged by a statement of the bleeding obvious.

    We need a deal. It must be done now.

    Neither of these statements is controversial, unless your head is up your ass.
    But "it must be done now" is only because the Johnson/Cummings/Gove dream team refuse to even consider an additional extension due to the covid crisis.

    Any half rational person facing the situation we are in would roll these discussions on until this time next year. It would still be completed well in time for 2024 when Johnson faces the voters again.
    We needed a deal months ago. Even if one materialises tomorrow Q1 21 will be fucked.
    Yep. When the deal is announced it will be clear it could easily have been done months ago. The last minute shenanigans aspect - and maintaining the public and commentariat fear of no deal - is to help Johnson politically. It will create relief and the optics of battling to the wire with the EU and late concessions being wrung. Also a deal announced a long time before end of Transition would have given more time for critical scrutiny of the detail, not something Johnson would welcome. So, sure, it makes sense from Johnson's point of view to do things this way. It's objectively crazy, though, and unfair on many people. As you say, and as Rochdale's post explains, the effect is to inject the "Deal" outcome with some of the chaos of "No Deal".
    I could not disagree more.

    Yes a deal "could" have been agreed months ago but more importantly one "could not" as without time pressure neither side would compromise. It is why to do it any other way is objectively crazy because to do it any other way means like May/Robbins you're the only one that compromises.

    Asking for an extension as rottenborough and others have suggested is crazy too because again it would just remove the pressure and the can would be kicked.

    I don't often agree with Guy Verhofstadt but completely agree with him the other day when he said compromises are only ever made at the last minute and "if you give extra time to politicians they will take all that extra time and still only compromise at the last minute".
    No - THIS deal could have been done months ago. The reason it wasn't is primarily for the reasons I explained.
    No.

    THIS deal could NOT have been done months ago since the EU have moved in recent months under the time pressure. And they may likely still move again.

    If we move back months ago how would you get the EU to move? Why wouldn't Barnier do what he did under Robbins and May and just take British movements while standing firm?
    The narrative Johnson wants is exactly this. That by making the EU take "no deal" seriously and taking negotiations to the wire, we have forced them to make serious concessions which were otherwise not achievable. He'll be pleased - and not a little relieved - that Leavers such as yourself are buying into this. He'll be hoping that some agnostics and even some Remainers will too. We will see. Not long to wait now.
    It is the truth.

    How could he have gotten the EU to move prematurely? They never have done that? May failed to do that, Robbins failed to do that, Frost and Johnson were unable to do that months ago. It is only now that they're moving.
    Mmm. As I say, it would be quite something if YOU didn't view the mainly fictional Johnson narrative as The Truth. More interesting will be how many of the less committed Johnsonite Leavers do. I predict take-up there will be significantly less than 100% - albeit still fairly high. But we're in the usual loop so I think "move" is indeed the word. For both of us. As in "on". TBC when the deal is announced.
    Forget me let's talk about YOU.

    Months ago the EU were adamant that there could be no change in quotas. In recent weeks they've accepted the idea of 18% but no more.

    So if the final deal is 18% then that is movement from months ago isn't it?

    Whereas if the final deal is over 18% that's movement in the final days of negotiations.

    Do you accept that or are you denying that the EU have moved? Would you deny the EU have moved further?

    Are you putting YOUR credibility on the line?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    AnneJGP said:

    Scott_xP said:
    I really believe the mainstream churches should have cancelled their Christmas services weeks ago. Every year they like to remind us that Christ is the reason for the season. They should show some compassion and give a lead to government and public alike.

    I'm a Christian myself. There's too much striving after old-style normality for a comfort blanket. There are plenty of ways to celebrate the spiritual season of Christmas without meeting up in a church, or even outside for a carol service.
    God delivered this awful virus upon us, so it seems only fair to give up worshiping s/he/it for a while.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,361
    HYUFD said:

    New virus strain - really not looking good at all.

    Looks like Christmas cancelled. Can't see how we get out of this one - vaccines seem the only hope..

    What does really not looking good at all mean?

    Our liberty has to be destroyed and our country bankrupted because something 'really does not look good at all?''
    It means lot more people are going to die.

    If you want to see what the alternative looks like look across the Atlantic. The US has now lost more people than they lost in WW1 and the Vietnam war combined. They are now losing the equivalent of a 9/11 every day.
    That is slightly misleading as many of those who will have died are over 80 and would have died even without Covid
    Everyone dies. Eventually.

    Please read the statistics on life expectancy. COVID, even among the elderly has cut decades off peoples lives. Decades.
  • Alistair said:

    New virus strain - really not looking good at all.

    Looks like Christmas cancelled. Can't see how we get out of this one - vaccines seem the only hope..

    What does really not looking good at all mean?

    Our liberty has to be destroyed and our country bankrupted because something 'really does not look good at all?''
    It means lot more people are going to die.

    If you want to see what the alternative looks like look across the Atlantic. The US has now lost more people than they lost in WW1 and the Vietnam war combined. They are now losing the equivalent of a 9/11 every day.
    contrarian firmly believes that Covid was over in America in Mid July.
    I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth, matey.
    It would be less tempting if you were to change your username. How about Flatearther?
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,751

    What is 'concerning' and 'worrying' is that we will spending GBP400bn pounds in a fiscal year more than we are gathering in taxes. At least. A year.

    IF we carrying on like that for much longer, we won;t have a health service, a whole range of other public services or much of a life worth living at all for the 99.5% who survive covid, for ever.

    I reckon voters know this. And that's the real reason they are starting to get restive, and starting to walk away from the main parties (judging from that poll).

    The MMT fairy is out the box. A one off big bazooka of monetised government debt for something like a pandemic, might not seem a big deal. But it impoverishes those who rely on an earned income to live life and build wealth, and it enriches rent seekers. It’s a total catastrophe for our long term economic good fortune because it totally destroys the incentives structure and causes deep social division, as it happens on an old - young basis.

    What is worse is people will now say let’s just do this for everything. Free Broadband! Water renationalisation! Aircraft carriers! Triple lock pensions! Third world aid! The next “killer pandemic” (which come every Parliament or two conveniently enough). Take your pick based upon your political stripes.

    And people don’t realise that ultimately what you’re doing is causing huge asset price inflation. Which you can start to tax but it’s then a spiral down the toilet hole.

    The BoE are still insulting our intelligence by saying QE is just a liquidity provision facility. Pull the other one. When will someone call out our betters on their total bullshit?

    And here we come to today, yet more draconian anti economy health policy to be announced, when we are still hovering at only 15% above excess death for the time of year. Because who cares about money and debt. “Every life is precious and every death tragic, how dare you question us you ignorant fucking covidiot”.

    I’m tired. Tired tired tired of this. People need to stop thinking that fate can be controlled and get on with it.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,355

    Stocky said:

    IanB2 said:

    It looks like the hassle of getting the superfrozen vaccine into care homes is pushing the government to revise its plans and earmark the AZ virus for them. Not such an illogical strategy, given that the AZ is much easier to transport and store, and appears to provide near complete protection against symptoms, if not infection. But not the priority plan for the Pfizer one that was intended.

    If so then that sounds like it might be a sensible decision, which is a rarity coming from this lot. If they're having real trouble getting the BioNTech effort into Shady Pines, then they're better off being flexible and jumping forward to the next group in the queue. There's little point in slowing down the delivery of treatment to over 80s still living in their own homes just to stick rigidly to a list, when that group is about four or five times larger than the total population in care.
    And to be brutally honest its a better idea to prioritise the oldies who still have years of high quality of life ahead of them rather than those in care homes.
    I`ve made this point before, God`s waiting room and all that. But the argument against is that vaccinating those in care homes may relieve more pressure on health services and, of course, those of us with relatives in care homes are waiting for vaccinations so that we can visit our loved ones.
    You don't need to vaccinate the people resident in care homes at all.

    You need to vaccinate everyone entering & leaving the care homes. Much more efficient.
    Too obvious and simple for the dummies running the show to work out. Zahawi is just another of the herd of donkeys in Johnson's circus. It is hard to believe you could select as many useless no-users to run a country if you tried.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,128
    IanB2 said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Scott_xP said:
    I really believe the mainstream churches should have cancelled their Christmas services weeks ago. Every year they like to remind us that Christ is the reason for the season. They should show some compassion and give a lead to government and public alike.

    I'm a Christian myself. There's too much striving after old-style normality for a comfort blanket. There are plenty of ways to celebrate the spiritual season of Christmas without meeting up in a church, or even outside for a carol service.
    God delivered this awful virus upon us, so it seems only fair to give up worshiping s/he/it for a while.
    No, the Chinese did via unregulated wet markets and labs.

    If you want to boycott all Chinese goods as a result that is your affair
  • Scott_xP said:
    I understand viruses mutate all the time....???

    From what I can see there is no real cast iron proof yet this mutant strain does travel faster than other strains, and there is no proof whatever it is any more or less threatening than the ordinary, common or garden, boring strain. And there won;t be evidence of the latter for weeks.

    But our lives have to be destroyed even more in the meantime.
    The reports this morning are that Porton Down have confirmed it is far more infectious than the previous strain.
    I'm not sure that's correct.

    Read what Whitty has said. His comments are actually difficult to interpret. Perhaps intentionally. They refer to modelling, which makes me suspicious.

    Is this a fact? its difficult for ordinary people to determine. As it is meant to be.

    The whole idea is we do what they say now, the proof's in the post.


    Didn't Whitty say that on Monday? The facts change quickly in the world of Coronavirus
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818

    HYUFD said:

    New virus strain - really not looking good at all.

    Looks like Christmas cancelled. Can't see how we get out of this one - vaccines seem the only hope..

    What does really not looking good at all mean?

    Our liberty has to be destroyed and our country bankrupted because something 'really does not look good at all?''
    It means lot more people are going to die.

    If you want to see what the alternative looks like look across the Atlantic. The US has now lost more people than they lost in WW1 and the Vietnam war combined. They are now losing the equivalent of a 9/11 every day.
    That is slightly misleading as many of those who will have died are over 80 and would have died even without Covid
    Everyone dies. Eventually.

    Please read the statistics on life expectancy. COVID, even among the elderly has cut decades off peoples lives. Decades.
    Sorry but in what universe can 80 somethings depend upon 'decades' of life.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Inspired the gob smacking article posted by @ydoethur in the last thread I have a second topic for the Truth and Reconciliation committee after they have dealt with "Why the fuck were the airports kept completely open"

    It is "WTF was up with schools". The idea that someone can state that schools being open did not increase spread of virus is either an astonishing lie or and attempt at word play to avoid rating the truth.

    When the half term break happened cases stopped growing/fell. The attempt to claim no correlation is staggering. Who is so invested in this?

    The Department for Education.

    But the academics concerned should be facing disciplinary.

    Edit - for those who have not read it, this was the article in question:

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/schools-not-increasing-covid-spread-stay-open-experts-b352746.html

    SAGE, notably, are arguing the exact opposite.

    Edit to the edit - I should point out that Ladhani has spent most of the pandemic downplaying the issue of infections among children.

    https://www.sgul.ac.uk/news/children-found-to-have-made-up-just-1-of-covid-19-cases-during-first-wave-in-england
    Nobody rational or capable of even the most basic analysis could possibly conclude that keeping schools open did not increase the spread of the virus. Of course it did. The much trickier bit is whether the risk of the virus to that age group (and the teaching staff) is sufficient to offset the clear harm of disrupting children's education. The even trickier thing is if your target is an R rate of less than 1, how much of your "1" does having schools open cost and what do you need to do to offset it?

    These are very difficult judgments indeed and I have sympathy with those having to make them. I agree with the government that in constructing the "wish list" of things we can do whilst keeping under R1 schools should be right up there, right at the top. But sometimes it seems even a wish list is a bit of a delusion and we have to accept that no kind of normal life is possible whilst this virus is at play in our society.
    I would agree with much of that. But lying to justify a policy that has failed in the first place due to a wilful blindness to obvious facts is absolutely not on. That’s not Trumpian, it’s Bolivarian.
    What did the late Simon do, to deserve that comment?
    Bolivarian socialism - ie the lying, cheating, thieving, murdering scumbags Chavez and Maduro.
    Half a moment, YDoethur, before you assemble the disciplinary committees, as a good historian, you need to check the primary source, not the journalistic write-up

    Here, it is (I believe):

    https://tinyurl.com/y72pasrl

    I agree it is a pretty unimpressive, middle-of-the-pack piece of work. But, there is not a huge amount to disagree with there -- it is all pretty unarguable, even mundane.

    In fact, the paper does not even set out to answer the interesting questions, such as the role of asymptomatic cases in schools. It is just a bald statistical analysis of some data that could be done by a semi-competent A Level student.

    The paper does not appear to have any real conclusions -- always the mark of a poorish paper.

    It is the write-up in the Standard which is sloppy & seems to put a spin on the paper which is not present in the original paper & conclusions. Arts graduates, probably 😁

    Certainly, the title in the Standard "Schools do not appear to be increasing the spread of covid and should remain open" does not appear in the scientific paper anywhere, at least as far as I can see.
    Here’s what the author retweeted:
    https://twitter.com/PHE_uk/status/1339517263729274887
    So he has endorsed the idea that transmission happens outside schools, not within them, and that schools are therefore suffering because of incidence elsewhere rather than the other way around.

    Which is one possible reading of the evidence they had, but as that ignored the minor detail that case numbers correlate closely with the opening/reopening of schools and universities, not at all the most likely one. That evidence has been ignored, and given his past research record has been to consistently downplay the level of infection among children, it’s hard to believe it’s not deliberate.
    Correlation isn't causation of course. They reopened at a time of year when the weather was getting cooler and cases were already rising. Importation of the virus by holidaymakers over the summer also seems to have been an issue.
    We are at a stage in this God-awful business where, all at once, mass vaccination has started and a new and more easily transmissible strain of the virus is running amok and appears to be expanding its reach across the land. The best thing to do, I would suggest, is therefore to abandon the epidemiological debate and experimentation with schools and lock the kids back up, along with everybody else, as was done in March.

    Alas, I fear what will actually happen is that some token travel restrictions that do almost no good will be announced today, whilst the idiotic Christmas plans will go ahead and all the kids will troop back to the petri dishes in January. The Government will insist that children's rights to education trump everybody else's right to life, presumably because to do otherwise would upset Red Wall voters and cost it a few percentage points in the opinion polls.

    Well I'm sorry, but I'm past caring about two or three months' disruption to education at this stage. I really couldn't give a flying wotsit if little Annabel is bored sat at home, or gets an indifferent set of GCSEs this Summer because her Zoom lessons were crap. Everybody I love has survived this thing so far and I'd like that still to be the case at Easter. We can sift through the rubble and start rebuilding once the driving cause of the destruction has been crushed.
    What we need to see is an analysis of infection rates in parents and teachers. I'm not sure I've seen one but as you are so keen on closing down education I presume you have. That would tell us whether kids were spreading the virus into the wider population, or just among themselves.
    Unless there's a readily available, plentiful and reliable source of such data compiled and ready to be shoved through a computer (and insofar as I'm aware there isn't, because no reports of such analyses have emerged, although others may know different) then we don't have time to cock about doing the work from scratch.

    The bottom line is that social contact encourages spread, and there's now a new variant of the virus in widespread circulation which is even easier to pass around, and appears to have the Government and the medics in full panic mode. Therefore, apply the precautionary principle and lock down. It may not be enough to stop the bloody thing in its tracks but at least it ought to slow it down.

    It would be a different matter, granted, if there were not millions of doses of an effective vaccine available and already being administered, but the reality is that there are. Reopening schools and universities in the New Year is an unnecessary risk. Students can make do with Zoom until Easter. It's crap, it affects the poor disproportionately badly, and I hate having to suggest it because I loathe the restrictions and I know they'll cause suffering, but the alternative is to carry on as we are, which clearly isn't working.
    Well I see Boris is doing a 4pm presser with both Vallance and Whitty so something draconian is probably likely.
    Yes, my husband just told me that was coming.

    Listen, I have skin in the game. Husband is a shielder. Best friend at work is a shielder. Dad and Stepdad both in their 70s and in remission from cancer. Mum nearly 70 and with early stage COPD. Octogenarian Mother-in-Law living on her own in South Wales. And I have no kiddies to worry about. It's unsurprising that I've flipped fully into the lock everyone up camp at this stage, but I appreciate the havoc that such an approach causes and, intellectually at least, I'd be a lot more sceptical of it *IF* the vaccine projects weren't at an advanced stage. I've shown a lot of sympathy to risk segmentation before now. But I simply think that the combination of vaccine availability and the new variant tips the scales decisively in favour of harsher intervention.

    I hope that, if we throw everything including the kitchen sink at mass vaccination, we can get out of this mire in three months. I'm fearful it might take five or six. But either way getting tough seems to be the least worst option now.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868

    Can it mutate the other way please? I mean, into something less contagious and dangerous please?

    2020 has had far too many shit sandwiches as it is.

    It probably already has. Those strains haven't survived though. What we need is a strain that is highly contagious, harmless, and similar enough to the current one so it still confers immunity to it.
    Evolution tends towards more contagious and less deadly, so its destiny is probably to be added to the panoply of ‘normal’ flu viruses that pay us a visit each winter.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,222

    Stocky said:

    IanB2 said:

    It looks like the hassle of getting the superfrozen vaccine into care homes is pushing the government to revise its plans and earmark the AZ virus for them. Not such an illogical strategy, given that the AZ is much easier to transport and store, and appears to provide near complete protection against symptoms, if not infection. But not the priority plan for the Pfizer one that was intended.

    If so then that sounds like it might be a sensible decision, which is a rarity coming from this lot. If they're having real trouble getting the BioNTech effort into Shady Pines, then they're better off being flexible and jumping forward to the next group in the queue. There's little point in slowing down the delivery of treatment to over 80s still living in their own homes just to stick rigidly to a list, when that group is about four or five times larger than the total population in care.
    And to be brutally honest its a better idea to prioritise the oldies who still have years of high quality of life ahead of them rather than those in care homes.
    I`ve made this point before, God`s waiting room and all that. But the argument against is that vaccinating those in care homes may relieve more pressure on health services and, of course, those of us with relatives in care homes are waiting for vaccinations so that we can visit our loved ones.
    You don't need to vaccinate the people resident in care homes at all.

    You need to vaccinate everyone entering & leaving the care homes. Much more efficient.
    My understanding on this, and my hunch from ongoing battles with my mum`s care home, is that they will not allow access unless the resident is vaccinated. I don`t think that being vaccinated means that you cannot transmit Covid, so vaccinating visitors will not be sufficient.

    Furthermore, given how risk averse and commercially savvy they are being, it wouldn`t be surprised if they insist on both visitor and resident being vaccinated. I dearly hope not, as I don`t expect to be vaccinated until May.

    The government have been remiss in not providing clear instruction to care home to date, and I have no reason to believe that this will change. They have basically kicked the can to the individual care home; the power these private businesses are wielding is astonishing, in my view.
  • HYUFD said:

    New virus strain - really not looking good at all.

    Looks like Christmas cancelled. Can't see how we get out of this one - vaccines seem the only hope..

    What does really not looking good at all mean?

    Our liberty has to be destroyed and our country bankrupted because something 'really does not look good at all?''
    It means lot more people are going to die.

    If you want to see what the alternative looks like look across the Atlantic. The US has now lost more people than they lost in WW1 and the Vietnam war combined. They are now losing the equivalent of a 9/11 every day.
    That is slightly misleading as many of those who will have died are over 80 and would have died even without Covid
    Everyone dies. Eventually.

    Please read the statistics on life expectancy. COVID, even among the elderly has cut decades off peoples lives. Decades.
    Sorry but in what universe can 80 somethings depend upon 'decades' of life.
    This one.
This discussion has been closed.