Interesting. Maybe Davey's having a slightly better start than many of us thought. I wonder if that's some combination of angry remainers and Green/Left inclined Labour switchers.
OGH is perhaps the greatest LD force left. Good sense being the other one.
The LDs main problem is that they are so far left economically.
According to the IFS in 2019 'their manifesto confirms that they are now the only major party committed to reduce the national debt as a fraction of national income, a goal now abandoned by both Labour and the Conservatives' so not sure if that holds true. Ed Davey was of course a Cabinet Minister in Cameron's government unlike Boris. https://www.ifs.org.uk/election/2019/article/liberal-democrat-manifesto-an-initial-reaction-from-ifs
The LDs have also now overtaken the Tories as the main party of the rich in terms of the percentage of their support. According to Yougov in 2019 for example the LDs won 20% of those earning over £70,000 a year compared to 12% of UK voters overall, the Tories by contrast won 40% of the highest earners compared to 44% of voters overall and Labour won 31% of those on the highest incomes compared to 32% of voters overall. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_general_election#cite_note-348
More statistical illiteracy from you in that last paragraph.
In 2015 by contrast 32% of Tory voters earned over £70,000 a year and only 29% of LD voters earned over £70,000 a year so there was no statistical illiteracy about it, the LDs have overtaken the Tories as the party of the rich in terms of their core support.
Arguing with you is a waste of time. Anyone who might be interested can easily re-read that last paragraph in your previous post and decide for themselves whether the statistics you yourself quote actually justify your conclusion.
It's interesting back then to see Cameron (and Blair was like this at the start) using the slightly forced commanding hand gestures which they'd both been clearly trained to use for impact.
They got far more natural as time went on, and they became more seasoned politicians.
I fully expect a 6-week national lockdown (at least) to be announced on 30th December, including universities and secondary schools and possibly primaries and nurseries.
Plan accordingly.
As has happened all the way through the pandemic, look at Scotland and expect that to be done slightly later.
The idea that Scotland has been a leading light on this is a fantasy beloved of nationalists.
Har Har , Jingo Jim has spoken, read the numbers after taking your foot out of your mouth.
I fully expect a 6-week national lockdown (at least) to be announced on 30th December, including universities and secondary schools and possibly primaries and nurseries.
Plan accordingly.
I hope to God you're right. Personally I'm afraid that our stubborn, clueless, useless Government will insist on keeping the schools open until the kids have spread this new thing thoroughly and evenly everywhere. That would be entirely consistent with virtually everything that they have done up to this point.
I fully expect a 6-week national lockdown (at least) to be announced on 30th December, including universities and secondary schools and possibly primaries and nurseries.
Plan accordingly.
I hope to God you're right. Personally I'm afraid that our stubborn, clueless, useless Government will insist on keeping the schools open until the kids have spread this new thing thoroughly and evenly everywhere. That would be entirely consistent with virtually everything that they have done up to this point.
It would suit me far better to keep primaries and nurseries open to be honest, and I'd only close those as a last resort.
I'm just hypothesising what may be necessary to squish out that extra 0.4 of R - if it still largely passes the under 12s by, then it's not necessary. But teenagers and young people are far more blasé.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
To be honest I'd be happy enough to see the £/Euro exchange rates and our international credit rating return to pre-referendum levels, but I don't think either is very likely for some considerable while.
Why?
Given our endemic trade deficit the £/€ exchange rate was surely overvalued.
If the £/€ exchange rate goes south but the trade deficit closes then might that not be a good thing?
Just suggesting them as benchmarks, Philip. I recall the exchange rate dropped sharply after the referendum and the drop in credit-rating followed soon after.
I'm not saying these are definitive or that other circustances need not be considered, but they're not bad broad-brush indicators. I mean, if Brexit was such a great idea, why didn't they both move up?
Because moving up isn't necessarily a good thing was my point.
Yes, I can see there are circumstances where it might be smart to let an exchange rate drift down. I'm less sure about the credit rating, but you can correct me if you like.
I didn't however get the impression that either movement was an indication of clever economic forethought, but rather a sharp intake of breath from the international business community.
Well indeed in the short term there'll be more disruption, I don't think anyone reasonable disputes this.
In the medium to long term though it's a different matter.
One remarkable statistic is that despite all the protestations of doom about if the UK chose not to join the Euro, or chose to hold an EU referendum, or voted to Leave . . . Is that in both the 2000-2009 and 2010-2019 decades the UK grew faster than the Eurozone per capita.
An interest judgement as to how Brexit goes over the next decade will be to make the same comparison in a decades time. It wouldn't surprise me if the UK over the next decade grows faster again per capita than the Eurozone. If so then I think that it is safe to say the UK has done OK in Brexiting, what do you think?
Lol! In the long term, we are all dead, Philip, but I will rest easier in my grave knowing that my countrymen are enjoying the sunlit uplands which were promised them before the referendum.
I put a medium term measurement threshold as the end of this decade.
I appreciate that in my late thirties I'm younger than many other PBers but I really, really hope and expect that the overwhelming majority of PBers won't be dead by the end of this decade.
Edit: As well as noting that the LAST decade saw the UK grow faster than the Eurozone despite the Brexit referendum causing uncertainty here halfway through the decade.
So for the last decades we have outgrown our similarly developed European neighbours, whilst in the EU? While prior to EEC entry we did not for several decades, and that is a reason for leaving? 🤔
QTWAIN.
We did in recent decades while getting progressively more estranged and on the way out from Europe.
Prior to EEC entry was of course prior to Thatcher reforming this country. The UK ceased to be the sick man of Europe because of Thatcher not EEC membership.
QTWAIY then surely...
No because you're putting the cart before the horse.
We aren't leaving because we are growing. We are perhaps growing because we haven't gotten entangled within the sclerotic EU and became estranged instead.
The explanation is arguable, but the truth is we grew more slowly than comparable EU economies until we joined, then grew faster than them in recent decades,
So QTWAIY...😀
Did the UK start growing faster 1973-1979?
Or was it as I suggested Thatcher that turned things around?
Well it's easy to check. Considering the UK was the prior sick man we should have grown faster than Germany and France per capita from 73 to 79 as we caught up with them.
Spoiler: That did NOT happen. The UK grew slower than the original EEC members even post accession to the EEC.
I wasn't discussing the role of particular governments, after all we grew more slowly than our neighbours before accession under all governments, and more quickly after accession under both Labour and Conservative.
It took a little while and the end of transitional arrangements of accession for the economic benefits of membership to become manifest.
You miss Philip's very obvious point. The growth did not happen because of us being in the EEC. Indeed that made no difference. It started and continued because of Thatcher. The idea that membership of the EEC is what pulled us out of being the sick man of Europe is just another Eurofanatic myth.
While she was PM, Maggie was a Euro enthusiast, pushing through the Single Market. The economic growth of that period cannot be divorced from membership. Indeed it showed how sovereign economic policy fitted fine with membership.
Notable that growth ahead of our neighbours was not restricted to the Thatcher government, but rather a feature of all governments since. Relative growth that eluded governments of both colours prior to membership.
The economics of membership of the Single Market are conclusive (and I understand that you remain keen on this via EEA). The wisdom or folly of Brexit comes down to non economic arguments about values.
Given how long we were in the EEC before Thatcher came to power with no signs of any improvement in our economy what is clear is that it was the massive Thatcher reforms of our sclerotic economy that made the difference. It is those changes which have benefitted Governments since then, not our membership of the EEC/EU
Though clearly membership did not hold back that economic sovereignty. EU membership and reducing barriers to the Single Market were a central plank in Thatchers economic policy.
Breaking the Unions and reforming our industrial and manufacturing bases were more important. Also worth noting that, bar a couple of months in the early 80s, the last time we had a balance of trade surplus with the EEC/EU was the year before we joined.
Well, of course! That was when British consumers benefited from improved access to superior European goods and produce.
I fully expect a 6-week national lockdown (at least) to be announced on 30th December, including universities and secondary schools and possibly primaries and nurseries.
Plan accordingly.
It's a total meltdown now
What is happening in London and SE now will be UK wide in a few weeks
11,000 new cases in London today. This if replicated at UK level = 70,000 a day plus.
We need to call the national lockdown at 23 March level from Christmas Eve to 28 Feb including all secondaries and universities.
Primary schools an stay open. Normal 'bubbles' to be retained.
And a travel ban in/out UK except in the most extenuating circumstances.
Sorry - another question posed by Mrs Stodge for the epidemiologists, virologists or right know-alls on here - if you have the vaccine, you achieve 100% immunity a week after the injection, I'm told.
Does that mean you can contract the virus and still transmit it to others even though you won't suffer any symptoms? In other words, does the vaccine make you asymptomatic or does it prevent you contracting the virus and being a carrier?
I think the answer at the moment is we don't know. There are hints and hopes that the vaccines prevent transmission but it's not proven.
I’m not sure how you could actually prove that outside of a lab setting
Today's reaction to mutant covid, it is clear this is super serious.....we are all going to be in some sort of lockdown now until end of summer ( IF vaccines work against this).
The second tweet is particularly important as it acknowledges UK concerns - it suggests to me that a fudge in play could be to agree that both sides "have the right" (unfettered) on waters and a future unilateral increase or decrease in fish quotas by either the UK or EU could result in a tariff response provided that it was arbitrated via fair governance - this may clear the way to a compromise now, and an open door to do something different later:
"Both Flag of European Union&Flag of United Kingdom must have the right to set their own laws & control their own waters. And we should both be able to act when our interests are at stake. (2/2)"
I fully expect a 6-week national lockdown (at least) to be announced on 30th December, including universities and secondary schools and possibly primaries and nurseries.
Plan accordingly.
It's a total meltdown now
What is happening in London and SE now will be UK wide in a few weeks
11,000 new cases in London today. This if replicated at UK level = 70,000 a day plus.
We need to call the national lockdown at 23 March level from Christmas Eve to 28 Feb including all secondaries and universities.
Primary schools an stay open. Normal 'bubbles' to be retained.
And a travel ban in/out UK except in the most extenuating circumstances.
It won't be reviewed until after Christmas Day, and rightly so.
Right now London and the SE are effectively under lockdown. The rest of the country will follow in a week.
It's a good compromise as it gives 70% of the country some sort of Christmas first.
He was comparing the t4 lockdown to being in solitary confinement in an Egyptian prison. Like, I get that that is his claim to fame, and I’ll still give him the time of day when he discusses islamism etc, but seriously?!
Have you seen that he's gone completely off the deep end about Trump i.e. there was possible fraud contributing to the Dems win that needs to be investigated? I fear that he's heading towards a certain fruitcakey end of the marketplace of ideas, not that there aren't buyers of course.
The deaths chart actually looks pretty flat or declining over the last few weeks ; let's hope it stays that way.
Deaths lag cases. Cases lag infections......
But it seems that would be a unusually long lag this time, longer than what I've understood is the average case/infection/fatatlity time.
It looks like something like a month an half flat, despite the rising hospitalisations, and the new strain apparently already making up the majority of cases in London, for instance, a month ago. This seems odd to me, as an amateur epidemiologist- unless maybe the new strain is actually more contagious but much *less* dangerous. Always good to hope, anyway.
The second tweet is particularly important as it acknowledges UK concerns - it suggests to me that a fudge in play could be to agree that both sides "have the right" (unfettered) on waters and a future unilateral increase or decrease in fish quotas by either the UK or EU could result in a tariff response provided that it was arbitrated via fair governance - this may clear the way to a compromise now, and an open door to do something different later:
"Both Flag of European Union&Flag of United Kingdom must have the right to set their own laws & control their own waters. And we should both be able to act when our interests are at stake. (2/2)"
Is that fancy speak for capitulation by English government.
We seem to be doing fuck all Pillar 2 tests in Scotland.
On the 10th Of December (day randomly selected by me) of UK wide pillar 2 tests only 4.4 were done in Scotland.
If pillar 2 is the regular testing of frontline workers that was moved into NHS Scotland around the time that the testing service was having issues back in September. Any residual numbers are likely people who live in Cumbria and Northumberland but work in the Borders (or vice versa).
I fully expect a 6-week national lockdown (at least) to be announced on 30th December, including universities and secondary schools and possibly primaries and nurseries.
Plan accordingly.
I hope to God you're right. Personally I'm afraid that our stubborn, clueless, useless Government will insist on keeping the schools open until the kids have spread this new thing thoroughly and evenly everywhere. That would be entirely consistent with virtually everything that they have done up to this point.
It would suit me far better to keep primaries and nurseries open to be honest, and I'd only close those as a last resort.
I'm just hypothesising what may be necessary to squish out that extra 0.4 of R - if it still largely passes the under 12s by, then it's not necessary. But teenagers and young people are far more blasé.
This has been going on for so long and so many theories have been promulgated about this bloody Plague that I may be misremembering, but there may be good evidence to suggest that young children are inefficient transmitters. If that's the case then I'm prepared to concede that it *might* be a good idea to let the primaries stay open. But the secondaries have to go, and letting the universities take students back would be total madness.
I fully expect a 6-week national lockdown (at least) to be announced on 30th December, including universities and secondary schools and possibly primaries and nurseries.
Plan accordingly.
It's a total meltdown now
What is happening in London and SE now will be UK wide in a few weeks
11,000 new cases in London today. This if replicated at UK level = 70,000 a day plus.
We need to call the national lockdown at 23 March level from Christmas Eve to 28 Feb including all secondaries and universities.
Primary schools an stay open. Normal 'bubbles' to be retained.
And a travel ban in/out UK except in the most extenuating circumstances.
It won't be reviewed until after Christmas Day, and rightly so.
Right now London and the SE are effectively under lockdown. The rest of the country will follow in a week.
It's a good compromise as it gives 70% of the country some sort of Christmas first.
Effective lockdown except that places of worship, which were among the main early drivers of the pandemic, are still open, even in tier 4.
The deaths chart actually looks pretty flat or declining over the last few weeks ; let's hope it stays that way.
Deaths lag cases. Cases lag infections......
But it seems that would be a unusually long lag this time, longer than what I've understood is the average case/infection/fatatlity time.
It's also an artefact of Malmesbury's graphs - the later records are incomplete. For a better guide see, the "Deaths within 28 days of positive test by date reported" graph at https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths . Although you might naively think that this data is less useful since it gives deaths by reporting date rather than date of occurrence, it actually gives a pretty good estimate of the final values (compare with the curve above). This indicates that the slight fall in deaths over the past couple of weeks has now reversed, and deaths are already rising again.
Since the government was seemingly willing to allow C-19 to remain in the English population at a much higher level than many other parts of the world, so long as the NHS was not overwhelmed, was it not therefore more likely that more mutations would likely be occurring here in England that other places which tried to keep the infection rates far lower?
Since the premise of your comment is completely wrong then the subsequent question is pointless.
We have had fewer restrictions, government policy, than many other countries and have amongst the highest death rates as a consequence does not equate to government policy leading to higher infection rates?
But, it is a difficult argument to make.
In general, mutations are good, as the virus mutates to a less deadly version (it is not in the virus' interests to kill the host).
There are have already been 20,000 mutations recorded.
So, you could argue that allowing plenty of opportunity to mutate is a good thing.
It is always easier to break something to fix it -- and that goes for viruses too. The more it is allowed to mutate, probably the better.
Not true. Viruses mutate randomly, and there is no reason to think less lethal mutations are more frequent. It's about which mutations get selected for. Killing vs not killing the host is not selective when you have a virtually infinite supply of infectable new hosts. So your claim applies to snow leopard viruses but not really to human ones.
Agree. The virus has no ability to mutate as more or less deadly. It is entirely random. It is simply a case of how easy it is to survive and multiply. A virus that kills instantly upon infection will not be successful as it won't get a chance to spread, but if a virus was easily transmittable and took time to make the host ill so that it could spread easily and yet be 100% fatal it would be a viable mutation.
The mutations are random, but the tendency is for viruses to become less deadly (for which there is plenty of empirical evidence).
Your argument assumes no correlation between transmissibility and onset of the disease.
Can you provide an example of a virus that has mutated to become more infectious AND with a longer onset time?
Actually, the strong correlation in respiratory diseases is an inverse one between transmissibility and morbidity/mortality and there is a well-understood mechanism for this. Sneezing assists in transmissibility of respiratory diseases, and sneezes are induced more in infections of the upper respiratory tract which tend to have lower morbidity/mortality levels than diseases of the lower respiratory tract (i.e. those that bind in the nose and throat, rather than in the bronchi and lungs).
That is part of what makes COVID so unusual and deadly - SARS-CoV-2 binds with just about every tissue in the human body (as every tissue has the ACE-2 receptor to which the spike protein binds, and every tissue has one of the protease surface enzymes that activate the spike protein (i.e. cleave one of the sub-units so that it opens up that part of the protein thereby allowing the virus to enter the cell and infect it)) thus it is binding in both upper and lower respiratory tracts causing both high transmissibility and high morbidity/mortality.
AND about half of all transmission happens before onset of symptoms.
Tim T. I thought you said the other day that the mutations in the virus we are currently concerned about don't affect the spike protein. But it seems clear that the mutations do affect the spike protein. Maybe only slightly but apparently significantly in terms of speed of spread of the virus. So I probably misread or misunderstood what you said?
Can you clarify what you said please and also what are your thoughts on the likelihood of current or future mutations significantly reducing the efficacy of current vaccines? Thanks.
My assumption is that the mutation has increased affinity without impact avidity
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
To be honest I'd be happy enough to see the £/Euro exchange rates and our international credit rating return to pre-referendum levels, but I don't think either is very likely for some considerable while.
Why?
Given our endemic trade deficit the £/€ exchange rate was surely overvalued.
If the £/€ exchange rate goes south but the trade deficit closes then might that not be a good thing?
Just suggesting them as benchmarks, Philip. I recall the exchange rate dropped sharply after the referendum and the drop in credit-rating followed soon after.
I'm not saying these are definitive or that other circustances need not be considered, but they're not bad broad-brush indicators. I mean, if Brexit was such a great idea, why didn't they both move up?
The drop in credit rating was political. The actual yields have barely moved.
In fact, as our actuaries were lamenting in the context of their pension calculations, they have continued to fall. We are in a very strange world of QE, huge deficits, the lowest gilt yields in history and almost no inflation. It is positively weird and the hot topic of economics right now. None of our conventional theories can explain this.
For all those who say "if governments didn't impose stupid restrictions, the economy would be doing ok," can I present to you the current state of Vegas hotel rooms:
The deaths chart actually looks pretty flat or declining over the last few weeks ; let's hope it stays that way.
Deaths lag cases. Cases lag infections......
But it seems that would be a unusually long lag this time, longer than what I've understood is the average case/infection/fatatlity time.
It's also an artefact of Malmesbury's graphs - the later records are incomplete. For a better guide see, the "Deaths within 28 days of positive test by date reported" graph at https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths . Although you might naively think that this data is less useful since it gives deaths by reporting date rather than date of occurrence, it actually gives a pretty good estimate of the final values (compare with the curve above). This indicates that the slight fall in deaths over the past couple of weeks has now reversed, and deaths are already rising again.
Picks up baseball bat....
You starting?!?
Joking aside - the data is pretty much in within 5 days. So far we are not seeing a reversion to a slow decline in daily deaths. With the increases in hospitalisations, this will reverse.
if you look at
you can see that up until the end of November, admissions were actually falling (roughly). So we are about due to see the effects of the rise feeding in to the death data.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
To be honest I'd be happy enough to see the £/Euro exchange rates and our international credit rating return to pre-referendum levels, but I don't think either is very likely for some considerable while.
Why?
Given our endemic trade deficit the £/€ exchange rate was surely overvalued.
If the £/€ exchange rate goes south but the trade deficit closes then might that not be a good thing?
Just suggesting them as benchmarks, Philip. I recall the exchange rate dropped sharply after the referendum and the drop in credit-rating followed soon after.
I'm not saying these are definitive or that other circustances need not be considered, but they're not bad broad-brush indicators. I mean, if Brexit was such a great idea, why didn't they both move up?
The drop in credit rating was political. The actual yields have barely moved.
In fact, as our actuaries were lamenting in the context of their pension calculations, they have continued to fall. We are in a very strange world of QE, huge deficits, the lowest gilt yields in history and almost no inflation. It is positively weird and the hot topic of economics right now. None of our conventional theories can explain this.
There is massive asset price inflation
Indeed. Which just encourages everybody who does still have money to invest to do so in progressively riskier asset classes - because why keep money in the bank when it earns no interest and, to the extent that we do still have inflation, its effects erode the value of savings? I myself have long since stopped bothering saving cash. I invest in a stock and share ISA instead. People with much more money than I gamble it outright on the stock market. And house prices continue to go up at speed even as unemployment rates do the same.
What kind of leader would get the Telegraph's support if they gave way at the first opportunity? Wasn't that Theresa May's problem in their eyes?
I cannot see what point they are trying to make - other than some glib line that makes no sense.
Also ignoring the fact that the picture has dramatically changed over the last few days. Had they known this new variant added 0.4-1.0 to R I am sure they would have done something earlier.
The deaths chart actually looks pretty flat or declining over the last few weeks ; let's hope it stays that way.
Deaths lag cases. Cases lag infections......
But it seems that would be a unusually long lag this time, longer than what I've understood is the average case/infection/fatatlity time.
It looks like something like a month an half flat, despite the rising hospitalisations, and the new strain apparently already making up the majority of cases in London, for instance, a month ago. This seems odd to me, as an amateur epidemiologist- unless maybe the new strain is actually more contagious but much *less* dangerous. Always good to hope, anyway.
Hospitalisations were falling to the end of November/beginning of December
So its about this time that we would expect the death rate to start going up.
I strongly doubt that the new coronavirus strain will not respond to the current crop of vaccines. However, even the possibility that it might behave differently does illustrate a weakness in the approach of responding to specific outbreaks with specifically developed vaccines.
This leads back to what was actually a very intelligent suggestion by Donald Trump - injecting (or otherwise introducing) a form of disinfectant. We use topical preparations that have general antiviral properties - imagine the chaos if a new one of these had to be developed every time there was a new virus?
The 0.4 bump to R0 looks like an optimistic assessment.
Studies of correlation between R-values and detection of the variant: which suggest an absolute increase in the R-value of between 0.39 to 0.93.
Begs the question then of why they used the 0.4 number in the government briefing, if that's the *lower* end of the estimate. Easier to justify immediate tier 4 if it's actually potentially an even higher increase than that.
But if it is anywhere near that high then we're surely completely fucked as the virus will be rampant even with lockdown.
For all those who say "if governments didn't impose stupid restrictions, the economy would be doing ok," can I present to you the current state of Vegas hotel rooms:
It is a fair point but Vegas hotels don't make their money on the hotel rooms charges do they?
Better to get someone in at virtually free who then goes to the casino than to have an empty room.
I remember paying a tad more than 7 dollars a night when I stayed in Vegas.
I was told the following story. Apparently, at one time at least, Las Vegas hotels comp'd you based on your credit rating.Which they checked by doing a swipe of your credit card at checkin.
So the story goes, US air tanker crews based in Nevada discovered the following..... For worldwide operations, they would often have to go to strange and interesting locations. In some of these places you had to buy fuel directly with a credit card - no trade account. So they had a special government credit card for this purpose. Since they could be buying aviation fuel by the the tanker load, it had really unlimited credit on it.
So, they would take the card to Vegas, have it swiped at the hotel. Live like kings. Pay the actual bill with their own money.....
I strongly doubt that the new coronavirus strain will not respond to the current crop of vaccines. However, even the possibility that it might behave differently does illustrate a weakness in the approach of responding to specific outbreaks with specifically developed vaccines.
This leads back to what was actually a very intelligent suggestion by Donald Trump - injecting (or otherwise introducing) a form of disinfectant. We use topical preparations that have general antiviral properties - imagine the chaos if a new one of these had to be developed every time there was a new virus?
2 small things
1) Stop smoking Oxy in my trailer 2) It took 2 days to create the Moderna vaccine.
The second tweet is particularly important as it acknowledges UK concerns - it suggests to me that a fudge in play could be to agree that both sides "have the right" (unfettered) on waters and a future unilateral increase or decrease in fish quotas by either the UK or EU could result in a tariff response provided that it was arbitrated via fair governance - this may clear the way to a compromise now, and an open door to do something different later:
"Both Flag of European Union&Flag of United Kingdom must have the right to set their own laws & control their own waters. And we should both be able to act when our interests are at stake. (2/2)"
Is that fancy speak for capitulation by English government.
No, it delivers nearly a threefold increase in fishing quotas for the UK (up from c.10% to c.30%) and, crucially, makes it clear - by treaty - that the UK can do what it likes with its fish in future but, if not negotiated direct with the EU, the EU can take proportionate measures in response if arbitration cannot resolve those disputes bilaterally. It provides a mechanism for the future discussion of quotas and stocks, and how the industry might evolve, and therefore flexibility.
That's better to locking in the UK to a firm share by law now, today, which can never be revisited again except by abrogating the treaty.
Those who say "capitulation" are those who were always going to say it regardless of the deal we struck.
The 0.4 bump to R0 looks like an optimistic assessment.
Studies of correlation between R-values and detection of the variant: which suggest an absolute increase in the R-value of between 0.39 to 0.93.
Begs the question then of why they used the 0.4 number in the government briefing, if that's the *lower* end of the estimate. Easier to justify immediate tier 4 if it's actually potentially an even higher increase than that.
But if it is anywhere near that high then we're surely completely fucked as the virus will be rampant even with lockdown.
Didn’t they say “at least 0.4”?
I hope not. It was only at 0.7-0.8 nationwide by June so if it naturally bubbles around 1.1-1.3 even with a full lockdown then we've got a problem.
If that was the case you'd probably have to specify full PPE for essential workers everywhere (including supermarkets and courier drivers) or something. But you could still do it.
The virus isn't God-like and can't transmit itself through a near complete barrier. It's natural and biological not Star Trek sci fi.
I strongly doubt that the new coronavirus strain will not respond to the current crop of vaccines. However, even the possibility that it might behave differently does illustrate a weakness in the approach of responding to specific outbreaks with specifically developed vaccines.
This leads back to what was actually a very intelligent suggestion by Donald Trump - injecting (or otherwise introducing) a form of disinfectant. We use topical preparations that have general antiviral properties - imagine the chaos if a new one of these had to be developed every time there was a new virus?
The trouble is that such a form of disinfectant would kill the virus in your body, and everything else.
We already apply all the disinfectants we can outside.
The best solution would be to develop a vaccine that attacks the virus at its most basic genetic level (taking into account it's ability to mutate and modify) such that it always works. But I'm not a biologist so I'll leave that discussion to others.
Failing that we suppress as much as we can with what we've already got.
We really really need a national effort on Oxford from 1st January with the army, navy, air force and even the salvation army too to vaccinate the f out of the UK. Millions a week.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
To be honest I'd be happy enough to see the £/Euro exchange rates and our international credit rating return to pre-referendum levels, but I don't think either is very likely for some considerable while.
Why?
Given our endemic trade deficit the £/€ exchange rate was surely overvalued.
If the £/€ exchange rate goes south but the trade deficit closes then might that not be a good thing?
Just suggesting them as benchmarks, Philip. I recall the exchange rate dropped sharply after the referendum and the drop in credit-rating followed soon after.
I'm not saying these are definitive or that other circustances need not be considered, but they're not bad broad-brush indicators. I mean, if Brexit was such a great idea, why didn't they both move up?
Because moving up isn't necessarily a good thing was my point.
Yes, I can see there are circumstances where it might be smart to let an exchange rate drift down. I'm less sure about the credit rating, but you can correct me if you like.
I didn't however get the impression that either movement was an indication of clever economic forethought, but rather a sharp intake of breath from the international business community.
Well indeed in the short term there'll be more disruption, I don't think anyone reasonable disputes this.
In the medium to long term though it's a different matter.
One remarkable statistic is that despite all the protestations of doom about if the UK chose not to join the Euro, or chose to hold an EU referendum, or voted to Leave . . . Is that in both the 2000-2009 and 2010-2019 decades the UK grew faster than the Eurozone per capita.
An interest judgement as to how Brexit goes over the next decade will be to make the same comparison in a decades time. It wouldn't surprise me if the UK over the next decade grows faster again per capita than the Eurozone. If so then I think that it is safe to say the UK has done OK in Brexiting, what do you think?
Lol! In the long term, we are all dead, Philip, but I will rest easier in my grave knowing that my countrymen are enjoying the sunlit uplands which were promised them before the referendum.
I put a medium term measurement threshold as the end of this decade.
I appreciate that in my late thirties I'm younger than many other PBers but I really, really hope and expect that the overwhelming majority of PBers won't be dead by the end of this decade.
Edit: As well as noting that the LAST decade saw the UK grow faster than the Eurozone despite the Brexit referendum causing uncertainty here halfway through the decade.
So for the last decades we have outgrown our similarly developed European neighbours, whilst in the EU? While prior to EEC entry we did not for several decades, and that is a reason for leaving? 🤔
QTWAIN.
We did in recent decades while getting progressively more estranged and on the way out from Europe.
Prior to EEC entry was of course prior to Thatcher reforming this country. The UK ceased to be the sick man of Europe because of Thatcher not EEC membership.
QTWAIY then surely...
No because you're putting the cart before the horse.
We aren't leaving because we are growing. We are perhaps growing because we haven't gotten entangled within the sclerotic EU and became estranged instead.
The explanation is arguable, but the truth is we grew more slowly than comparable EU economies until we joined, then grew faster than them in recent decades,
So QTWAIY...😀
Did the UK start growing faster 1973-1979?
Or was it as I suggested Thatcher that turned things around?
Well it's easy to check. Considering the UK was the prior sick man we should have grown faster than Germany and France per capita from 73 to 79 as we caught up with them.
Spoiler: That did NOT happen. The UK grew slower than the original EEC members even post accession to the EEC.
I wasn't discussing the role of particular governments, after all we grew more slowly than our neighbours before accession under all governments, and more quickly after accession under both Labour and Conservative.
It took a little while and the end of transitional arrangements of accession for the economic benefits of membership to become manifest.
You miss Philip's very obvious point. The growth did not happen because of us being in the EEC. Indeed that made no difference. It started and continued because of Thatcher. The idea that membership of the EEC is what pulled us out of being the sick man of Europe is just another Eurofanatic myth.
While she was PM, Maggie was a Euro enthusiast, pushing through the Single Market. The economic growth of that period cannot be divorced from membership. Indeed it showed how sovereign economic policy fitted fine with membership.
Notable that growth ahead of our neighbours was not restricted to the Thatcher government, but rather a feature of all governments since. Relative growth that eluded governments of both colours prior to membership.
The economics of membership of the Single Market are conclusive (and I understand that you remain keen on this via EEA). The wisdom or folly of Brexit comes down to non economic arguments about values.
What is conclusive is that the UK grew faster than more integrated Eurozone nations but slower than non-EU developed Western nations.
So what do you conclude from that?
What non EU developed countries? I can think of 2 both of whom have unique circumstances (oil and money)
I strongly doubt that the new coronavirus strain will not respond to the current crop of vaccines. However, even the possibility that it might behave differently does illustrate a weakness in the approach of responding to specific outbreaks with specifically developed vaccines.
This leads back to what was actually a very intelligent suggestion by Donald Trump - injecting (or otherwise introducing) a form of disinfectant. We use topical preparations that have general antiviral properties - imagine the chaos if a new one of these had to be developed every time there was a new virus?
The trouble is that such a form of disinfectant would kill the virus in your body, and everything else.
We already apply all the disinfectants we can outside.
The best solution would be to develop a vaccine that attacks the virus at its most basic genetic level (taking into account it's ability to mutate and modify) such that it always works. But I'm not a biologist so I'll leave that discussion to others.
Failing that we suppress as much as we can with what we've already got.
We really really need a national effort on Oxford from 1st January with the army, navy, air force and even the salvation army too to vaccinate the f out of the UK. Millions a week.
Max is right.
The existing plan is for 3-4 million per week, once the supply/vaccination chain is fully operational and the vaccines available
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
Well, if the EU insists on being twattish......what can we do?
Not a lot, mate, but then a nation that votes itself out of the world's largest and most successful free trade association isn't in much of a position to lecture others about twattishness.
Given that the UK has been a net financial contributor and has had a large and continuous trade deficit with EU countries I'm not sure that it has been successful for the UK.
And that's likely more the fault of the UK than anyone else.
So far better out than in, AR.
Believe me I will be only too pleased to acknowledge this if and when evidence surfaces. I'd like to see us make a decent effort of capitalising on our sovereignity though if only so that we will know unambigously before long just how successful the enterprise has been, or not, as the case may be.
It will be interesting to see.
On a theoretical/academic view the implementation of an independent trade policy can be judged fairly now that the incompetent Fox has been removed.
To be honest I'd be happy enough to see the £/Euro exchange rates and our international credit rating return to pre-referendum levels, but I don't think either is very likely for some considerable while.
Why?
Given our endemic trade deficit the £/€ exchange rate was surely overvalued.
If the £/€ exchange rate goes south but the trade deficit closes then might that not be a good thing?
Just suggesting them as benchmarks, Philip. I recall the exchange rate dropped sharply after the referendum and the drop in credit-rating followed soon after.
I'm not saying these are definitive or that other circustances need not be considered, but they're not bad broad-brush indicators. I mean, if Brexit was such a great idea, why didn't they both move up?
Because moving up isn't necessarily a good thing was my point.
Yes, I can see there are circumstances where it might be smart to let an exchange rate drift down. I'm less sure about the credit rating, but you can correct me if you like.
I didn't however get the impression that either movement was an indication of clever economic forethought, but rather a sharp intake of breath from the international business community.
Well indeed in the short term there'll be more disruption, I don't think anyone reasonable disputes this.
In the medium to long term though it's a different matter.
One remarkable statistic is that despite all the protestations of doom about if the UK chose not to join the Euro, or chose to hold an EU referendum, or voted to Leave . . . Is that in both the 2000-2009 and 2010-2019 decades the UK grew faster than the Eurozone per capita.
An interest judgement as to how Brexit goes over the next decade will be to make the same comparison in a decades time. It wouldn't surprise me if the UK over the next decade grows faster again per capita than the Eurozone. If so then I think that it is safe to say the UK has done OK in Brexiting, what do you think?
Lol! In the long term, we are all dead, Philip, but I will rest easier in my grave knowing that my countrymen are enjoying the sunlit uplands which were promised them before the referendum.
I put a medium term measurement threshold as the end of this decade.
I appreciate that in my late thirties I'm younger than many other PBers but I really, really hope and expect that the overwhelming majority of PBers won't be dead by the end of this decade.
Edit: As well as noting that the LAST decade saw the UK grow faster than the Eurozone despite the Brexit referendum causing uncertainty here halfway through the decade.
So for the last decades we have outgrown our similarly developed European neighbours, whilst in the EU? While prior to EEC entry we did not for several decades, and that is a reason for leaving? 🤔
QTWAIN.
We did in recent decades while getting progressively more estranged and on the way out from Europe.
Prior to EEC entry was of course prior to Thatcher reforming this country. The UK ceased to be the sick man of Europe because of Thatcher not EEC membership.
QTWAIY then surely...
No because you're putting the cart before the horse.
We aren't leaving because we are growing. We are perhaps growing because we haven't gotten entangled within the sclerotic EU and became estranged instead.
The explanation is arguable, but the truth is we grew more slowly than comparable EU economies until we joined, then grew faster than them in recent decades,
So QTWAIY...😀
Did the UK start growing faster 1973-1979?
Or was it as I suggested Thatcher that turned things around?
Well it's easy to check. Considering the UK was the prior sick man we should have grown faster than Germany and France per capita from 73 to 79 as we caught up with them.
Spoiler: That did NOT happen. The UK grew slower than the original EEC members even post accession to the EEC.
I wasn't discussing the role of particular governments, after all we grew more slowly than our neighbours before accession under all governments, and more quickly after accession under both Labour and Conservative.
It took a little while and the end of transitional arrangements of accession for the economic benefits of membership to become manifest.
You miss Philip's very obvious point. The growth did not happen because of us being in the EEC. Indeed that made no difference. It started and continued because of Thatcher. The idea that membership of the EEC is what pulled us out of being the sick man of Europe is just another Eurofanatic myth.
While she was PM, Maggie was a Euro enthusiast, pushing through the Single Market. The economic growth of that period cannot be divorced from membership. Indeed it showed how sovereign economic policy fitted fine with membership.
Notable that growth ahead of our neighbours was not restricted to the Thatcher government, but rather a feature of all governments since. Relative growth that eluded governments of both colours prior to membership.
The economics of membership of the Single Market are conclusive (and I understand that you remain keen on this via EEA). The wisdom or folly of Brexit comes down to non economic arguments about values.
Given how long we were in the EEC before Thatcher came to power with no signs of any improvement in our economy what is clear is that it was the massive Thatcher reforms of our sclerotic economy that made the difference. It is those changes which have benefitted Governments since then, not our membership of the EEC/EU
Though clearly membership did not hold back that economic sovereignty. EU membership and reducing barriers to the Single Market were a central plank in Thatchers economic policy.
Breaking the Unions and reforming our industrial and manufacturing bases were more important. Also worth noting that, bar a couple of months in the early 80s, the last time we had a balance of trade surplus with the EEC/EU was the year before we joined.
Well, of course! That was when British consumers benefited from improved access to superior European goods and produce.
Hahahaha. Oh sorry. Where you not joking? Poor you.
If the Lorries aren't allowed into France Ireland Italy etc then surely they will not be coming back loaded with freight. Shortages incoming but nothing else
I strongly doubt that the new coronavirus strain will not respond to the current crop of vaccines. However, even the possibility that it might behave differently does illustrate a weakness in the approach of responding to specific outbreaks with specifically developed vaccines.
This leads back to what was actually a very intelligent suggestion by Donald Trump - injecting (or otherwise introducing) a form of disinfectant. We use topical preparations that have general antiviral properties - imagine the chaos if a new one of these had to be developed every time there was a new virus?
Comments
They got far more natural as time went on, and they became more seasoned politicians.
I'm just hypothesising what may be necessary to squish out that extra 0.4 of R - if it still largely passes the under 12s by, then it's not necessary. But teenagers and young people are far more blasé.
https://twitter.com/MichelBarnier/status/1340676670446039049?s=20
What is happening in London and SE now will be UK wide in a few weeks
11,000 new cases in London today. This if replicated at UK level = 70,000 a day plus.
We need to call the national lockdown at 23 March level from Christmas Eve to 28 Feb including all secondaries and universities.
Primary schools an stay open. Normal 'bubbles' to be retained.
And a travel ban in/out UK except in the most extenuating circumstances.
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1340717231785828358?s=19
"Both Flag of European Union&Flag of United Kingdom must have the right to set their own laws & control their own waters. And we should both be able to act when our interests are at stake. (2/2)"
Right now London and the SE are effectively under lockdown. The rest of the country will follow in a week.
It's a good compromise as it gives 70% of the country some sort of Christmas first.
It looks like something like a month an half flat, despite the rising hospitalisations, and the new strain apparently already making up the majority of cases in London, for instance, a month ago. This seems odd to me, as an amateur epidemiologist- unless maybe the new strain is actually more contagious but much *less* dangerous. Always good to hope, anyway.
Given the vaccine in produced in Belgium
Do we have a problem ?
Er, no.
You starting?!?
Joking aside - the data is pretty much in within 5 days. So far we are not seeing a reversion to a slow decline in daily deaths. With the increases in hospitalisations, this will reverse.
if you look at
you can see that up until the end of November, admissions were actually falling (roughly). So we are about due to see the effects of the rise feeding in to the death data.
Now, what could possibly go wrong?
I cannot see what point they are trying to make - other than some glib line that makes no sense.
Even the Telegraph gets it, but apparently you don't.
So its about this time that we would expect the death rate to start going up.
This leads back to what was actually a very intelligent suggestion by Donald Trump - injecting (or otherwise introducing) a form of disinfectant. We use topical preparations that have general antiviral properties - imagine the chaos if a new one of these had to be developed every time there was a new virus?
So the story goes, US air tanker crews based in Nevada discovered the following..... For worldwide operations, they would often have to go to strange and interesting locations. In some of these places you had to buy fuel directly with a credit card - no trade account. So they had a special government credit card for this purpose. Since they could be buying aviation fuel by the the tanker load, it had really unlimited credit on it.
So, they would take the card to Vegas, have it swiped at the hotel. Live like kings. Pay the actual bill with their own money.....
1) Stop smoking Oxy in my trailer
2) It took 2 days to create the Moderna vaccine.
That's better to locking in the UK to a firm share by law now, today, which can never be revisited again except by abrogating the treaty.
Those who say "capitulation" are those who were always going to say it regardless of the deal we struck.
If that was the case you'd probably have to specify full PPE for essential workers everywhere (including supermarkets and courier drivers) or something. But you could still do it.
The virus isn't God-like and can't transmit itself through a near complete barrier. It's natural and biological not Star Trek sci fi.
We already apply all the disinfectants we can outside.
The best solution would be to develop a vaccine that attacks the virus at its most basic genetic level (taking into account it's ability to mutate and modify) such that it always works. But I'm not a biologist so I'll leave that discussion to others.
Failing that we suppress as much as we can with what we've already got.
We really really need a national effort on Oxford from 1st January with the army, navy, air force and even the salvation army too to vaccinate the f out of the UK. Millions a week.
Max is right.
Do you wish to discount them all as exceptional?