There seems to be a lot of going around in circles here with people trying to convince me that there is a price to be paid for leaving the SM and CU, but I don't deny that - and that argument was made repeatedly in both referendums. People chose to pay the price. That is democracy.
"I would like to have the steak please"
"It costs £35"
"That is OK, I will have the steak"
"Are you sure? £35 is a lot to pay for once meal"
"Yes please, the steak. Medium rare."
"I don't think you understand, you could go shopping and get something cheaper"
"The steak please"
"But the price is £35"
"The steak please"
"Why don't you accept that the steak costs £35"
"I do. The steak please. Medium rare".
"Experts say that £35 is a lot, you could eat cheaper elsewhere".
"I have made my decision, steak please. I am prepared to pay £35 for it"
"Why do you know more than the experts? Why do you insist it doesn't cost £35?"
"I don't. I'm prepared to pay £35 for the steak"
"Who knows better, the people who printed the menu or you? They say it is £35 for one steak"
"I get that. I want the steak"
"What is your expertise on steak prices? Why won't you accept this steak will cost you £35"
"I do. I already spoke to the waiter and ordered it, I saw the menu when I did."
"Look at that, now the steak has arrived. Are you happy now, that is going to cost £35. Why didn't you think about that?"
Yet no one except for you is talking about prices.
We are talking about paperwork and the impact that paperwork is having on sales, exports and logistics.
It is a metaphor.
That paperwork is the price to be paid. It was argued clearly and unequivocally by Remainers throughout 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019.
The voters made their choice though. They chose to proceed anyway.
The young deserve to be rewarded for their sacrifice.
I would respectfully suggest that a 45 year old with a family who has lost a job has suffered more than the youngsters you describe, as have all the medical staff that have died of the disease.
Everyone is suffering disruption to their lives to a greater or lesser extent and in different ways and we are all going to be paying for it for many years.
If it was simply about protecting the elderly the government could have legislated to keep them completely locked-down and let everyone else get on with it. However that is only a part of the problem which is precisely why no government I can see anywhere has gone up that route. There are no easy solutions to dealing with a pandemic.
I am no supporter of this Government but it seems to me that they are already compensating those who are suffering most as best they can with the furlough scheme and other initiatives.
I simply don't buy the notion that is all about the young making huge sacrifices for the old. It's just sowing division
Absolutely. And how does “it’s all for the old” square with most of those in London’s overloaded ICUs being under 60, with 90% of them having been at work beforehand?
The most recent data on hospital admissions are here
The graph on hospital admissions clearly shows that there are very, very few hospital admissions with age < 44.
There are some admissions between 45-64.
But, then the admissions really start to rocket as we go from 65-74; they rocket further from 75-84 and they are in the stratosphere at 85 and over.
It seems a fair summary of the data that very, very few people under the age of 44 require hospital treatment.
That graph is not numbers but rates per 100,000. There are a lot more 100,000s between 45-64 than there are over 85.
Work it out against the population numbers in each age group.
To clarify: 8.3 per 100,000 between 15-44 in the UK would be a total of 2,103 people.
(And 143 under 5s and 89 5-14s)
28.4 per 100,000 between 45-64 in the UK would be 4,893 people Compare to 244.2 per 100,000 over 85, which would be 3,993
I personally think that the data presentation there by the ONS is atrocious.
The infections chart is by percentage infected. The hospitalisations chart is a completely different set of age ranges and presented by 100,000 in the population. The deaths chart is the same set of age ranges as the hospitalisations, but in raw numbers.
It’s intuitive to compare them all at a glance and that’s completely misleading. Very poor presentation indeed.
He's a fecking politician, you moron. Jeez. He is meant to lead. To be seen, out and about, despite all our horrors. Like Churchill visiting bomb sites.
If he didn't do this, this person would be jumping on him, saying he's hiding away. Ludicrous.
The young deserve to be rewarded for their sacrifice.
I would respectfully suggest that a 45 year old with a family who has lost a job has suffered more than the youngsters you describe, as have all the medical staff that have died of the disease.
Everyone is suffering disruption to their lives to a greater or lesser extent and in different ways and we are all going to be paying for it for many years.
If it was simply about protecting the elderly the government could have legislated to keep them completely locked-down and let everyone else get on with it. However that is only a part of the problem which is precisely why no government I can see anywhere has gone up that route. There are no easy solutions to dealing with a pandemic.
I am no supporter of this Government but it seems to me that they are already compensating those who are suffering most as best they can with the furlough scheme and other initiatives.
I simply don't buy the notion that is all about the young making huge sacrifices for the old. It's just sowing division
Absolutely. And how does “it’s all for the old” square with most of those in London’s overloaded ICUs being under 60, with 90% of them having been at work beforehand?
The most recent data on hospital admissions are here
The graph on hospital admissions clearly shows that there are very, very few hospital admissions with age < 44.
There are some admissions between 45-64.
But, then the admissions really start to rocket as we go from 65-74; they rocket further from 75-84 and they are in the stratosphere at 85 and over.
It seems a fair summary of the data that very, very few people under the age of 44 require hospital treatment.
But what if those people need hospital treatment for other medical conditions but can't get it because the hospitals are full of Covid patients? If it gets out of hand, which we seem close to right now, it's in nobody's interests. There are dozens of reasons to require hospital treatment other than Covid and the under 44s are not exempt from those.
He's a fecking politician, you moron. Jeez. He is meant to lead. To be seen, out and about, despite all our horrors. Like Churchill visiting bomb sites.
If he didn't do this, this person would be jumping on him, saying he's hiding away. Ludicrous.
If we don't see Boris for 2-3 days, twitter always erupts into lazy fat bastard not on the job....what a waste of space.
He's a fecking politician, you moron. Jeez. He is meant to lead. To be seen, out and about, despite all our horrors. Like Churchill visiting bomb sites.
If he didn't do this, this person would be jumping on him, saying he's hiding away. Ludicrous.
You seemed to have somewhat changed your mind, Stocky -- recalling an earlier conversation.
No vaccine certificate -- no travel, no theatre, no gigs, no restaurant meals, no schools for your children. Perfectly fair.
The upside is no skiing.
One inevitably develops a mental picture of other posters, and I accept this could well be way off the mark.
I drew my conclusions because of the general tone of your comments. For example, the comment I responded to said, re young people:-
"So, they not going to listen to Hancock blathering on about "Save Grandpa". After all, what did Gramps ever do for them? He is a greedy, selfish man who denied the benefits he received to younger people."
That speaks to me of an angry and bitter individual. The issue has never been simply one of saving old people. If that had been the case it would have made far more sense to completely lock down the over 70s and let everyone else carry on as normal.
If some young people can't see beyond the ends of their noses and think their right to party trumps everything else then so be it but then it's no good whining about the consequences in years to come.
It isn;t about the right to party.
Its about the right to a decent, uninterrupted education. The right to mind broadening travel. The right to play team sport. The right to access mind broadening culture like film and theatre. The right to exchange ideas with other young people. The right to work. The right to protest in groups. The right not to be overburdened by crushing debt and deficit. The right to good mental health.
Young people have been stripped of all of these fundamental rights. The main aim has been to protect a cohort of people who have already lived a far longer and far better life than any generation in history. Ever. Some of these people do not even want this protection.
We have all been robbed of things, we are in the middle of a worldwide pandemic. Grow up
We have all lost things, sure
The point I am trying to make is that -- because of the age profile of serious victims of the disease -- the sacrifice has been mainly for the benefit of the old.
And that is only OK if it starts a rebalancing of the intergenerational unfairness of our politics.
The young deserve to be rewarded for their sacrifice.
I would respectfully suggest that a 45 year old with a family who has lost a job has suffered more than the youngsters you describe, as have all the medical staff that have died of the disease.
Everyone is suffering disruption to their lives to a greater or lesser extent and in different ways and we are all going to be paying for it for many years.
If it was simply about protecting the elderly the government could have legislated to keep them completely locked-down and let everyone else get on with it. However that is only a part of the problem which is precisely why no government I can see anywhere has gone up that route. There are no easy solutions to dealing with a pandemic.
I am no supporter of this Government but it seems to me that they are already compensating those who are suffering most as best they can with the furlough scheme and other initiatives.
I simply don't buy the notion that is all about the young making huge sacrifices for the old. It's just sowing division
Absolutely. And how does “it’s all for the old” square with most of those in London’s overloaded ICUs being under 60, with 90% of them having been at work beforehand?
This would be a way of squaring it, if it were true. I don't know if it is or not
"Those aged over 80, and some in younger groups such as the over 60s, were not given potentially life-saving treatment because health chiefs were concerned the NHS would be overrun, according to reports.
It is claimed documents called a 'triage tool', drawn up at the request of England's chief medical officer Chris Whitty, were used in preventing elderly Covid-19 patients from receiving ventilation in intensive care.
As part of an investigation, the Sunday Times says the tool was used to create a 'score' for patients based on their age, frailty, and illness. Under the original system, over 80s were automatically excluded from intensive care treatment due to their age. Even those in the over 60s who were considered frail and with pre-existing health conditions could have been over the intensive care threshold...
...It also cites data, which shows the over 70s and 80s groups made up the smallest percentage of ICU patients, despite having the highest number of deaths."
I did notice that there was a disjoint between the ages in hospital and the ages in ICU and wondered if there was something like that going on.
It would significantly increase the death rate of the eldest in comparison.
The thing is - the younger a patient is, the better their chances of responding to medical help, especially with covid, so if they do have to triage, I would expect it to go like that. It’s horrific, and I’d also expect some mental health retirements from the NHS when all this is over from doctors and nurses who can no longer face working on.
Let the old die - ie the over 80s. If it is to save the young, it is worth it.
Brutal but true. If you've made it to 80 you've had a good long life, more than your three score years and ten. You should give up the ghost for the next generation.
That is where we are. Let us face it squarely. Moreover, both my parents, over 80, agree. If that is the choice, it must be made. Just make sure the end is pain-free. Bring out the morphine, cognac, cocaine and Xanax. Bring out the Brompton
I suspect Trump now considers Pence no longer part of his shrinking inner core but notably in that Quinnipiac poll while most voters as a whole want Trump removed from office most Republicans do not.
So if Trump is convicted and impeached Trumpism will likely still hold sway within the GOP for some time
America is doomed. As I have said before. Both sides have been captured by the extremes: the Right by Trumpism, QAnon and all that shite, the Left, by BLM and Critical Race Theory and the innate awfulness of White people.
Civil war, or, at least, civil strife, is not inconceivable.
He's a fecking politician, you moron. Jeez. He is meant to lead. To be seen, out and about, despite all our horrors. Like Churchill visiting bomb sites.
If he didn't do this, this person would be jumping on him, saying he's hiding away. Ludicrous.
It's analagous to when politicians are criticised for visiting floodzones and the like. Do it, and people complain about it being for photo ops or they are getting in the way, don't do it and people are on the news all 'where is the PM?'
Not a perfect comparison of course, I can believe Boris is going places he is not needed, but it really doesn't seem like a big deal, and he would be criticised no matter what. I'd focus more on his various communication screwups and u-turning.
The young deserve to be rewarded for their sacrifice.
I would respectfully suggest that a 45 year old with a family who has lost a job has suffered more than the youngsters you describe, as have all the medical staff that have died of the disease.
Everyone is suffering disruption to their lives to a greater or lesser extent and in different ways and we are all going to be paying for it for many years.
If it was simply about protecting the elderly the government could have legislated to keep them completely locked-down and let everyone else get on with it. However that is only a part of the problem which is precisely why no government I can see anywhere has gone up that route. There are no easy solutions to dealing with a pandemic.
I am no supporter of this Government but it seems to me that they are already compensating those who are suffering most as best they can with the furlough scheme and other initiatives.
I simply don't buy the notion that is all about the young making huge sacrifices for the old. It's just sowing division
Absolutely. And how does “it’s all for the old” square with most of those in London’s overloaded ICUs being under 60, with 90% of them having been at work beforehand?
The most recent data on hospital admissions are here
The graph on hospital admissions clearly shows that there are very, very few hospital admissions with age < 44.
There are some admissions between 45-64.
But, then the admissions really start to rocket as we go from 65-74; they rocket further from 75-84 and they are in the stratosphere at 85 and over.
It seems a fair summary of the data that very, very few people under the age of 44 require hospital treatment.
But what if those people need hospital treatment for other medical conditions but can't get it because the hospitals are full of Covid patients? If it gets out of hand, which we seem close to right now, it's in nobody's interests. There are dozens of reasons to require hospital treatment other than Covid.
Its annoying that the data feed data doesn't breakout admissions into smaller groupings... but...
Here we go again, all about race....except white men....why not say our focus it is on ALL small businesses, we don't want previously overlooked hard working folk to be disadvantaged, we want fairness across the nation, that hasn't always been the case.
Instead it just sets up us vs them stuff. We prioritize this group over that group.
Something just struck me. One reason why wave 3 is putting more strain on hospitals than wave 1 is that people are still in hospital from wave 2. The new hospitalisation rate is starting from a higher baseline. They unlocked-down about two months too soon from Lockdown 2 in England.
It's analagous to when politicians are criticised for visiting floodzones and the like. Do it, and people complain about it being for photo ops or they are getting in the way, don't do it and people are on the news all 'where is the PM?'
Not a perfect comparison of course, I can believe Boris is going places he is not needed, but it really doesn't seem like a big deal, and he would be criticised no matter what. I'd focus more on his various communication screwups and u-turning.
Note also while visiting a vaccination centre HE TOOK HIS FUCKING MASK OFF
I'm not arsed about Boris travelling to Bristol. It's not a big deal and just cheapens any criticism. He is an "essential worker" at the end of the day.
Yes we voted to leave the EU and we did so with Boris committing during the Referendum to leaving the Single Market, leaving the Customs Union and the UK taking up the ability to set its own rules and sign new trade deals. During the Referendum, before you voted Leave having been informed that is what he thought Leave meant.
Then during the 2019 election campaign it was made clear his policy was to leave the Single Market, leave the Customs union and the UK taking up the ability to set its own rules and sign new trade deals. Just as he said in 2016, as Theresa May might say "nothing has changed". And that was explicitly put into the manifesto that won an 80 seat majority.
So what more do you expect? This is the decision people have made. That is democracy. Choices matter. Votes matter.
So now we've left the Single Market and Customs Union. As was promised in 2019 and won an 80 seat majority. As was promised in 2016 and you voted for.
If you don't want this, then don't vote for it. 🤷🏻♂️ Otherwise its time to move on and get on with it already. Businesses will adjust, we will reach a new economic equilibrium that is different to before and life goes on.
To an extent I agree with you. Brexit is shite (and not even you are really denying it now), but it's what it is and we have to make the best of it now. If you want to spin that state of affairs as a "new equilibrium", go ahead!
The "new equilibrium" really is the Phillip Thompson faction's ideology being more important than other people's livelihoods. It's tough telling people that when they have lost theirs.
....
I suspect NE Scottish fishing communities may not be as grateful to the Tories as some were hoping.
Quote from the UK government: “We are working closely with the industry to help understand and address the issue”. I feel they might have made the effort to understand the issue before proceeding with their stupid Brexit. Or at least had a vague curiosity about what the issues might be. Anyway they are blaming the SNP for all the problems, so that much was predictable.
It's a bit hard expecting the SG (not SNP!) to know everything about the new regs when the UK Gmt didn't get round to telling them, any more than it did anyone else. Let alone what the deal was going to be. What are they, mindreaders? Futurologists?
The SG are clearly out to thwart HMG's Brexit success. Even if the SG did have a way to solve all the issues, they wouldn't want to anyway, so it comes to the same thing and, obviously in that case the SG really are to blame !
But even if the SG are the ones who should be blamed - they can simply blame the UK Government and the majority of their Scottish population will agree with them.
Every Brexit disaster adds a few more votes for independence... So for the SNP there is zero downside here - do well and it's the SNP's wise decisions that solved the problem, got a problem and it isn't their fault, it's London's.
Two thirds of Scots voted Remain and haven't changed their minds. Just after the referendum you might occasionally bump into people who were happy to state their vote for Leave. You would be slightly taken aback and then think, "yes of course, they do exist". They are keeping quiet now. It's years since I have come across any Scot openly admit to being a Leaver. (Except on pb.com). It's very different from England.
There seems to be a lot of going around in circles here with people trying to convince me that there is a price to be paid for leaving the SM and CU, but I don't deny that - and that argument was made repeatedly in both referendums. People chose to pay the price. That is democracy.
"I would like to have the steak please"
"It costs £35"
"That is OK, I will have the steak"
"Are you sure? £35 is a lot to pay for once meal"
"Yes please, the steak. Medium rare."
"I don't think you understand, you could go shopping and get something cheaper"
"The steak please"
"But the price is £35"
"The steak please"
"Why don't you accept that the steak costs £35"
"I do. The steak please. Medium rare".
"Experts say that £35 is a lot, you could eat cheaper elsewhere".
"I have made my decision, steak please. I am prepared to pay £35 for it"
"Why do you know more than the experts? Why do you insist it doesn't cost £35?"
"I don't. I'm prepared to pay £35 for the steak"
"Who knows better, the people who printed the menu or you? They say it is £35 for one steak"
"I get that. I want the steak"
"What is your expertise on steak prices? Why won't you accept this steak will cost you £35"
"I do. I already spoke to the waiter and ordered it, I saw the menu when I did."
"Look at that, now the steak has arrived. Are you happy now, that is going to cost £35. Why didn't you think about that?"
Oh stop it!
2016 campaign was complete utter jibberish. It left everyone more confused than at the start. You are lying when you try to make out it was informative.
When have merits of CU properly debated?
People didn’t know in 2016 they would end up in a worst place because it’s still not clear today! It will take years from here for many who voted leave to appreciate their mistake.
And you bang on about it being democracy, when it wasn’t democracy. 2016 was a campaign and vote that was utter mess. Brexiteers who cling to that vote don’t respect democracy, nor honest about what they rammed through on platform of lies.
the whole point of democracy is that 52% never trumps 48%, democracy is about tolerating minority views in the big decisions for a society going forwards. What happened in ‘75 and ‘16 is nearer fascism than democracy.
representative democracy is stronger than direct democracy because it allows for more efficient scrutiny by a sufficiently small number of people with time and skills, who have maturity of judgment and unbiased in opinion to go into forensic depth and come to a more enlightened conclusion on behalf of all people and points of view. key difference between direct and representative forms of democracy is representatives not simply to communicate the wishes of the electorate but to use their own judgment in the exercise of their powers, even if their views are not reflective of those of a majority of voters, but the voters can still remove them.
Like ‘75, ‘16 was bogus democracy masquerading as and usurping democracy.
So, if you're an average white American man, just fuck off. And if you're an average white American woman, you can also fuck off, just not quite as much
There seems to be a lot of going around in circles here with people trying to convince me that there is a price to be paid for leaving the SM and CU, but I don't deny that - and that argument was made repeatedly in both referendums. People chose to pay the price. That is democracy.
"I would like to have the steak please"
"It costs £35"
"That is OK, I will have the steak"
"Are you sure? £35 is a lot to pay for once meal"
"Yes please, the steak. Medium rare."
"I don't think you understand, you could go shopping and get something cheaper"
"The steak please"
"But the price is £35"
"The steak please"
"Why don't you accept that the steak costs £35"
"I do. The steak please. Medium rare".
"Experts say that £35 is a lot, you could eat cheaper elsewhere".
"I have made my decision, steak please. I am prepared to pay £35 for it"
"Why do you know more than the experts? Why do you insist it doesn't cost £35?"
"I don't. I'm prepared to pay £35 for the steak"
"Who knows better, the people who printed the menu or you? They say it is £35 for one steak"
"I get that. I want the steak"
"What is your expertise on steak prices? Why won't you accept this steak will cost you £35"
"I do. I already spoke to the waiter and ordered it, I saw the menu when I did."
"Look at that, now the steak has arrived. Are you happy now, that is going to cost £35. Why didn't you think about that?"
Yet no one except for you is talking about prices.
We are talking about paperwork and the impact that paperwork is having on sales, exports and logistics.
It is a metaphor.
That paperwork is the price to be paid. It was argued clearly and unequivocally by Remainers throughout 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019.
The voters made their choice though. They chose to proceed anyway.
You are as glib about casting other people’s livelihoods into the bin as you so often are about their votes.
It's analagous to when politicians are criticised for visiting floodzones and the like. Do it, and people complain about it being for photo ops or they are getting in the way, don't do it and people are on the news all 'where is the PM?'
Not a perfect comparison of course, I can believe Boris is going places he is not needed, but it really doesn't seem like a big deal, and he would be criticised no matter what. I'd focus more on his various communication screwups and u-turning.
Note also while visiting a vaccination centre HE TOOK HIS FUCKING MASK OFF
Clown
Not acting properly whilst there is a different concern than merely being there.
Something just struck me. One reason why wave 3 is putting more strain on hospitals than wave 1 is that people are still in hospital from wave 2. The new hospitalisation rate is starting from a higher baseline. They unlocked-down about two months too soon from Lockdown 2 in England.
This is still wave 2, shirley?
Moot point. Wave 2 officially came to an end on December 2nd (?) when lockdown # 2 finished in England.
Should add the same hospitalisation effect in Scotland, where the current wave of admissions starts from a higher baseline, albeit to a lesser extent than England (so far).
There seems to be a lot of going around in circles here with people trying to convince me that there is a price to be paid for leaving the SM and CU, but I don't deny that - and that argument was made repeatedly in both referendums. People chose to pay the price. That is democracy.
"I would like to have the steak please"
"It costs £35"
"That is OK, I will have the steak"
"Are you sure? £35 is a lot to pay for once meal"
"Yes please, the steak. Medium rare."
"I don't think you understand, you could go shopping and get something cheaper"
"The steak please"
"But the price is £35"
"The steak please"
"Why don't you accept that the steak costs £35"
"I do. The steak please. Medium rare".
"Experts say that £35 is a lot, you could eat cheaper elsewhere".
"I have made my decision, steak please. I am prepared to pay £35 for it"
"Why do you know more than the experts? Why do you insist it doesn't cost £35?"
"I don't. I'm prepared to pay £35 for the steak"
"Who knows better, the people who printed the menu or you? They say it is £35 for one steak"
"I get that. I want the steak"
"What is your expertise on steak prices? Why won't you accept this steak will cost you £35"
"I do. I already spoke to the waiter and ordered it, I saw the menu when I did."
"Look at that, now the steak has arrived. Are you happy now, that is going to cost £35. Why didn't you think about that?"
Yet no one except for you is talking about prices.
We are talking about paperwork and the impact that paperwork is having on sales, exports and logistics.
And besides which, people were promised a free steak. Now they find that free is £35, and the steak is actually a dog poo.
But people voted for a £35 dog poo. They knew it was a £35 dog poo. So they can bloody well eat it and stop remoaning.
He's a fecking politician, you moron. Jeez. He is meant to lead. To be seen, out and about, despite all our horrors. Like Churchill visiting bomb sites.
If he didn't do this, this person would be jumping on him, saying he's hiding away. Ludicrous.
I was pondering something similar earlier. The press today say "letting us celebrate Christmas was wrong as the infections have risen as a result". But I have no doubt that if Christmas was cancelled the very same press would be saying something like "cases didn't rise, you didn't need to cancel Christmas". You just can't win when your opponent is not consistent themselves.
There seems to be a lot of going around in circles here with people trying to convince me that there is a price to be paid for leaving the SM and CU, but I don't deny that - and that argument was made repeatedly in both referendums. People chose to pay the price. That is democracy.
"I would like to have the steak please"
"It costs £35"
"That is OK, I will have the steak"
"Are you sure? £35 is a lot to pay for once meal"
"Yes please, the steak. Medium rare."
"I don't think you understand, you could go shopping and get something cheaper"
"The steak please"
"But the price is £35"
"The steak please"
"Why don't you accept that the steak costs £35"
"I do. The steak please. Medium rare".
"Experts say that £35 is a lot, you could eat cheaper elsewhere".
"I have made my decision, steak please. I am prepared to pay £35 for it"
"Why do you know more than the experts? Why do you insist it doesn't cost £35?"
"I don't. I'm prepared to pay £35 for the steak"
"Who knows better, the people who printed the menu or you? They say it is £35 for one steak"
"I get that. I want the steak"
"What is your expertise on steak prices? Why won't you accept this steak will cost you £35"
"I do. I already spoke to the waiter and ordered it, I saw the menu when I did."
"Look at that, now the steak has arrived. Are you happy now, that is going to cost £35. Why didn't you think about that?"
Yet no one except for you is talking about prices.
We are talking about paperwork and the impact that paperwork is having on sales, exports and logistics.
It is a metaphor.
That paperwork is the price to be paid. It was argued clearly and unequivocally by Remainers throughout 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019.
The voters made their choice though. They chose to proceed anyway.
That's because 52% of the voters listened to the Leave campaign. Turns out they were lied to. Who'd a thunk it, eh?
Boris’s cycling, and westward ho-ing, are irrelevant.
What is relevant is why he prevaricated over setting a stricter tier in November, went ahead with the Christmas “hall pass”, and by all accounts decided to wait for near Armageddon until our current, inevitable lockdown.
Here we go again, all about race....except white men....why not say our focus it is on ALL small businesses, we don't want previously overlooked hard working folk to be disadvantaged, we want fairness across the nation, that hasn't always been the case.
Instead it just sets up us vs them stuff. We prioritize this group over that group.
The Democrats have been entirely captured by race-obsessed zealots. It is insane. I fear for America.
There is loads to criticize Boris over, but its like the nonsense of why did he a test so quickly in March...cos he is the bloody leader of the country.
There seems to be a lot of going around in circles here with people trying to convince me that there is a price to be paid for leaving the SM and CU, but I don't deny that - and that argument was made repeatedly in both referendums. People chose to pay the price. That is democracy.
"I would like to have the steak please"
"It costs £35"
"That is OK, I will have the steak"
"Are you sure? £35 is a lot to pay for once meal"
"Yes please, the steak. Medium rare."
"I don't think you understand, you could go shopping and get something cheaper"
"The steak please"
"But the price is £35"
"The steak please"
"Why don't you accept that the steak costs £35"
"I do. The steak please. Medium rare".
"Experts say that £35 is a lot, you could eat cheaper elsewhere".
"I have made my decision, steak please. I am prepared to pay £35 for it"
"Why do you know more than the experts? Why do you insist it doesn't cost £35?"
"I don't. I'm prepared to pay £35 for the steak"
"Who knows better, the people who printed the menu or you? They say it is £35 for one steak"
"I get that. I want the steak"
"What is your expertise on steak prices? Why won't you accept this steak will cost you £35"
"I do. I already spoke to the waiter and ordered it, I saw the menu when I did."
"Look at that, now the steak has arrived. Are you happy now, that is going to cost £35. Why didn't you think about that?"
Oh stop it!
2016 campaign was complete utter jibberish. It left everyone more confused than at the start. You are lying when you try to make out it was informative.
When have merits of CU properly debated?
People didn’t know in 2016 they would end up in a worst place because it’s still not clear today! It will take years from here for many who voted leave to appreciate their mistake.
And you bang on about it being democracy, when it wasn’t democracy. 2016 was a campaign and vote that was utter mess. Brexiteers who cling to that vote don’t respect democracy, nor honest about what they rammed through on platform of lies.
the whole point of democracy is that 52% never trumps 48%, democracy is about tolerating minority views in the big decisions for a society going forwards. What happened in ‘75 and ‘16 is nearer fascism than democracy.
representative democracy is stronger than direct democracy because it allows for more efficient scrutiny by a sufficiently small number of people with time and skills, who have maturity of judgment and unbiased in opinion to go into forensic depth and come to a more enlightened conclusion on behalf of all people and points of view. key difference between direct and representative forms of democracy is representatives not simply to communicate the wishes of the electorate but to use their own judgment in the exercise of their powers, even if their views are not reflective of those of a majority of voters, but the voters can still remove them.
Like ‘75, ‘16 was bogus democracy masquerading as and usurping democracy.
Fascism? You are full of shit.
And you missed the fact that leaving the SM and CU was in the 2019 election manifesto too. Despite appealling for representative democracy, you entirely overlook the fact this was debated in 2019 (and before) and the voters chose to proceed in 2019 on this manifesto.
That has been implemented. The likes of RP and yourself and anyone else opposed to leaving the SM and CU had a choice to say so prior to December 2019. The voters either disagreed with you or didn't care, they made their choice "the bastards" and now in 2024 they get a chance to vote again. The government is doing no more and no less on Brexit than exactly what they said they would do before the election.
Boris’s cycling, and westward ho-ing, are irrelevant.
What is relevant is why he prevaricated over setting a stricter tier in November, went ahead with the Christmas “hall pass”, and by all accounts decided to wait for near Armageddon until our current, inevitable lockdown.
He has many deaths on his hands.
How about us in Wales then, which Boris has nothing to do with , are you saying the same about Drakeford
1. Norman Lewis - Jackdaw Cake (his autobiography) and Naples '44 (from his time as an Intelligence Officer in Naples in 1944) are superb but all his travel writing (which understates the quality of his writing) is magnificent.
2. William Trevor: "The Old Boys", "The Children of Dynmouth" and "Felicia's Journey" are 3 of his best novels. Also "Fools of Fortune". And he is the absolute master of the short story. Get his Collected Stories. Each of them a marvel. No-one writes about evil better or about sad, ordinary, half-fulfilled lives or pins down the absurdities and hypocrisies of every-day life. And he can be laugh-out loud funny too. Lots of his work has been made into films - especially by the BBC in the days when they did such things.
3. J G Farrell: "Troubles" is wonderful. But all three of his novels are good. He died in a fishing accident off the coast of Ireland much too young.
4. JG McGahern: "Amongst Women" and "That They May Face the Rising Sun" are both wonderful. Some of his earlier novels like "The Barracks" tell you all you need to know about the dark underbelly of Irish domestic life. His "Memoir" is a love letter to his mother. The contrast between the relationship he had with his mother who died too young and the brutality and callousness of his father is unbearable but so well written.
Present-day writers I cannot abide: Hilary Mantel, Salman Rushdie, Martin Amis.
There seems to be a lot of going around in circles here with people trying to convince me that there is a price to be paid for leaving the SM and CU, but I don't deny that - and that argument was made repeatedly in both referendums. People chose to pay the price. That is democracy.
"I would like to have the steak please"
"It costs £35"
"That is OK, I will have the steak"
"Are you sure? £35 is a lot to pay for once meal"
"Yes please, the steak. Medium rare."
"I don't think you understand, you could go shopping and get something cheaper"
"The steak please"
"But the price is £35"
"The steak please"
"Why don't you accept that the steak costs £35"
"I do. The steak please. Medium rare".
"Experts say that £35 is a lot, you could eat cheaper elsewhere".
"I have made my decision, steak please. I am prepared to pay £35 for it"
"Why do you know more than the experts? Why do you insist it doesn't cost £35?"
"I don't. I'm prepared to pay £35 for the steak"
"Who knows better, the people who printed the menu or you? They say it is £35 for one steak"
"I get that. I want the steak"
"What is your expertise on steak prices? Why won't you accept this steak will cost you £35"
"I do. I already spoke to the waiter and ordered it, I saw the menu when I did."
"Look at that, now the steak has arrived. Are you happy now, that is going to cost £35. Why didn't you think about that?"
Yet no one except for you is talking about prices.
We are talking about paperwork and the impact that paperwork is having on sales, exports and logistics.
It is a metaphor.
That paperwork is the price to be paid. It was argued clearly and unequivocally by Remainers throughout 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019.
The voters made their choice though. They chose to proceed anyway.
You are as glib about casting other people’s livelihoods into the bin as you so often are about their votes.
Shit happens. This has been debated to death for years, if people didn't want to proceed with ending SM and CU membership they shouldn't have given the Tories an 80 seat majority promising to do just that.
In 2024 people get to vote again. If Labour want to promise to restore SM and CU membership (or even full sugar EU membership) and wins a majority on that platform then that will be democracy too.
Here we go again, all about race....except white men....why not say our focus it is on ALL small businesses, we don't want previously overlooked hard working folk to be disadvantaged, we want fairness across the nation, that hasn't always been the case.
Instead it just sets up us vs them stuff. We prioritize this group over that group.
The Democrats have been entirely captured by race-obsessed zealots. It is insane. I fear for America.
It concerns me greatly. We have just had 4 years of divisive rhetoric, another 4-8 years of it, will only cause further polarisation and that won't lead anywhere good.
The young deserve to be rewarded for their sacrifice.
I would respectfully suggest that a 45 year old with a family who has lost a job has suffered more than the youngsters you describe, as have all the medical staff that have died of the disease.
Everyone is suffering disruption to their lives to a greater or lesser extent and in different ways and we are all going to be paying for it for many years.
If it was simply about protecting the elderly the government could have legislated to keep them completely locked-down and let everyone else get on with it. However that is only a part of the problem which is precisely why no government I can see anywhere has gone up that route. There are no easy solutions to dealing with a pandemic.
I am no supporter of this Government but it seems to me that they are already compensating those who are suffering most as best they can with the furlough scheme and other initiatives.
I simply don't buy the notion that is all about the young making huge sacrifices for the old. It's just sowing division
Absolutely. And how does “it’s all for the old” square with most of those in London’s overloaded ICUs being under 60, with 90% of them having been at work beforehand?
The most recent data on hospital admissions are here
The graph on hospital admissions clearly shows that there are very, very few hospital admissions with age < 44.
There are some admissions between 45-64.
But, then the admissions really start to rocket as we go from 65-74; they rocket further from 75-84 and they are in the stratosphere at 85 and over.
It seems a fair summary of the data that very, very few people under the age of 44 require hospital treatment.
Although "rate per 100,000" is EXTREMELY misleading. Because there are a lot more 45 to 64 year olds than there are 85+ year olds.
In other words, that ONS data is entirely consistent with half the people in ICUs being below the age of 70.
What is the median and interquartile range of the age of people on ICUs?
For the second wave median age is 62 and 2/3 under seventy. There is no absolute bar to older folk being on ICU if likely to benefit. This is the age distribution, data from the weekly reports of the Intensive care society.
Thanks. So just using the histogram, the percentage of hospital admissions under 40 is 1.1 + 1.3 + 2.4 + 3.2 = 8 per cent.
The IQR is 50-79 (I haven't done it accurately because of the binned data). The median is 62.
Perhaps it is fair to say that this is a disease of the elderly AND the late middle-aged.
Nonetheless, my point remains that the young have paid a high price for a disease that leaves them largely unaffected
It is good that @Philip_Thompson acknowledges there is a price to pay - maybe a significant one - for Brexit.
The problem, as many have pointed out, is the government never have.
They have effectively spent four years “gaslighting” the electorate, supported by a baying chorus of right-wing media.
Of course, we know why they did it. Brexit would not have passed had the truth been told. Boris would not be PM. The Tories might not be in government.
One possible positive of having Brexited is that it should be “safer”, ie politically less costly, to just tell the truth about Brexit.
There seems to be a lot of going around in circles here with people trying to convince me that there is a price to be paid for leaving the SM and CU, but I don't deny that - and that argument was made repeatedly in both referendums. People chose to pay the price. That is democracy.
"I would like to have the steak please"
"It costs £35"
"That is OK, I will have the steak"
"Are you sure? £35 is a lot to pay for once meal"
"Yes please, the steak. Medium rare."
"I don't think you understand, you could go shopping and get something cheaper"
"The steak please"
"But the price is £35"
"The steak please"
"Why don't you accept that the steak costs £35"
"I do. The steak please. Medium rare".
"Experts say that £35 is a lot, you could eat cheaper elsewhere".
"I have made my decision, steak please. I am prepared to pay £35 for it"
"Why do you know more than the experts? Why do you insist it doesn't cost £35?"
"I don't. I'm prepared to pay £35 for the steak"
"Who knows better, the people who printed the menu or you? They say it is £35 for one steak"
"I get that. I want the steak"
"What is your expertise on steak prices? Why won't you accept this steak will cost you £35"
"I do. I already spoke to the waiter and ordered it, I saw the menu when I did."
"Look at that, now the steak has arrived. Are you happy now, that is going to cost £35. Why didn't you think about that?"
Yet no one except for you is talking about prices.
We are talking about paperwork and the impact that paperwork is having on sales, exports and logistics.
And besides which, people were promised a free steak. Now they find that free is £35, and the steak is actually a dog poo.
But people voted for a £35 dog poo. They knew it was a £35 dog poo. So they can bloody well eat it and stop remoaning.
You are an unbearable hypocrite. You voted Leave, as did Phillip. I don’t agree with your vote but at least Phillip has the courage of his convictions.
1. Norman Lewis - Jackdaw Cake (his autobiography) and Naples '44 (from his time as an Intelligence Officer in Naples in 1944) are superb but all his travel writing (which understates the quality of his writing) is magnificent.
2. William Trevor: "The Old Boys", "The Children of Dynmouth" and "Felicia's Journey" are 3 of his best novels. Also "Fools of Fortune". And he is the absolute master of the short story. Get his Collected Stories. Each of them a marvel. No-one writes about evil better or about sad, ordinary, half-fulfilled lives or pins down the absurdities and hypocrisies of every-day life. And he can be laugh-out loud funny too. Lots of his work has been made into films - especially by the BBC in the days when they did such things.
3. J G Farrell: "Troubles" is wonderful. But all three of his novels are good. He died in a fishing accident off the coast of Ireland much too young.
4. JG McGahern: "Amongst Women" and "That They May Face the Rising Sun" are both wonderful. Some of his earlier novels like "The Barracks" tell you all you need to know about the dark underbelly of Irish domestic life. His "Memoir" is a love letter to his mother. The contrast between the relationship he had with his mother who died too young and the brutality and callousness of his father is unbearable but so well written.
Present-day writers I cannot abide: Hilary Mantel, Salman Rushdie, Martin Amis.
I really didn't see why people gushed over Wolf Hall. Many more in the genre that were better.
He's a fecking politician, you moron. Jeez. He is meant to lead. To be seen, out and about, despite all our horrors. Like Churchill visiting bomb sites.
If he didn't do this, this person would be jumping on him, saying he's hiding away. Ludicrous.
He's not like Churchill visiting bomb sites or anywhere else.
You seemed to have somewhat changed your mind, Stocky -- recalling an earlier conversation.
No vaccine certificate -- no travel, no theatre, no gigs, no restaurant meals, no schools for your children. Perfectly fair.
The upside is no skiing.
One inevitably develops a mental picture of other posters, and I accept this could well be way off the mark.
I drew my conclusions because of the general tone of your comments. For example, the comment I responded to said, re young people:-
"So, they not going to listen to Hancock blathering on about "Save Grandpa". After all, what did Gramps ever do for them? He is a greedy, selfish man who denied the benefits he received to younger people."
That speaks to me of an angry and bitter individual. The issue has never been simply one of saving old people. If that had been the case it would have made far more sense to completely lock down the over 70s and let everyone else carry on as normal.
If some young people can't see beyond the ends of their noses and think their right to party trumps everything else then so be it but then it's no good whining about the consequences in years to come.
It isn;t about the right to party.
Its about the right to a decent, uninterrupted education. The right to mind broadening travel. The right to play team sport. The right to access mind broadening culture like film and theatre. The right to exchange ideas with other young people. The right to work. The right to protest in groups. The right not to be overburdened by crushing debt and deficit. The right to good mental health.
Young people have been stripped of all of these fundamental rights. The main aim has been to protect a cohort of people who have already lived a far longer and far better life than any generation in history. Ever. Some of these people do not even want this protection.
We have all been robbed of things, we are in the middle of a worldwide pandemic. Grow up
We have all lost things, sure
The point I am trying to make is that -- because of the age profile of serious victims of the disease -- the sacrifice has been mainly for the benefit of the old.
And that is only OK if it starts a rebalancing of the intergenerational unfairness of our politics.
The young deserve to be rewarded for their sacrifice.
I would respectfully suggest that a 45 year old with a family who has lost a job has suffered more than the youngsters you describe, as have all the medical staff that have died of the disease.
Everyone is suffering disruption to their lives to a greater or lesser extent and in different ways and we are all going to be paying for it for many years.
If it was simply about protecting the elderly the government could have legislated to keep them completely locked-down and let everyone else get on with it. However that is only a part of the problem which is precisely why no government I can see anywhere has gone up that route. There are no easy solutions to dealing with a pandemic.
I am no supporter of this Government but it seems to me that they are already compensating those who are suffering most as best they can with the furlough scheme and other initiatives.
I simply don't buy the notion that is all about the young making huge sacrifices for the old. It's just sowing division
Absolutely. And how does “it’s all for the old” square with most of those in London’s overloaded ICUs being under 60, with 90% of them having been at work beforehand?
This would be a way of squaring it, if it were true. I don't know if it is or not
"Those aged over 80, and some in younger groups such as the over 60s, were not given potentially life-saving treatment because health chiefs were concerned the NHS would be overrun, according to reports.
It is claimed documents called a 'triage tool', drawn up at the request of England's chief medical officer Chris Whitty, were used in preventing elderly Covid-19 patients from receiving ventilation in intensive care.
As part of an investigation, the Sunday Times says the tool was used to create a 'score' for patients based on their age, frailty, and illness. Under the original system, over 80s were automatically excluded from intensive care treatment due to their age. Even those in the over 60s who were considered frail and with pre-existing health conditions could have been over the intensive care threshold...
...It also cites data, which shows the over 70s and 80s groups made up the smallest percentage of ICU patients, despite having the highest number of deaths."
I did notice that there was a disjoint between the ages in hospital and the ages in ICU and wondered if there was something like that going on.
It would significantly increase the death rate of the eldest in comparison.
The thing is - the younger a patient is, the better their chances of responding to medical help, especially with covid, so if they do have to triage, I would expect it to go like that. It’s horrific, and I’d also expect some mental health retirements from the NHS when all this is over from doctors and nurses who can no longer face working on.
Let the old die - ie the over 80s. If it is to save the young, it is worth it.
Brutal but true. If you've made it to 80 you've had a good long life, more than your three score years and ten. You should give up the ghost for the next generation.
That is where we are. Let us face it squarely. Moreover, both my parents, over 80, agree. If that is the choice, it must be made. Just make sure the end is pain-free. Bring out the morphine, cognac, cocaine and Xanax. Bring out the Brompton
Did your father give up his Covid shot to allow a younger, more deserving person to be protected?
If you are referring to his second jab, No, but he - literally - wanted to give it up. He is still very sharp and he read the science. He was aware the first jab gave him considerable protection anyway. Also his wife, my stepmother, is immuno-compromised, for various reasons, and he didn't want her taking him to hospital for the 2nd jab, and thereby taking major risks. He is, moreover, prepared to yield to younger people - behind him in the queue - who have a greater claim to be protected for the future of the country
I admire his attitude, it's one of the noblest things he's done in a not-always-noble-life, but the NHS insisted his jab would go to waste if he didn't attend and get it, so he did.
It is good that @Philip_Thompson acknowledges there is a price to pay - maybe a significant one - for Brexit.
The problem, as many have pointed out, is the government never have.
They have effectively spent four years “gaslighting” the electorate, supported by a baying chorus of right-wing media.
Of course, we know why they did it. Brexit would not have passed had the truth been told. Boris would not be PM. The Tories might not be in government.
One possible positive of having Brexited is that it should be “safer”, ie politically less costly, to just tell the truth about Brexit.
But I am not holding my breath.
The government literally published ONS reports saying that GDP would be lower outside the SM and CU than if we had Remained. But said we should do that anyway.
The government's own ONS reports were quoted here ad nauseum and elsewhere as evidence against and a reason to vote for another party.
The public chose not to do so.
At what point can we just say the public have settled on this matter and we should roll the dice and get on with it?
He's a fecking politician, you moron. Jeez. He is meant to lead. To be seen, out and about, despite all our horrors. Like Churchill visiting bomb sites.
If he didn't do this, this person would be jumping on him, saying he's hiding away. Ludicrous.
I was pondering something similar earlier. The press today say "letting us celebrate Christmas was wrong as the infections have risen as a result". But I have no doubt that if Christmas was cancelled the very same press would be saying something like "cases didn't rise, you didn't need to cancel Christmas". You just can't win when your opponent is not consistent themselves.
Well, indeed. The press have consistently argued the opposite position on anything for seemingly the only reason that they can do "journalism" is to ask the contrary question.
Government tightens restrictions, press asks why they're not being relaxed. Government loosens restrictions, press asks why they're not being tightened.
Other than perfecting the art of squeezing in a safe two for one on their daily briefing question opportunities by merely just talking for an age before getting to the point (and sometimes pushing the boundary for 3 or 4 or one epic Sam Coates run when he managed to squeeze in a 5th all in one go) the press have been largely hopeless.
I doubt nowhere has this been more evident than in the Scottish Government daily briefings, where despite Sturgeon doing about a million of them now and the same half dozen or so folk getting a question every day most of them have been completely scream-at-the-TV-why-the-fuck-are-you-asking-that shit.
So, if you're an average white American man, just fuck off. And if you're an average white American woman, you can also fuck off, just not quite as much
Superb. So healing, Well done, Sleepy Joe Biden
I am not American so far be it from me to take an opinion on these matters.
However, as a “working class” white boy - at least by birth - it *does* annoy me to see this messaging from the Dems.
I really don’t understand why the Dems must penalise poor whites to benefit poor blacks.
Hits them where it hurts, but not good if the money men have such power over officials in the first place of course.
With a 6-3 Supreme Court that is not going to change anytime soon. Unless the court decides too much cash is going to the Democrats and money really isn’t speech, after all.
It is good that @Philip_Thompson acknowledges there is a price to pay - maybe a significant one - for Brexit.
The problem, as many have pointed out, is the government never have.
They have effectively spent four years “gaslighting” the electorate, supported by a baying chorus of right-wing media.
Of course, we know why they did it. Brexit would not have passed had the truth been told. Boris would not be PM. The Tories might not be in government.
One possible positive of having Brexited is that it should be “safer”, ie politically less costly, to just tell the truth about Brexit.
But I am not holding my breath.
As a matter of interest how do you expect to change brexit when the lib dems are the only party in England remotely interested
Starmer affirming yesteday he will not move to free movement confirms there is no going back
It's analagous to when politicians are criticised for visiting floodzones and the like. Do it, and people complain about it being for photo ops or they are getting in the way, don't do it and people are on the news all 'where is the PM?'
Not a perfect comparison of course, I can believe Boris is going places he is not needed, but it really doesn't seem like a big deal, and he would be criticised no matter what. I'd focus more on his various communication screwups and u-turning.
Note also while visiting a vaccination centre HE TOOK HIS FUCKING MASK OFF
Clown
Do try to relax. All that screaming in impotent rage can't be good for you.
The young deserve to be rewarded for their sacrifice.
I would respectfully suggest that a 45 year old with a family who has lost a job has suffered more than the youngsters you describe, as have all the medical staff that have died of the disease.
Everyone is suffering disruption to their lives to a greater or lesser extent and in different ways and we are all going to be paying for it for many years.
If it was simply about protecting the elderly the government could have legislated to keep them completely locked-down and let everyone else get on with it. However that is only a part of the problem which is precisely why no government I can see anywhere has gone up that route. There are no easy solutions to dealing with a pandemic.
I am no supporter of this Government but it seems to me that they are already compensating those who are suffering most as best they can with the furlough scheme and other initiatives.
I simply don't buy the notion that is all about the young making huge sacrifices for the old. It's just sowing division
Absolutely. And how does “it’s all for the old” square with most of those in London’s overloaded ICUs being under 60, with 90% of them having been at work beforehand?
The most recent data on hospital admissions are here
The graph on hospital admissions clearly shows that there are very, very few hospital admissions with age < 44.
There are some admissions between 45-64.
But, then the admissions really start to rocket as we go from 65-74; they rocket further from 75-84 and they are in the stratosphere at 85 and over.
It seems a fair summary of the data that very, very few people under the age of 44 require hospital treatment.
Although "rate per 100,000" is EXTREMELY misleading. Because there are a lot more 45 to 64 year olds than there are 85+ year olds.
In other words, that ONS data is entirely consistent with half the people in ICUs being below the age of 70.
What is the median and interquartile range of the age of people on ICUs?
For the second wave median age is 62 and 2/3 under seventy. There is no absolute bar to older folk being on ICU if likely to benefit. This is the age distribution, data from the weekly reports of the Intensive care society.
Thanks. So just using the histogram, the percentage of hospital admissions under 40 is 1.1 + 1.3 + 2.4 + 3.2 = 8 per cent.
The IQR is 50-79 (I haven't done it accurately because of the binned data). The median is 62.
Perhaps it is fair to say that this is a disease of the elderly AND the late middle-aged.
Nonetheless, my point remains that the young have paid a high price for a disease that leaves them largely unaffected
I think they should be rewarded.
The low risks for under 50s imply that lockdown should end forever the moment the priority groups are immunised.
Boris’s cycling, and westward ho-ing, are irrelevant.
What is relevant is why he prevaricated over setting a stricter tier in November, went ahead with the Christmas “hall pass”, and by all accounts decided to wait for near Armageddon until our current, inevitable lockdown.
He has many deaths on his hands.
How about us in Wales then, which Boris has nothing to do with , are you saying the same about Drakeford
As far as I can tell, yes. Drakeford appears to be a buffoon.
There seems to be a lot of going around in circles here with people trying to convince me that there is a price to be paid for leaving the SM and CU, but I don't deny that - and that argument was made repeatedly in both referendums. People chose to pay the price. That is democracy.
"I would like to have the steak please"
"It costs £35"
"That is OK, I will have the steak"
"Are you sure? £35 is a lot to pay for once meal"
"Yes please, the steak. Medium rare."
"I don't think you understand, you could go shopping and get something cheaper"
"The steak please"
"But the price is £35"
"The steak please"
"Why don't you accept that the steak costs £35"
"I do. The steak please. Medium rare".
"Experts say that £35 is a lot, you could eat cheaper elsewhere".
"I have made my decision, steak please. I am prepared to pay £35 for it"
"Why do you know more than the experts? Why do you insist it doesn't cost £35?"
"I don't. I'm prepared to pay £35 for the steak"
"Who knows better, the people who printed the menu or you? They say it is £35 for one steak"
"I get that. I want the steak"
"What is your expertise on steak prices? Why won't you accept this steak will cost you £35"
"I do. I already spoke to the waiter and ordered it, I saw the menu when I did."
"Look at that, now the steak has arrived. Are you happy now, that is going to cost £35. Why didn't you think about that?"
Yet no one except for you is talking about prices.
We are talking about paperwork and the impact that paperwork is having on sales, exports and logistics.
It is a metaphor.
That paperwork is the price to be paid. It was argued clearly and unequivocally by Remainers throughout 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019.
The voters made their choice though. They chose to proceed anyway.
You are as glib about casting other people’s livelihoods into the bin as you so often are about their votes.
The young deserve to be rewarded for their sacrifice.
I would respectfully suggest that a 45 year old with a family who has lost a job has suffered more than the youngsters you describe, as have all the medical staff that have died of the disease.
Everyone is suffering disruption to their lives to a greater or lesser extent and in different ways and we are all going to be paying for it for many years.
If it was simply about protecting the elderly the government could have legislated to keep them completely locked-down and let everyone else get on with it. However that is only a part of the problem which is precisely why no government I can see anywhere has gone up that route. There are no easy solutions to dealing with a pandemic.
I am no supporter of this Government but it seems to me that they are already compensating those who are suffering most as best they can with the furlough scheme and other initiatives.
I simply don't buy the notion that is all about the young making huge sacrifices for the old. It's just sowing division
Absolutely. And how does “it’s all for the old” square with most of those in London’s overloaded ICUs being under 60, with 90% of them having been at work beforehand?
The most recent data on hospital admissions are here
The graph on hospital admissions clearly shows that there are very, very few hospital admissions with age < 44.
There are some admissions between 45-64.
But, then the admissions really start to rocket as we go from 65-74; they rocket further from 75-84 and they are in the stratosphere at 85 and over.
It seems a fair summary of the data that very, very few people under the age of 44 require hospital treatment.
Although "rate per 100,000" is EXTREMELY misleading. Because there are a lot more 45 to 64 year olds than there are 85+ year olds.
In other words, that ONS data is entirely consistent with half the people in ICUs being below the age of 70.
What is the median and interquartile range of the age of people on ICUs?
For the second wave median age is 62 and 2/3 under seventy. There is no absolute bar to older folk being on ICU if likely to benefit. This is the age distribution, data from the weekly reports of the Intensive care society.
Thanks. So just using the histogram, the percentage of hospital admissions under 40 is 1.1 + 1.3 + 2.4 + 3.2 = 8 per cent.
The IQR is 50-79 (I haven't done it accurately because of the binned data). The median is 62.
Perhaps it is fair to say that this is a disease of the elderly AND the late middle-aged.
Nonetheless, my point remains that the young have paid a high price for a disease that leaves them largely unaffected
I think they should be rewarded.
The low risks for under 50s imply that lockdown should end forever the moment the priority groups are immunised.
Do PBers think it will?
If ... if ... I am understanding the data right, then a lockdown seems hard to justify once everyone 50+ is jabbed.
1. Norman Lewis - Jackdaw Cake (his autobiography) and Naples '44 (from his time as an Intelligence Officer in Naples in 1944) are superb but all his travel writing (which understates the quality of his writing) is magnificent.
2. William Trevor: "The Old Boys", "The Children of Dynmouth" and "Felicia's Journey" are 3 of his best novels. Also "Fools of Fortune". And he is the absolute master of the short story. Get his Collected Stories. Each of them a marvel. No-one writes about evil better or about sad, ordinary, half-fulfilled lives or pins down the absurdities and hypocrisies of every-day life. And he can be laugh-out loud funny too. Lots of his work has been made into films - especially by the BBC in the days when they did such things.
3. J G Farrell: "Troubles" is wonderful. But all three of his novels are good. He died in a fishing accident off the coast of Ireland much too young.
4. JG McGahern: "Amongst Women" and "That They May Face the Rising Sun" are both wonderful. Some of his earlier novels like "The Barracks" tell you all you need to know about the dark underbelly of Irish domestic life. His "Memoir" is a love letter to his mother. The contrast between the relationship he had with his mother who died too young and the brutality and callousness of his father is unbearable but so well written.
Present-day writers I cannot abide: Hilary Mantel, Salman Rushdie, Martin Amis.
Naples '44 is one of the best war memoirs ever written. I have heard J G Farrell is great, you might have suaded me to try him.
I cannot abide Hilary Mantel, too deliberately obtuse, but Martin Amis is a magnificent stylist. He's terrible at some dialogue and fairly awful at plotting, but he's one of those writers who can conjure and polish such amazing sentences, you forgive him.
He's also extremely funny. Alongside P G Wodehouse and Irvine Welsh (once) he's one of the few writers to make me laugh out loud, very hard. This is exceptionally rare
There seems to be a lot of going around in circles here with people trying to convince me that there is a price to be paid for leaving the SM and CU, but I don't deny that - and that argument was made repeatedly in both referendums. People chose to pay the price. That is democracy.
"I would like to have the steak please"
"It costs £35"
"That is OK, I will have the steak"
"Are you sure? £35 is a lot to pay for once meal"
"Yes please, the steak. Medium rare."
"I don't think you understand, you could go shopping and get something cheaper"
"The steak please"
"But the price is £35"
"The steak please"
"Why don't you accept that the steak costs £35"
"I do. The steak please. Medium rare".
"Experts say that £35 is a lot, you could eat cheaper elsewhere".
"I have made my decision, steak please. I am prepared to pay £35 for it"
"Why do you know more than the experts? Why do you insist it doesn't cost £35?"
"I don't. I'm prepared to pay £35 for the steak"
"Who knows better, the people who printed the menu or you? They say it is £35 for one steak"
"I get that. I want the steak"
"What is your expertise on steak prices? Why won't you accept this steak will cost you £35"
"I do. I already spoke to the waiter and ordered it, I saw the menu when I did."
"Look at that, now the steak has arrived. Are you happy now, that is going to cost £35. Why didn't you think about that?"
Yet no one except for you is talking about prices.
We are talking about paperwork and the impact that paperwork is having on sales, exports and logistics.
It is a metaphor.
That paperwork is the price to be paid. It was argued clearly and unequivocally by Remainers throughout 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019.
The voters made their choice though. They chose to proceed anyway.
You are as glib about casting other people’s livelihoods into the bin as you so often are about their votes.
It is good that @Philip_Thompson acknowledges there is a price to pay - maybe a significant one - for Brexit.
The problem, as many have pointed out, is the government never have.
They have effectively spent four years “gaslighting” the electorate, supported by a baying chorus of right-wing media.
Of course, we know why they did it. Brexit would not have passed had the truth been told. Boris would not be PM. The Tories might not be in government.
One possible positive of having Brexited is that it should be “safer”, ie politically less costly, to just tell the truth about Brexit.
But I am not holding my breath.
The government literally published ONS reports saying that GDP would be lower outside the SM and CU than if we had Remained. But said we should do that anyway.
The government's own ONS reports were quoted here ad nauseum and elsewhere as evidence against and a reason to vote for another party.
The public chose not to do so.
At what point can we just say the public have settled on this matter and we should roll the dice and get on with it?
From memory the government tried to disown their own reports, and generally suppressed communications of such, like those sectoral impact reports David Davis was sitting on.
I agree, it is time to move on. But we must move on from delusions. We must be clear-eyed about our future.
He's a fecking politician, you moron. Jeez. He is meant to lead. To be seen, out and about, despite all our horrors. Like Churchill visiting bomb sites.
If he didn't do this, this person would be jumping on him, saying he's hiding away. Ludicrous.
I am not outraged by it. It's a judgment call, but if Johnson sees his "essential work" being messaging, I would call for "stay at home" being a more important message for him to give than " here I am, opening a vaccination centre in Bristol"
There seems to be a lot of going around in circles here with people trying to convince me that there is a price to be paid for leaving the SM and CU, but I don't deny that - and that argument was made repeatedly in both referendums. People chose to pay the price. That is democracy.
"I would like to have the steak please"
"It costs £35"
"That is OK, I will have the steak"
"Are you sure? £35 is a lot to pay for once meal"
"Yes please, the steak. Medium rare."
"I don't think you understand, you could go shopping and get something cheaper"
"The steak please"
"But the price is £35"
"The steak please"
"Why don't you accept that the steak costs £35"
"I do. The steak please. Medium rare".
"Experts say that £35 is a lot, you could eat cheaper elsewhere".
"I have made my decision, steak please. I am prepared to pay £35 for it"
"Why do you know more than the experts? Why do you insist it doesn't cost £35?"
"I don't. I'm prepared to pay £35 for the steak"
"Who knows better, the people who printed the menu or you? They say it is £35 for one steak"
"I get that. I want the steak"
"What is your expertise on steak prices? Why won't you accept this steak will cost you £35"
"I do. I already spoke to the waiter and ordered it, I saw the menu when I did."
"Look at that, now the steak has arrived. Are you happy now, that is going to cost £35. Why didn't you think about that?"
Yet no one except for you is talking about prices.
We are talking about paperwork and the impact that paperwork is having on sales, exports and logistics.
It is a metaphor.
That paperwork is the price to be paid. It was argued clearly and unequivocally by Remainers throughout 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019.
The voters made their choice though. They chose to proceed anyway.
You are as glib about casting other people’s livelihoods into the bin as you so often are about their votes.
Shit happens.
...
Democracy has winners and losers.
The prosecution rests.
As does the defence.
It won't impact me so I'm alright Jack isn't much of a defence
He's a fecking politician, you moron. Jeez. He is meant to lead. To be seen, out and about, despite all our horrors. Like Churchill visiting bomb sites.
If he didn't do this, this person would be jumping on him, saying he's hiding away. Ludicrous.
I am not outraged by it. It's a judgment call, but if Johnson sees his "essential work" being messaging, I would call for "stay at home" being a more important message for him to give than " here I am, opening a vaccination centre in Bristol"
But isn't getting vaccinated an equally important message?
1. Norman Lewis - Jackdaw Cake (his autobiography) and Naples '44 (from his time as an Intelligence Officer in Naples in 1944) are superb but all his travel writing (which understates the quality of his writing) is magnificent.
2. William Trevor: "The Old Boys", "The Children of Dynmouth" and "Felicia's Journey" are 3 of his best novels. Also "Fools of Fortune". And he is the absolute master of the short story. Get his Collected Stories. Each of them a marvel. No-one writes about evil better or about sad, ordinary, half-fulfilled lives or pins down the absurdities and hypocrisies of every-day life. And he can be laugh-out loud funny too. Lots of his work has been made into films - especially by the BBC in the days when they did such things.
3. J G Farrell: "Troubles" is wonderful. But all three of his novels are good. He died in a fishing accident off the coast of Ireland much too young.
4. JG McGahern: "Amongst Women" and "That They May Face the Rising Sun" are both wonderful. Some of his earlier novels like "The Barracks" tell you all you need to know about the dark underbelly of Irish domestic life. His "Memoir" is a love letter to his mother. The contrast between the relationship he had with his mother who died too young and the brutality and callousness of his father is unbearable but so well written.
Present-day writers I cannot abide: Hilary Mantel, Salman Rushdie, Martin Amis.
I wasn't aware Martin Amis had written anything post about 1990.
It is good that @Philip_Thompson acknowledges there is a price to pay - maybe a significant one - for Brexit.
The problem, as many have pointed out, is the government never have.
They have effectively spent four years “gaslighting” the electorate, supported by a baying chorus of right-wing media.
Of course, we know why they did it. Brexit would not have passed had the truth been told. Boris would not be PM. The Tories might not be in government.
One possible positive of having Brexited is that it should be “safer”, ie politically less costly, to just tell the truth about Brexit.
But I am not holding my breath.
As a matter of interest how do you expect to change brexit when the lib dems are the only party in England remotely interested
Starmer affirming yesteday he will not move to free movement confirms there is no going back
I didn’t mention changing Brexit in my post.
I am calling however for the government to be truth-tellers, so that we can figure out how we move forward.
You keep wanting to pick Brexity fights. It’s most odd.
It is good that @Philip_Thompson acknowledges there is a price to pay - maybe a significant one - for Brexit.
The problem, as many have pointed out, is the government never have.
They have effectively spent four years “gaslighting” the electorate, supported by a baying chorus of right-wing media.
Of course, we know why they did it. Brexit would not have passed had the truth been told. Boris would not be PM. The Tories might not be in government.
One possible positive of having Brexited is that it should be “safer”, ie politically less costly, to just tell the truth about Brexit.
But I am not holding my breath.
As a matter of interest how do you expect to change brexit when the lib dems are the only party in England remotely interested
Starmer affirming yesteday he will not move to free movement confirms there is no going back
I didn’t mention changing Brexit in my post.
I am calling however for the government to be truth-tellers, so that we can figure out how we move forward.
You keep wanting to pick Brexity fights. It’s most odd.
You dud notice the phrase “equal access” in there ?
His priorities however specifically excluded white men and that was deliberate.
This is exactly what I feared would happen if the Democrats took control of Congress as well as the Presidency. Now they have complete power forget unity, Biden, Harris, Pelosi and Schumer are going to get their revenge on Trump and his supporters, first by impeaching and removing the President and then by running a government specifically targeted to reduce the influence of white men in the US rather than providing equal opportunity for all regardless of race or gender.
There seems to be a lot of going around in circles here with people trying to convince me that there is a price to be paid for leaving the SM and CU, but I don't deny that - and that argument was made repeatedly in both referendums. People chose to pay the price. That is democracy.
"I would like to have the steak please"
"It costs £35"
"That is OK, I will have the steak"
"Are you sure? £35 is a lot to pay for once meal"
"Yes please, the steak. Medium rare."
"I don't think you understand, you could go shopping and get something cheaper"
"The steak please"
"But the price is £35"
"The steak please"
"Why don't you accept that the steak costs £35"
"I do. The steak please. Medium rare".
"Experts say that £35 is a lot, you could eat cheaper elsewhere".
"I have made my decision, steak please. I am prepared to pay £35 for it"
"Why do you know more than the experts? Why do you insist it doesn't cost £35?"
"I don't. I'm prepared to pay £35 for the steak"
"Who knows better, the people who printed the menu or you? They say it is £35 for one steak"
"I get that. I want the steak"
"What is your expertise on steak prices? Why won't you accept this steak will cost you £35"
"I do. I already spoke to the waiter and ordered it, I saw the menu when I did."
"Look at that, now the steak has arrived. Are you happy now, that is going to cost £35. Why didn't you think about that?"
Yet no one except for you is talking about prices.
We are talking about paperwork and the impact that paperwork is having on sales, exports and logistics.
And besides which, people were promised a free steak. Now they find that free is £35, and the steak is actually a dog poo.
But people voted for a £35 dog poo. They knew it was a £35 dog poo. So they can bloody well eat it and stop remoaning.
You are an unbearable hypocrite. You voted Leave, as did Phillip. I don’t agree with your vote but at least Phillip has the courage of his convictions.
I voted to leave the EU. The question on the ballot paper. I didn't vote to leave the EEA - not on the ballot paper - or the CU - not on the ballot paper. I was one of the people gaslit - my vote was was in error.
Had we - as Nigel Farage himself suggested - followed a Norway exit, we wouldn't be knee deep in dog poo steak dinners.
Sometimes it is the duty of elected representatives to defend their constituents against threats to their well being. Even when that threat is something they have voted for based on lies you have told them.
Philip's "you voted for it even though we lied to you even though it will do you harm" attitude reminds me of the South park episode "Human CentiPad" where Apple keep turning up to do all kind of horrible things to the boys, claiming "you gave your permission" because the right to surgically attach Kyle to an iPad was in the EULA he accepted.
Leaving the Single Market and Customs Union wasn't buried at the bottom of the EULA. It was literally front and centre of the 2016 and 2019 elections.
Can you not see the difference there? Are elected representatives supposed to upend what they promised not once but repeatedly? Why? Why did they promise to leave both in 2016 and 2019 then? 🤔
Indeed. Its not like any politician has ever u-turned on manifesto pledges so such a thing would be as unthinkable as a government promoting legislation to overturn the key parts of the deal it signed as the key part of its manifesto...
Its a waste of time debating this with you. Either Make UK knows more about manufacturing or you do.
Spoiler alert - its not you.
What @Philip_Thompson chooses to avoid is that pro-Brexit politicians repeatedly lied about what the consequences of leaving the SM and the CU were. They lied - specifically the PM - about what the WA and the final trade deal meant for Northern Ireland. They lied about the paperwork, the costs and the NTBs which have resulted and what this means for businesses and consumers here and elsewhere. And they did so after all the votes which took place and are still doing so now by claiming that everyone knew in advance (they didn't) and/or that it is the fault of business that they didn't prepare to implement rules of which they had 6 days notice.
The young deserve to be rewarded for their sacrifice.
I would respectfully suggest that a 45 year old with a family who has lost a job has suffered more than the youngsters you describe, as have all the medical staff that have died of the disease.
Everyone is suffering disruption to their lives to a greater or lesser extent and in different ways and we are all going to be paying for it for many years.
If it was simply about protecting the elderly the government could have legislated to keep them completely locked-down and let everyone else get on with it. However that is only a part of the problem which is precisely why no government I can see anywhere has gone up that route. There are no easy solutions to dealing with a pandemic.
I am no supporter of this Government but it seems to me that they are already compensating those who are suffering most as best they can with the furlough scheme and other initiatives.
I simply don't buy the notion that is all about the young making huge sacrifices for the old. It's just sowing division
Absolutely. And how does “it’s all for the old” square with most of those in London’s overloaded ICUs being under 60, with 90% of them having been at work beforehand?
The most recent data on hospital admissions are here
The graph on hospital admissions clearly shows that there are very, very few hospital admissions with age < 44.
There are some admissions between 45-64.
But, then the admissions really start to rocket as we go from 65-74; they rocket further from 75-84 and they are in the stratosphere at 85 and over.
It seems a fair summary of the data that very, very few people under the age of 44 require hospital treatment.
Although "rate per 100,000" is EXTREMELY misleading. Because there are a lot more 45 to 64 year olds than there are 85+ year olds.
In other words, that ONS data is entirely consistent with half the people in ICUs being below the age of 70.
What is the median and interquartile range of the age of people on ICUs?
For the second wave median age is 62 and 2/3 under seventy. There is no absolute bar to older folk being on ICU if likely to benefit. This is the age distribution, data from the weekly reports of the Intensive care society.
Thanks. So just using the histogram, the percentage of hospital admissions under 40 is 1.1 + 1.3 + 2.4 + 3.2 = 8 per cent.
The IQR is 50-79 (I haven't done it accurately because of the binned data). The median is 62.
Perhaps it is fair to say that this is a disease of the elderly AND the late middle-aged.
Nonetheless, my point remains that the young have paid a high price for a disease that leaves them largely unaffected
I think they should be rewarded.
No, that is ICU admissions, not all hospital admissions.
You dud notice the phrase “equal access” in there ?
People dont read the details anymore, trigger words set them off on rants and re-enforce the divide. The equal policy is good but the messaging was poor.
Sometimes it is the duty of elected representatives to defend their constituents against threats to their well being. Even when that threat is something they have voted for based on lies you have told them.
Philip's "you voted for it even though we lied to you even though it will do you harm" attitude reminds me of the South park episode "Human CentiPad" where Apple keep turning up to do all kind of horrible things to the boys, claiming "you gave your permission" because the right to surgically attach Kyle to an iPad was in the EULA he accepted.
Leaving the Single Market and Customs Union wasn't buried at the bottom of the EULA. It was literally front and centre of the 2016 and 2019 elections.
Can you not see the difference there? Are elected representatives supposed to upend what they promised not once but repeatedly? Why? Why did they promise to leave both in 2016 and 2019 then? 🤔
Indeed. Its not like any politician has ever u-turned on manifesto pledges so such a thing would be as unthinkable as a government promoting legislation to overturn the key parts of the deal it signed as the key part of its manifesto...
Its a waste of time debating this with you. Either Make UK knows more about manufacturing or you do.
Spoiler alert - its not you.
What @Philip_Thompson chooses to avoid is that pro-Brexit politicians repeatedly lied about what the consequences of leaving the SM and the CU were. They lied - specifically the PM - about what the WA and the final trade deal meant for Northern Ireland. They lied about the paperwork, the costs and the NTBs which have resulted and what this means for businesses and consumers here and elsewhere. And they did so after all the votes which took place and are still doing so now by claiming that everyone knew in advance (they didn't) and/or that it is the fault of business that they didn't prepare to implement rules of which they had 6 days notice.
They made an argument, other parties made counter arguments, the public gave them an 80 seat majority to get on with this. They're getting on with it.
Democracy doesn't end on the day of the election or a referendum. If a majority of the Commons wants to bring down Boris they can do so. If a majority of MPs are unhappy with what is happening, they can change course. And all MPs will be up for election no later than 2024 where they will have to answer to how they did or did not hold the government to account. It isn't just the government up for judgement at the election, it is every single MP too.
You dud notice the phrase “equal access” in there ?
His priorities however specifically excluded white men and that was deliberate.
This is exactly what I feared would happen if the Democrats took control of Congress as well as the Presidency. Now they have complete power forget unity, Biden, Pelosi and Schumer are going to get their revenge on Trump and his supporters, first by impeaching and removing the President and then by running a government specifically targeted to reduce the influence of white men in the US rather than providing equal opportunity for all regardless of race or gender.
How raging would you be as a white man having voted for Biden with one of those fantasy votes that you have?!
You dud notice the phrase “equal access” in there ?
People dont read the details anymore, trigger words set them off on rants and re-enforce the divide. The equal policy is good but the messaging was poor.
You dud notice the phrase “equal access” in there ?
People dont read the details anymore, trigger words set them off on rants and re-enforce the divide. The equal policy is good but the messaging was poor.
If it's equal access why is there any focus?
Because access is unequal currently.
So focus on fixing the inequalities. Focus on fixing the problems. Focus on addressing the cracks.
Sometimes it is the duty of elected representatives to defend their constituents against threats to their well being. Even when that threat is something they have voted for based on lies you have told them.
Philip's "you voted for it even though we lied to you even though it will do you harm" attitude reminds me of the South park episode "Human CentiPad" where Apple keep turning up to do all kind of horrible things to the boys, claiming "you gave your permission" because the right to surgically attach Kyle to an iPad was in the EULA he accepted.
Leaving the Single Market and Customs Union wasn't buried at the bottom of the EULA. It was literally front and centre of the 2016 and 2019 elections.
Can you not see the difference there? Are elected representatives supposed to upend what they promised not once but repeatedly? Why? Why did they promise to leave both in 2016 and 2019 then? 🤔
Indeed. Its not like any politician has ever u-turned on manifesto pledges so such a thing would be as unthinkable as a government promoting legislation to overturn the key parts of the deal it signed as the key part of its manifesto...
Its a waste of time debating this with you. Either Make UK knows more about manufacturing or you do.
Spoiler alert - its not you.
What @Philip_Thompson chooses to avoid is that pro-Brexit politicians repeatedly lied about what the consequences of leaving the SM and the CU were. They lied - specifically the PM - about what the WA and the final trade deal meant for Northern Ireland. They lied about the paperwork, the costs and the NTBs which have resulted and what this means for businesses and consumers here and elsewhere. And they did so after all the votes which took place and are still doing so now by claiming that everyone knew in advance (they didn't) and/or that it is the fault of business that they didn't prepare to implement rules of which they had 6 days notice.
In some cases they are still claiming that black is white, witness Brandon Lewis claim there was no border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
“Who are you going to believe? Me, or your own lying eyes?”
You dud notice the phrase “equal access” in there ?
People dont read the details anymore, trigger words set them off on rants and re-enforce the divide. The equal policy is good but the messaging was poor.
If it's equal access why is there any focus?
Because it does not happen without focus! Something called race bias gets in the way of that, surprised you haven't heard of this concept.
You dud notice the phrase “equal access” in there ?
People dont read the details anymore, trigger words set them off on rants and re-enforce the divide. The equal policy is good but the messaging was poor.
Suggest you listen again. It may be that he actually stumbled - this is Biden after all - but the direct meaning of his speech was that they would prioritise non-white small business owners.
The young deserve to be rewarded for their sacrifice.
I would respectfully suggest that a 45 year old with a family who has lost a job has suffered more than the youngsters you describe, as have all the medical staff that have died of the disease.
Everyone is suffering disruption to their lives to a greater or lesser extent and in different ways and we are all going to be paying for it for many years.
If it was simply about protecting the elderly the government could have legislated to keep them completely locked-down and let everyone else get on with it. However that is only a part of the problem which is precisely why no government I can see anywhere has gone up that route. There are no easy solutions to dealing with a pandemic.
I am no supporter of this Government but it seems to me that they are already compensating those who are suffering most as best they can with the furlough scheme and other initiatives.
I simply don't buy the notion that is all about the young making huge sacrifices for the old. It's just sowing division
Absolutely. And how does “it’s all for the old” square with most of those in London’s overloaded ICUs being under 60, with 90% of them having been at work beforehand?
The most recent data on hospital admissions are here
The graph on hospital admissions clearly shows that there are very, very few hospital admissions with age < 44.
There are some admissions between 45-64.
But, then the admissions really start to rocket as we go from 65-74; they rocket further from 75-84 and they are in the stratosphere at 85 and over.
It seems a fair summary of the data that very, very few people under the age of 44 require hospital treatment.
Although "rate per 100,000" is EXTREMELY misleading. Because there are a lot more 45 to 64 year olds than there are 85+ year olds.
In other words, that ONS data is entirely consistent with half the people in ICUs being below the age of 70.
What is the median and interquartile range of the age of people on ICUs?
For the second wave median age is 62 and 2/3 under seventy. There is no absolute bar to older folk being on ICU if likely to benefit. This is the age distribution, data from the weekly reports of the Intensive care society.
Thanks. So just using the histogram, the percentage of hospital admissions under 40 is 1.1 + 1.3 + 2.4 + 3.2 = 8 per cent.
The IQR is 50-79 (I haven't done it accurately because of the binned data). The median is 62.
Perhaps it is fair to say that this is a disease of the elderly AND the late middle-aged.
Nonetheless, my point remains that the young have paid a high price for a disease that leaves them largely unaffected
I think they should be rewarded.
The low risks for under 50s imply that lockdown should end forever the moment the priority groups are immunised.
Do PBers think it will?
The shift is really below 40. There are as many 40-49 males alone as all males and female under 40.
8% (all under 40s) has 3 and a half doublings before overwhelming ICUs on their own.
20% (all under 50s) has under two and a half.
With no restrictions and, say, 50% herd immunity, one doubling would be about 5 days.
So if we dropped all restrictions at that point, under 50s would overwhelm the ICUs all on their own in 12 days. (Well, the infections to do that would take 12 days; it’d be three weeks before they were actually overwhelmed)
Under 40s would take a bit longer. About 18 days, translating to nearly a month.
There seems to be a lot of going around in circles here with people trying to convince me that there is a price to be paid for leaving the SM and CU, but I don't deny that - and that argument was made repeatedly in both referendums. People chose to pay the price. That is democracy.
"I would like to have the steak please"
"It costs £35"
"That is OK, I will have the steak"
"Are you sure? £35 is a lot to pay for once meal"
"Yes please, the steak. Medium rare."
"I don't think you understand, you could go shopping and get something cheaper"
"The steak please"
"But the price is £35"
"The steak please"
"Why don't you accept that the steak costs £35"
"I do. The steak please. Medium rare".
"Experts say that £35 is a lot, you could eat cheaper elsewhere".
"I have made my decision, steak please. I am prepared to pay £35 for it"
"Why do you know more than the experts? Why do you insist it doesn't cost £35?"
"I don't. I'm prepared to pay £35 for the steak"
"Who knows better, the people who printed the menu or you? They say it is £35 for one steak"
"I get that. I want the steak"
"What is your expertise on steak prices? Why won't you accept this steak will cost you £35"
"I do. I already spoke to the waiter and ordered it, I saw the menu when I did."
"Look at that, now the steak has arrived. Are you happy now, that is going to cost £35. Why didn't you think about that?"
Yet no one except for you is talking about prices.
We are talking about paperwork and the impact that paperwork is having on sales, exports and logistics.
And besides which, people were promised a free steak. Now they find that free is £35, and the steak is actually a dog poo.
But people voted for a £35 dog poo. They knew it was a £35 dog poo. So they can bloody well eat it and stop remoaning.
You are an unbearable hypocrite. You voted Leave, as did Phillip. I don’t agree with your vote but at least Phillip has the courage of his convictions.
I voted to leave the EU. The question on the ballot paper. I didn't vote to leave the EEA - not on the ballot paper - or the CU - not on the ballot paper. I was one of the people gaslit - my vote was was in error.
Had we - as Nigel Farage himself suggested - followed a Norway exit, we wouldn't be knee deep in dog poo steak dinners.
Well I've never been a fan of Nigel Farage and have always voted against him representing us at every opportunity. I'm glad he's no longer a politician.
But having said that if we'd gone for a Norway exit we would still be outside the Customs Union. So what would be actually different?
If the dog poo is due to the paperwork, but Norway has the paperwork too, but Norway is OK for you - then how do you square that circle?
You dud notice the phrase “equal access” in there ?
People dont read the details anymore, trigger words set them off on rants and re-enforce the divide. The equal policy is good but the messaging was poor.
If it's equal access why is there any focus?
Because it does not happen without focus! Something called race bias gets in the way of that, surprised you haven't heard of this concept.
I think it would have been much better had the tweet highlighted equal access, rather than saying one group is going to be prioritised over another.
The young deserve to be rewarded for their sacrifice.
I would respectfully suggest that a 45 year old with a family who has lost a job has suffered more than the youngsters you describe, as have all the medical staff that have died of the disease.
Everyone is suffering disruption to their lives to a greater or lesser extent and in different ways and we are all going to be paying for it for many years.
If it was simply about protecting the elderly the government could have legislated to keep them completely locked-down and let everyone else get on with it. However that is only a part of the problem which is precisely why no government I can see anywhere has gone up that route. There are no easy solutions to dealing with a pandemic.
I am no supporter of this Government but it seems to me that they are already compensating those who are suffering most as best they can with the furlough scheme and other initiatives.
I simply don't buy the notion that is all about the young making huge sacrifices for the old. It's just sowing division
Absolutely. And how does “it’s all for the old” square with most of those in London’s overloaded ICUs being under 60, with 90% of them having been at work beforehand?
The most recent data on hospital admissions are here
The graph on hospital admissions clearly shows that there are very, very few hospital admissions with age < 44.
There are some admissions between 45-64.
But, then the admissions really start to rocket as we go from 65-74; they rocket further from 75-84 and they are in the stratosphere at 85 and over.
It seems a fair summary of the data that very, very few people under the age of 44 require hospital treatment.
Although "rate per 100,000" is EXTREMELY misleading. Because there are a lot more 45 to 64 year olds than there are 85+ year olds.
In other words, that ONS data is entirely consistent with half the people in ICUs being below the age of 70.
What is the median and interquartile range of the age of people on ICUs?
For the second wave median age is 62 and 2/3 under seventy. There is no absolute bar to older folk being on ICU if likely to benefit. This is the age distribution, data from the weekly reports of the Intensive care society.
Thanks. So just using the histogram, the percentage of hospital admissions under 40 is 1.1 + 1.3 + 2.4 + 3.2 = 8 per cent.
The IQR is 50-79 (I haven't done it accurately because of the binned data). The median is 62.
Perhaps it is fair to say that this is a disease of the elderly AND the late middle-aged.
Nonetheless, my point remains that the young have paid a high price for a disease that leaves them largely unaffected
I think they should be rewarded.
The low risks for under 50s imply that lockdown should end forever the moment the priority groups are immunised.
Do PBers think it will?
If ... if ... I am understanding the data right, then a lockdown seems hard to justify once everyone 50+ is jabbed.
give it 2-3 weeks for immunity to properly sink in, but I firmly, firmly agree with that.
You dud notice the phrase “equal access” in there ?
People dont read the details anymore, trigger words set them off on rants and re-enforce the divide. The equal policy is good but the messaging was poor.
Suggest you listen again. It may be that he actually stumbled - this is Biden after all - but the direct meaning of his speech was that they would prioritise non-white small business owners.
No it wasn't. He's listing everyone that's struggling from blacks to "mom and pop"
1. Norman Lewis - Jackdaw Cake (his autobiography) and Naples '44 (from his time as an Intelligence Officer in Naples in 1944) are superb but all his travel writing (which understates the quality of his writing) is magnificent.
2. William Trevor: "The Old Boys", "The Children of Dynmouth" and "Felicia's Journey" are 3 of his best novels. Also "Fools of Fortune". And he is the absolute master of the short story. Get his Collected Stories. Each of them a marvel. No-one writes about evil better or about sad, ordinary, half-fulfilled lives or pins down the absurdities and hypocrisies of every-day life. And he can be laugh-out loud funny too. Lots of his work has been made into films - especially by the BBC in the days when they did such things.
3. J G Farrell: "Troubles" is wonderful. But all three of his novels are good. He died in a fishing accident off the coast of Ireland much too young.
4. JG McGahern: "Amongst Women" and "That They May Face the Rising Sun" are both wonderful. Some of his earlier novels like "The Barracks" tell you all you need to know about the dark underbelly of Irish domestic life. His "Memoir" is a love letter to his mother. The contrast between the relationship he had with his mother who died too young and the brutality and callousness of his father is unbearable but so well written.
Present-day writers I cannot abide: Hilary Mantel, Salman Rushdie, Martin Amis.
I wasn't aware Martin Amis had written anything post about 1990.
Well nothing good since probably London Fields - I had a signed copy of the Information from waterstones that I remember buying for about £2 less than 2 months after it had been released.
You dud notice the phrase “equal access” in there ?
People dont read the details anymore, trigger words set them off on rants and re-enforce the divide. The equal policy is good but the messaging was poor.
If it's equal access why is there any focus?
Because it does not happen without focus! Something called race bias gets in the way of that, surprised you haven't heard of this concept.
I think it would have been much better had the tweet highlighted equal access, rather than saying one group is going to be prioritised over another.
Agreed, it could have been phrased in a manner to say the same thing, but cause less division. Worth the Democrats being careful to do that where possible, even if the Republicans never cared about less division.
Comments
That paperwork is the price to be paid. It was argued clearly and unequivocally by Remainers throughout 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019.
The voters made their choice though. They chose to proceed anyway.
The infections chart is by percentage infected.
The hospitalisations chart is a completely different set of age ranges and presented by 100,000 in the population.
The deaths chart is the same set of age ranges as the hospitalisations, but in raw numbers.
It’s intuitive to compare them all at a glance and that’s completely misleading. Very poor presentation indeed.
If he didn't do this, this person would be jumping on him, saying he's hiding away. Ludicrous.
FFS
It seems treason has not prospered.
So if Trump is convicted and impeached Trumpism will likely still hold sway within the GOP for some time
https://twitter.com/Transition46/status/1348403213200990209?s=20
Civil war, or, at least, civil strife, is not inconceivable.
Like going to Bristol to say STAY AT HOME...
Not a perfect comparison of course, I can believe Boris is going places he is not needed, but it really doesn't seem like a big deal, and he would be criticised no matter what. I'd focus more on his various communication screwups and u-turning.
Instead it just sets up us vs them stuff. We prioritize this group over that group.
Is there an adviser who can say "Just don't" to Boris without him going into a strop?
Was there anything in his message today that couldn't have been delivered from Westminster?
If the message is really "Is your journey really necessary?", shouldn't he have done that?
What is Macron's figure? Merkel's? Von der Leyen's?
Clown
2016 campaign was complete utter jibberish. It left everyone more confused than at the start. You are lying when you try to make out it was informative.
When have merits of CU properly debated?
People didn’t know in 2016 they would end up in a worst place because it’s still not clear today! It will take years from here for many who voted leave to appreciate their mistake.
And you bang on about it being democracy, when it wasn’t democracy. 2016 was a campaign and vote that was utter mess. Brexiteers who cling to that vote don’t respect democracy, nor honest about what they rammed through on platform of lies.
the whole point of democracy is that 52% never trumps 48%, democracy is about tolerating minority views in the big decisions for a society going forwards. What happened in ‘75 and ‘16 is nearer fascism than democracy.
representative democracy is stronger than direct democracy because it allows for more efficient scrutiny by a sufficiently small number of people with time and skills, who have maturity of judgment and unbiased in opinion to go into forensic depth and come to a more enlightened conclusion on behalf of all people and points of view. key difference between direct and representative forms of democracy is representatives not simply to communicate the wishes of the electorate but to use their own judgment in the exercise of their powers, even if their views are not reflective of those of a majority of voters, but the voters can still remove them.
Like ‘75, ‘16 was bogus democracy masquerading as and usurping democracy.
Superb. So healing, Well done, Sleepy Joe Biden
Should add the same hospitalisation effect in Scotland, where the current wave of admissions starts from a higher baseline, albeit to a lesser extent than England (so far).
Nigel shoulda retired on a high.
But people voted for a £35 dog poo. They knew it was a £35 dog poo. So they can bloody well eat it and stop remoaning.
What is relevant is why he prevaricated over setting a stricter tier in November, went ahead with the Christmas “hall pass”, and by all accounts decided to wait for near Armageddon until our current, inevitable lockdown.
He has many deaths on his hands.
And you missed the fact that leaving the SM and CU was in the 2019 election manifesto too. Despite appealling for representative democracy, you entirely overlook the fact this was debated in 2019 (and before) and the voters chose to proceed in 2019 on this manifesto.
That has been implemented. The likes of RP and yourself and anyone else opposed to leaving the SM and CU had a choice to say so prior to December 2019. The voters either disagreed with you or didn't care, they made their choice "the bastards" and now in 2024 they get a chance to vote again. The government is doing no more and no less on Brexit than exactly what they said they would do before the election.
1. Norman Lewis - Jackdaw Cake (his autobiography) and Naples '44 (from his time as an Intelligence Officer in Naples in 1944) are superb but all his travel writing (which understates the quality of his writing) is magnificent.
2. William Trevor: "The Old Boys", "The Children of Dynmouth" and "Felicia's Journey" are 3 of his best novels. Also "Fools of Fortune". And he is the absolute master of the short story. Get his Collected Stories. Each of them a marvel. No-one writes about evil better or about sad, ordinary, half-fulfilled lives or pins down the absurdities and hypocrisies of every-day life. And he can be laugh-out loud funny too. Lots of his work has been made into films - especially by the BBC in the days when they did such things.
3. J G Farrell: "Troubles" is wonderful. But all three of his novels are good. He died in a fishing accident off the coast of Ireland much too young.
4. JG McGahern: "Amongst Women" and "That They May Face the Rising Sun" are both wonderful. Some of his earlier novels like "The Barracks" tell you all you need to know about the dark underbelly of Irish domestic life. His "Memoir" is a love letter to his mother. The contrast between the relationship he had with his mother who died too young and the brutality and callousness of his father is unbearable but so well written.
Present-day writers I cannot abide: Hilary Mantel, Salman Rushdie, Martin Amis.
In 2024 people get to vote again. If Labour want to promise to restore SM and CU membership (or even full sugar EU membership) and wins a majority on that platform then that will be democracy too.
Democracy has winners and losers.
The IQR is 50-79 (I haven't done it accurately because of the binned data). The median is 62.
Perhaps it is fair to say that this is a disease of the elderly AND the late middle-aged.
Nonetheless, my point remains that the young have paid a high price for a disease that leaves them largely unaffected
I think they should be rewarded.
The problem, as many have pointed out, is the government never have.
They have effectively spent four years “gaslighting” the electorate, supported by a baying chorus of right-wing media.
Of course, we know why they did it.
Brexit would not have passed had the truth been told. Boris would not be PM. The Tories might not be in government.
One possible positive of having Brexited is that it should be “safer”, ie politically less costly, to just tell the truth about Brexit.
But I am not holding my breath.
I admire his attitude, it's one of the noblest things he's done in a not-always-noble-life, but the NHS insisted his jab would go to waste if he didn't attend and get it, so he did.
The government's own ONS reports were quoted here ad nauseum and elsewhere as evidence against and a reason to vote for another party.
The public chose not to do so.
At what point can we just say the public have settled on this matter and we should roll the dice and get on with it?
Government tightens restrictions, press asks why they're not being relaxed.
Government loosens restrictions, press asks why they're not being tightened.
Other than perfecting the art of squeezing in a safe two for one on their daily briefing question opportunities by merely just talking for an age before getting to the point (and sometimes pushing the boundary for 3 or 4 or one epic Sam Coates run when he managed to squeeze in a 5th all in one go) the press have been largely hopeless.
I doubt nowhere has this been more evident than in the Scottish Government daily briefings, where despite Sturgeon doing about a million of them now and the same half dozen or so folk getting a question every day most of them have been completely scream-at-the-TV-why-the-fuck-are-you-asking-that shit.
On the radio news earlier Labours response to some Covid news was to make sure the word ‘serious’ was mentioned a few times.
However, as a “working class” white boy - at least by birth - it *does* annoy me to see this messaging from the Dems.
I really don’t understand why the Dems must penalise poor whites to benefit poor blacks.
Unless the court decides too much cash is going to the Democrats and money really isn’t speech, after all.
Starmer affirming yesteday he will not move to free movement confirms there is no going back
Do PBers think it will?
Drakeford appears to be a buffoon.
Was Ed Conway unaware that we are in a pandemic? Has that shocked him? 🤔
I cannot abide Hilary Mantel, too deliberately obtuse, but Martin Amis is a magnificent stylist. He's terrible at some dialogue and fairly awful at plotting, but he's one of those writers who can conjure and polish such amazing sentences, you forgive him.
He's also extremely funny. Alongside P G Wodehouse and Irvine Welsh (once) he's one of the few writers to make me laugh out loud, very hard. This is exceptionally rare
I agree, it is time to move on. But we must move on from delusions. We must be clear-eyed about our future.
Yes you fucking would.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0La3aBSjvGY
I am calling however for the government to be truth-tellers, so that we can figure out how we move forward.
You keep wanting to pick Brexity fights. It’s most odd.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9133915/Woman-50-arrested-sitting-bench-Covid-conspiracy-theorist-anti-lockdown-protester.html?ito=amp_twitter_share-top
This is exactly what I feared would happen if the Democrats took control of Congress as well as the Presidency. Now they have complete power forget unity, Biden, Harris, Pelosi and Schumer are going to get their revenge on Trump and his supporters, first by impeaching and removing the President and then by running a government specifically targeted to reduce the influence of white men in the US rather than providing equal opportunity for all regardless of race or gender.
Had we - as Nigel Farage himself suggested - followed a Norway exit, we wouldn't be knee deep in dog poo steak dinners.
Democracy doesn't end on the day of the election or a referendum. If a majority of the Commons wants to bring down Boris they can do so. If a majority of MPs are unhappy with what is happening, they can change course. And all MPs will be up for election no later than 2024 where they will have to answer to how they did or did not hold the government to account. It isn't just the government up for judgement at the election, it is every single MP too.
So focus on fixing the inequalities. Focus on fixing the problems. Focus on addressing the cracks.
“Who are you going to believe? Me, or your own lying eyes?”
It may be that he actually stumbled - this is Biden after all - but the direct meaning of his speech was that they would prioritise non-white small business owners.
8% (all under 40s) has 3 and a half doublings before overwhelming ICUs on their own.
20% (all under 50s) has under two and a half.
With no restrictions and, say, 50% herd immunity, one doubling would be about 5 days.
So if we dropped all restrictions at that point, under 50s would overwhelm the ICUs all on their own in 12 days.
(Well, the infections to do that would take 12 days; it’d be three weeks before they were actually overwhelmed)
Under 40s would take a bit longer. About 18 days, translating to nearly a month.
But having said that if we'd gone for a Norway exit we would still be outside the Customs Union. So what would be actually different?
If the dog poo is due to the paperwork, but Norway has the paperwork too, but Norway is OK for you - then how do you square that circle?