Well done to all involved, though think the target for the next group should be earlier than end of April, mid April should be do-able if not earlier still.
I hope so though its worth noting the target keeps edging forwards which is refreshing, normally these things slip the other direction. Only a few days ago May was beaking spoken about.
Also worth noting that there will be increasing amounts of second doses due by the end of this month onwards. So keeping first doses going while not falling behind on second doses will require continued ramping up of capacity.
I'd like to see a target for all adults to be vaccinated. Be good to get that by July IMO. Definitely before the schools reopen.
The target for that is still autumn, again think we are clearly on track for before end of July on that (assuming first jabs count). Autumn covers 1 Sept to 21 Dec so the govt target doesnt tell us much. If its as seasonal as last year and the vulnerable are already vaccinated the exact pace in the summer hopefully might not actually matter much.
Sorry - autumn is 1/9 to 30/11. The use of equinoxes is madness.
How can they organize procurement of 100 millions of vaccine doses, help set up new manufacturing plants, oversee an impressive vaccine roll out, but not book a few hotel rooms?
We need to be careful with these tweets....we get these every week now, and most of the time it is only half the picture.
We had stories 3-4 weeks ago about half and 2/3 the amount to be delivered to particular areas, then when we actually get the numbers for those weeks across the whole country, it was all well up on previous weeks.
Maybe this week will be different, but it hasn't followed so far.
You can always tell when a cherished political betting shibboleth perishes. People start talking about anything but politics. Cricket. telly. Movies. Whatever.
Recently it was the wonderfulness of Britain being in the EU that was totally atomised.
Over the week-end, two more Politicalbetting totemic beliefs went the same way
The first is that the vaccine would set us free. The post vaccine lockdown world is manifestly being constructed as we speak.
The second cherished politicalbetting consensual belief that got destroyed was the notion that the entire government and SAGE do not want to keep us in lockdown a MINUTE longer than they have to. Look at the nice scientists calling for the cancellation of Cheltenham for ever. Oh dear.
Pubs opening by 21 June 2021. This morning, June 2022 looks closer.
Nope. The lockdown must end this spring.
But it manifestly is not going to. Not Spring. Not summer. Not ever.
Not until we decide it does.
Well there you go then. Your first para is instantly alleviated by the second.
It will end because the public's consent will stop at some point.
If you are still mad that there may be consent for longer than you or perhaps I would like, that's a separate point.
After all, if 'we' dont decide it should stop when you would like, will you still claim they will keep us in it forever? Even though it would be by consent?
Actually you are correct that was a silly post by me. We will one day get out of this. But I stand by my other points.
I think it's good to keep up pressure around lockdown just in case. I'm sanguine as it barely affects me, but it must be something done only in extremis.
In extremis is right. I, like Anabobazina, have come onboard purely because (to my surprise) vaccine have been developed very quickly. But the condition is that we face what risk remains, not continue to cower from ANY risk once the chance of an overwhelmed health service goes away.
We are in a war-like situation I guess - where the pause button on liberal democracy is pressed. "Short term only" is implicit.
I agree with this too. So long as the NHS is ok - a ramped up NHS if necessary - we have to get back to as near normal as possible again. Maybe keep some aspects of hygiene and distancing but only ones which don't get in the way of Life.
One caveat. This needs to be the last major lockdown so reopening should not be rushed into under pressure from Tory backbenchers. It's worth a few extra weeks to gain the extra confidence that, yes, "this will be the last time" and "it's all over now".
Credit to you for saying this ... you being of the left an all.
Hey lots of lefties are also libertarians! We are just a vastly under represented group in parliament and in the press.
By definition a leftwinger cannot be a libertarian as a libertarian wants as low tax and low public spending and limited regulation as possible.
Just the same as by definition a social conservative cannot be a libertarian either as a libertarian wants social liberalism and as little government interference in peoples' personal life as possible
You're thinking about Social Democrats rather than the Left per se. The revolutionary forefathers of the Left didn't have much time for tax as it was mainly levied by the barons on the peasants. It would have been the de Pfeffel Johnsons of yesteryear who were keen.
How can they organize procurement of 100 millions of vaccine doses, help set up new manufacturing plants, oversee an impressive vaccine roll out, but not book a few hotel rooms?
Because they didn't organise the procurement of vaccines - they delegated it to someone who could.....
Just to follow on with my VFX comment....the other thing about not having the VFX tech, it isn't just about little cute green babies and space men in shiny metal suits....What most people don't realise is large amounts of what we would think of as normal shots these days involve a lot of VFX work to adjust the scene, crop out / replace certain elements.
If you can do this really well, you won't even notice, and it is cheaper than having to find the perfect place to film (and spend ages converting it for your shot) or having to build a specialist set.
Again, Disney have this incredible virtual set, where they can film in a dome and you can't even tell the stuff in the background isn't real.
This is far cheaper than having to take your whole crew on location. Baby Yoda show in the past would have flown to a whole load of places around the world for all those shots by the sea, in the desert, now they just open up the dome and film.
The Disney virtual set is amazing, but the new one is incredible. It's why Sony just invested $250m in Epic to get access to Unreal Engine 5 for their virtual set technology on their backlot as well to licence a custom version to other studios who are using their CLED virtual sets.
It's this kind of stuff where the BBC used to be at the forefront of technology that they've just let others take the lead. The team at Sony who made it happen is all made up of ex-BBC people and now the licence income from virtual sets will go to a Japanese conglomerate instead of the BBC.
As time goes on the further behind the BBC falls.
They used to be technological leaders but they also used to lead on another metric - their content and back catalogue.
If you'd asked 20 years ago for the best prior British shows you'd have almost exclusively received a list of BBC shows: Fawlty Towers, Monty Python, Only Fools etc
But since the dawn of universal HDTVs the new content is increasingly not BBC. Any list of the best British dramas of the past decade would have to include shows like The Crown, Game of Thrones, Downton Abbey etc
People used to feel affectionate towards the BBC. I don't think many of my generation or younger do. The BBC is rapidly facing a day where even if it did open up its archive of old SD dramas it will be met with a grunt of indifference rather than affection.
Game of Thrones is not a British Drama. It's also a bit shit in my opinion but I recognise that's a minority view.
Largely british cast, a lot filmed in northern ireland....what makes it not british?
The fact it's not British? Harry Potter is the same, as is James Bond. These are big American studio productions. Nothing wrong with that, but we can't 'claim it' on the basis of the use of British talent. Hollywood has been borrowing class from British thespians since the ark.
Take out the British talent from GOT and you're left with little more than a few CGI dragons. It's as culturally British as warm beer, fagging, and the thwack of willow on leather.
It seems like some here really want it to be, certainly...
It is a famous fake documentary on medieval England, as Rudy Giuliani told us.
In fairness I think know the point he meant to say.
If it was that it was quite a shit one. Before I switched off a few Kings had already been offed. In medieval England, you didn't actually see many monarchs killing each other. Would have set a very dangerous precedent. Went through swathes of peasants though naturally...
There's definitely an awful lot of negative stories going round about the AZ vaccine, which don't necessarily match up to the findings of the official trials in many countries.
If I were a real cynic, I might suggest that the fact it costs $3, keeps in a fridge and is being produced on a non-profit basis might have a lot to do with it.
It's the winning vaccine, and all the losers are upset.
Also a group of embarrassed nations would rather spread muck about a cheap, reliable, easy to distribute vaccine that they didn't invest in soon enough so they're at the back of the queue for doses, rather than admit that maybe the screwed up the investment and procurement.
But I wouldn't call Pfizer etc losers either. They're going to make billions in sales and their technology will be adapted further in the future. The muck seems to be coming from those who should know better, rather than actually the rivals.
There's are genuine issues which some of us with a background in pharma, mathematics or medicine raised at the start. The clinical trial was messy, claims were made about the "serendipitous" half-dose quasi-trial which were quietly dropped, and the basic fact is that it is somewhat less effective than Pfizer's vaccine and the evidence for the elderly is less compelling so far. We've been inhibited in making a song and dance about it, since it's obviously far better than nothing, it seems to largely prevent serious illness (the current SA issues are all about not preventing mild illness) and it's readily available in Britain.
The fact that this has got conflated with vaccine nationalism, the EU failure to order anything sufficiently early and local pride (it's from Oxford so must be good...) and the media love of hyping/debunking is just irritating at best and dangerous at worst. We should admit that it's not perfect and other/later vaccines may be better, but for now it's pretty good at keeping us out of hospitals and morgues, and that's what we mostly care about. I'm glad I got a Pfizer jab but given an Oxford/nothing choice I'd have taken it in a heartbeat. I don't understand why South Africa has halted using it at all.
I also think there is a recognition that mRNA is the future of beating this and future pandemics though. AZ and Oxford have done a great job to produce a vaccine that can be easily transported and stored all over the world at $3 per dose and prevents severe symptoms, hospitalisation and death against all forms of the virus. Going forwards we will need to start looking at how we can beat it to the extent that future vaccines prevent people from getting it at all so they can't spread it and getting an large enough immune response to produce a lot of neutralising antibodies so people aren't infected. The government seems to have recognised this as well, hence the deal with CureVac for long term supply of mRNA vaccines to be produced domestically.
I think the issue is how to we get from here where we have got a medical and hospital emergency to a point where we are preventing people from getting it in the first place globally. That isn't an easy question to answer IMO, the US, UK and other developed countries will be fine, we have the means to subsidise development of these new generation of vaccines that will help us defeat it domestically. I don't know how the developing world deals with this though.
You can always tell when a cherished political betting shibboleth perishes. People start talking about anything but politics. Cricket. telly. Movies. Whatever.
Recently it was the wonderfulness of Britain being in the EU that was totally atomised.
Over the week-end, two more Politicalbetting totemic beliefs went the same way
The first is that the vaccine would set us free. The post vaccine lockdown world is manifestly being constructed as we speak.
The second cherished politicalbetting consensual belief that got destroyed was the notion that the entire government and SAGE do not want to keep us in lockdown a MINUTE longer than they have to. Look at the nice scientists calling for the cancellation of Cheltenham for ever. Oh dear.
Pubs opening by 21 June 2021. This morning, June 2022 looks closer.
Nope. The lockdown must end this spring.
But it manifestly is not going to. Not Spring. Not summer. Not ever.
Not until we decide it does.
Well there you go then. Your first para is instantly alleviated by the second.
It will end because the public's consent will stop at some point.
If you are still mad that there may be consent for longer than you or perhaps I would like, that's a separate point.
After all, if 'we' dont decide it should stop when you would like, will you still claim they will keep us in it forever? Even though it would be by consent?
Actually you are correct that was a silly post by me. We will one day get out of this. But I stand by my other points.
I think it's good to keep up pressure around lockdown just in case. I'm sanguine as it barely affects me, but it must be something done only in extremis.
In extremis is right. I, like Anabobazina, have come onboard purely because (to my surprise) vaccine have been developed very quickly. But the condition is that we face what risk remains, not continue to cower from ANY risk once the chance of an overwhelmed health service goes away.
We are in a war-like situation I guess - where the pause button on liberal democracy is pressed. "Short term only" is implicit.
I agree with this too. So long as the NHS is ok - a ramped up NHS if necessary - we have to get back to as near normal as possible again. Maybe keep some aspects of hygiene and distancing but only ones which don't get in the way of Life.
One caveat. This needs to be the last major lockdown so reopening should not be rushed into under pressure from Tory backbenchers. It's worth a few extra weeks to gain the extra confidence that, yes, "this will be the last time" and "it's all over now".
Credit to you for saying this ... you being of the left an all.
Hey lots of lefties are also libertarians! We are just a vastly under represented group in parliament and in the press.
By definition a leftwinger cannot be a libertarian as a libertarian wants as low tax and low public spending and limited regulation as possible.
Just the same as by definition a social conservative cannot be a libertarian either as a libertarian wants social liberalism and as little government interference in peoples' personal life as possible
You're thinking about Social Democrats rather than the Left per se. The revolutionary forefathers of the Left didn't have much time for tax as it was mainly levied by the barons on the peasants. It would have been the de Pfeffel Johnsons of yesteryear who were keen.
Hence why Robin Hood was against taxes not in favour of them.
Somewhere along the way the Left got terribly confused.
How can they organize procurement of 100 millions of vaccine doses, help set up new manufacturing plants, oversee an impressive vaccine roll out, but not book a few hotel rooms?
Because they didn't organise the procurement of vaccines - they delegated it to someone who could.....
Well I don't expect Boris to be on booking.com reserving rooms here either. It can't be that hard to find somebody with reasonable experience in travel industry to sort this out, it isn't like they are very busy at the moment otherwise.
Just to follow on with my VFX comment....the other thing about not having the VFX tech, it isn't just about little cute green babies and space men in shiny metal suits....What most people don't realise is large amounts of what we would think of as normal shots these days involve a lot of VFX work to adjust the scene, crop out / replace certain elements.
If you can do this really well, you won't even notice, and it is cheaper than having to find the perfect place to film (and spend ages converting it for your shot) or having to build a specialist set.
Again, Disney have this incredible virtual set, where they can film in a dome and you can't even tell the stuff in the background isn't real.
This is far cheaper than having to take your whole crew on location. Baby Yoda show in the past would have flown to a whole load of places around the world for all those shots by the sea, in the desert, now they just open up the dome and film.
The Disney virtual set is amazing, but the new one is incredible. It's why Sony just invested $250m in Epic to get access to Unreal Engine 5 for their virtual set technology on their backlot as well to licence a custom version to other studios who are using their CLED virtual sets.
It's this kind of stuff where the BBC used to be at the forefront of technology that they've just let others take the lead. The team at Sony who made it happen is all made up of ex-BBC people and now the licence income from virtual sets will go to a Japanese conglomerate instead of the BBC.
As time goes on the further behind the BBC falls.
They used to be technological leaders but they also used to lead on another metric - their content and back catalogue.
If you'd asked 20 years ago for the best prior British shows you'd have almost exclusively received a list of BBC shows: Fawlty Towers, Monty Python, Only Fools etc
But since the dawn of universal HDTVs the new content is increasingly not BBC. Any list of the best British dramas of the past decade would have to include shows like The Crown, Game of Thrones, Downton Abbey etc
People used to feel affectionate towards the BBC. I don't think many of my generation or younger do. The BBC is rapidly facing a day where even if it did open up its archive of old SD dramas it will be met with a grunt of indifference rather than affection.
Game of Thrones is not a British Drama. It's also a bit shit in my opinion but I recognise that's a minority view.
Largely british cast, a lot filmed in northern ireland....what makes it not british?
The fact it's not British? Harry Potter is the same, as is James Bond. These are big American studio productions. Nothing wrong with that, but we can't 'claim it' on the basis of the use of British talent. Hollywood has been borrowing class from British thespians since the ark.
Take out the British talent from GOT and you're left with little more than a few CGI dragons. It's as culturally British as warm beer, fagging, and the thwack of willow on leather.
It seems like some here really want it to be, certainly...
It is a famous fake documentary on medieval England, as Rudy Giuliani told us.
In fairness I think know the point he meant to say.
If it was that it was quite a shit one. Before I switched off a few Kings had already been offed. In medieval England, you didn't actually see many monarchs killing each other. Would have set a very dangerous precedent. Went through swathes of peasants though naturally...
You can always tell when a cherished political betting shibboleth perishes. People start talking about anything but politics. Cricket. telly. Movies. Whatever.
Recently it was the wonderfulness of Britain being in the EU that was totally atomised.
Over the week-end, two more Politicalbetting totemic beliefs went the same way
The first is that the vaccine would set us free. The post vaccine lockdown world is manifestly being constructed as we speak.
The second cherished politicalbetting consensual belief that got destroyed was the notion that the entire government and SAGE do not want to keep us in lockdown a MINUTE longer than they have to. Look at the nice scientists calling for the cancellation of Cheltenham for ever. Oh dear.
Pubs opening by 21 June 2021. This morning, June 2022 looks closer.
Nope. The lockdown must end this spring.
But it manifestly is not going to. Not Spring. Not summer. Not ever.
Not until we decide it does.
Well there you go then. Your first para is instantly alleviated by the second.
It will end because the public's consent will stop at some point.
If you are still mad that there may be consent for longer than you or perhaps I would like, that's a separate point.
After all, if 'we' dont decide it should stop when you would like, will you still claim they will keep us in it forever? Even though it would be by consent?
Actually you are correct that was a silly post by me. We will one day get out of this. But I stand by my other points.
I think it's good to keep up pressure around lockdown just in case. I'm sanguine as it barely affects me, but it must be something done only in extremis.
In extremis is right. I, like Anabobazina, have come onboard purely because (to my surprise) vaccine have been developed very quickly. But the condition is that we face what risk remains, not continue to cower from ANY risk once the chance of an overwhelmed health service goes away.
We are in a war-like situation I guess - where the pause button on liberal democracy is pressed. "Short term only" is implicit.
I agree with this too. So long as the NHS is ok - a ramped up NHS if necessary - we have to get back to as near normal as possible again. Maybe keep some aspects of hygiene and distancing but only ones which don't get in the way of Life.
One caveat. This needs to be the last major lockdown so reopening should not be rushed into under pressure from Tory backbenchers. It's worth a few extra weeks to gain the extra confidence that, yes, "this will be the last time" and "it's all over now".
Credit to you for saying this ... you being of the left an all.
Hey lots of lefties are also libertarians! We are just a vastly under represented group in parliament and in the press.
By definition a leftwinger cannot be a libertarian as a libertarian wants as low tax and low public spending and limited regulation as possible.
Just the same as by definition a social conservative cannot be a libertarian either as a libertarian wants social liberalism and as little government interference in peoples' personal life as possible
You're thinking about Social Democrats rather than the Left per se. The revolutionary forefathers of the Left didn't have much time for tax as it was mainly levied by the barons on the peasants. It would have been the de Pfeffel Johnsons of yesteryear who were keen.
Hence why Robin Hood was against taxes not in favour of them.
Somewhere along the way the Left got terribly confused.
You could argue that Robin Hood was for taxes levied by himself upon the rich
How can they organize procurement of 100 millions of vaccine doses, help set up new manufacturing plants, oversee an impressive vaccine roll out, but not book a few hotel rooms?
Because they didn't organise the procurement of vaccines - they delegated it to someone who could.....
Well I don't expect Boris to be on booking.com reserving rooms here either. It can't be that hard to find somebody with reasonable experience in travel industry to sort this out, it isn't like they are very busy at the moment otherwise.
This should have been planned months ago - and as the Aussies have found, its not easy to do well....
Just to follow on with my VFX comment....the other thing about not having the VFX tech, it isn't just about little cute green babies and space men in shiny metal suits....What most people don't realise is large amounts of what we would think of as normal shots these days involve a lot of VFX work to adjust the scene, crop out / replace certain elements.
If you can do this really well, you won't even notice, and it is cheaper than having to find the perfect place to film (and spend ages converting it for your shot) or having to build a specialist set.
Again, Disney have this incredible virtual set, where they can film in a dome and you can't even tell the stuff in the background isn't real.
This is far cheaper than having to take your whole crew on location. Baby Yoda show in the past would have flown to a whole load of places around the world for all those shots by the sea, in the desert, now they just open up the dome and film.
The Disney virtual set is amazing, but the new one is incredible. It's why Sony just invested $250m in Epic to get access to Unreal Engine 5 for their virtual set technology on their backlot as well to licence a custom version to other studios who are using their CLED virtual sets.
It's this kind of stuff where the BBC used to be at the forefront of technology that they've just let others take the lead. The team at Sony who made it happen is all made up of ex-BBC people and now the licence income from virtual sets will go to a Japanese conglomerate instead of the BBC.
As time goes on the further behind the BBC falls.
They used to be technological leaders but they also used to lead on another metric - their content and back catalogue.
If you'd asked 20 years ago for the best prior British shows you'd have almost exclusively received a list of BBC shows: Fawlty Towers, Monty Python, Only Fools etc
But since the dawn of universal HDTVs the new content is increasingly not BBC. Any list of the best British dramas of the past decade would have to include shows like The Crown, Game of Thrones, Downton Abbey etc
People used to feel affectionate towards the BBC. I don't think many of my generation or younger do. The BBC is rapidly facing a day where even if it did open up its archive of old SD dramas it will be met with a grunt of indifference rather than affection.
Game of Thrones is not a British Drama. It's also a bit shit in my opinion but I recognise that's a minority view.
Largely british cast, a lot filmed in northern ireland....what makes it not british?
The fact it's not British? Harry Potter is the same, as is James Bond. These are big American studio productions. Nothing wrong with that, but we can't 'claim it' on the basis of the use of British talent. Hollywood has been borrowing class from British thespians since the ark.
Take out the British talent from GOT and you're left with little more than a few CGI dragons. It's as culturally British as warm beer, fagging, and the thwack of willow on leather.
It seems like some here really want it to be, certainly...
It is a famous fake documentary on medieval England, as Rudy Giuliani told us.
In fairness I think know the point he meant to say.
If it was that it was quite a shit one. Before I switched off a few Kings had already been offed. In medieval England, you didn't actually see many monarchs killing each other. Would have set a very dangerous precedent. Went through swathes of peasants though naturally...
You can always tell when a cherished political betting shibboleth perishes. People start talking about anything but politics. Cricket. telly. Movies. Whatever.
Recently it was the wonderfulness of Britain being in the EU that was totally atomised.
Over the week-end, two more Politicalbetting totemic beliefs went the same way
The first is that the vaccine would set us free. The post vaccine lockdown world is manifestly being constructed as we speak.
The second cherished politicalbetting consensual belief that got destroyed was the notion that the entire government and SAGE do not want to keep us in lockdown a MINUTE longer than they have to. Look at the nice scientists calling for the cancellation of Cheltenham for ever. Oh dear.
Pubs opening by 21 June 2021. This morning, June 2022 looks closer.
Nope. The lockdown must end this spring.
But it manifestly is not going to. Not Spring. Not summer. Not ever.
Not until we decide it does.
Well there you go then. Your first para is instantly alleviated by the second.
It will end because the public's consent will stop at some point.
If you are still mad that there may be consent for longer than you or perhaps I would like, that's a separate point.
After all, if 'we' dont decide it should stop when you would like, will you still claim they will keep us in it forever? Even though it would be by consent?
Actually you are correct that was a silly post by me. We will one day get out of this. But I stand by my other points.
I think it's good to keep up pressure around lockdown just in case. I'm sanguine as it barely affects me, but it must be something done only in extremis.
In extremis is right. I, like Anabobazina, have come onboard purely because (to my surprise) vaccine have been developed very quickly. But the condition is that we face what risk remains, not continue to cower from ANY risk once the chance of an overwhelmed health service goes away.
We are in a war-like situation I guess - where the pause button on liberal democracy is pressed. "Short term only" is implicit.
I agree with this too. So long as the NHS is ok - a ramped up NHS if necessary - we have to get back to as near normal as possible again. Maybe keep some aspects of hygiene and distancing but only ones which don't get in the way of Life.
One caveat. This needs to be the last major lockdown so reopening should not be rushed into under pressure from Tory backbenchers. It's worth a few extra weeks to gain the extra confidence that, yes, "this will be the last time" and "it's all over now".
Credit to you for saying this ... you being of the left an all.
I am now craving the old world. It's all been fine - really no serious sacrifices here - but a kind of malaise has slowly crept up on me. I'm slightly surprised by it, in truth. A few weeks ago I was hunkered down quite happily and not really fretting.
It's remarkable how all these successive waves of psychological affect have kept sweeping the nation since the pandemic started, shifting people's moods en masse in one direction or another in not entirely rational ways. I suspect one may have behind my recent loss of temper on certain issues.
You have to blow off steam sometimes. With me, I think the cumulative effect of low level anxiety and digital only life over a long period has suddenly popped a synapse and I feel quite genuinely a bit disassociated from what used to be familiar and important. It's like I have a padded Michelin man suit on, plus glasses with the wrong prescription. Nothing terrible but definitely a touch of the old existential angst.
I know what you mean. You've also made me miss those crepes, which I first had back when I was literally in short trousers.
How can they organize procurement of 100 millions of vaccine doses, help set up new manufacturing plants, oversee an impressive vaccine roll out, but not book a few hotel rooms?
Because they didn't organise the procurement of vaccines - they delegated it to someone who could.....
Well I don't expect Boris to be on booking.com reserving rooms here either. It can't be that hard to find somebody with reasonable experience in travel industry to sort this out, it isn't like they are very busy at the moment otherwise.
This should have been planned months ago - and as the Aussies have found, its not easy to do well....
Well I don't disagree with that. I said on here a few days ago, I can't believe that at the very very least some civil servants hadn't been sent off to do a planning exercise relating to this months ago, even if they never wanted to have to use it.
Again, the UK government were pretty good at quickly doing deals with private hospitals for capacity back this time last year. You would think they could do similar for hotels, especially as they don't exactly have many guests at the moment.
I actually feel it is more the government (for whatever reason) just don't want to implement this policy.
You can always tell when a cherished political betting shibboleth perishes. People start talking about anything but politics. Cricket. telly. Movies. Whatever.
Recently it was the wonderfulness of Britain being in the EU that was totally atomised.
Over the week-end, two more Politicalbetting totemic beliefs went the same way
The first is that the vaccine would set us free. The post vaccine lockdown world is manifestly being constructed as we speak.
The second cherished politicalbetting consensual belief that got destroyed was the notion that the entire government and SAGE do not want to keep us in lockdown a MINUTE longer than they have to. Look at the nice scientists calling for the cancellation of Cheltenham for ever. Oh dear.
Pubs opening by 21 June 2021. This morning, June 2022 looks closer.
Nope. The lockdown must end this spring.
But it manifestly is not going to. Not Spring. Not summer. Not ever.
Not until we decide it does.
Well there you go then. Your first para is instantly alleviated by the second.
It will end because the public's consent will stop at some point.
If you are still mad that there may be consent for longer than you or perhaps I would like, that's a separate point.
After all, if 'we' dont decide it should stop when you would like, will you still claim they will keep us in it forever? Even though it would be by consent?
Actually you are correct that was a silly post by me. We will one day get out of this. But I stand by my other points.
I think it's good to keep up pressure around lockdown just in case. I'm sanguine as it barely affects me, but it must be something done only in extremis.
In extremis is right. I, like Anabobazina, have come onboard purely because (to my surprise) vaccine have been developed very quickly. But the condition is that we face what risk remains, not continue to cower from ANY risk once the chance of an overwhelmed health service goes away.
We are in a war-like situation I guess - where the pause button on liberal democracy is pressed. "Short term only" is implicit.
I agree with this too. So long as the NHS is ok - a ramped up NHS if necessary - we have to get back to as near normal as possible again. Maybe keep some aspects of hygiene and distancing but only ones which don't get in the way of Life.
One caveat. This needs to be the last major lockdown so reopening should not be rushed into under pressure from Tory backbenchers. It's worth a few extra weeks to gain the extra confidence that, yes, "this will be the last time" and "it's all over now".
Credit to you for saying this ... you being of the left an all.
Hey lots of lefties are also libertarians! We are just a vastly under represented group in parliament and in the press.
By definition a leftwinger cannot be a libertarian as a libertarian wants as low tax and low public spending and limited regulation as possible.
Just the same as by definition a social conservative cannot be a libertarian either as a libertarian wants social liberalism and as little government interference in peoples' personal life as possible
You're thinking about Social Democrats rather than the Left per se. The revolutionary forefathers of the Left didn't have much time for tax as it was mainly levied by the barons on the peasants. It would have been the de Pfeffel Johnsons of yesteryear who were keen.
The left by definition wants higher taxes and an expanded role for the state.
Those who in the past led the peasants revolt or the American colonists revolt and initially the French revolution for example were against the ancien regime and Feudal system, they were not really leftwing.
Indeed the libertarian, small state Tea Party grouping within the Republican Party were so named after the Boston Tea Party revolt against British rule and the tax on tea but are anything but leftwing
How can they organize procurement of 100 millions of vaccine doses, help set up new manufacturing plants, oversee an impressive vaccine roll out, but not book a few hotel rooms?
Just to follow on with my VFX comment....the other thing about not having the VFX tech, it isn't just about little cute green babies and space men in shiny metal suits....What most people don't realise is large amounts of what we would think of as normal shots these days involve a lot of VFX work to adjust the scene, crop out / replace certain elements.
If you can do this really well, you won't even notice, and it is cheaper than having to find the perfect place to film (and spend ages converting it for your shot) or having to build a specialist set.
Again, Disney have this incredible virtual set, where they can film in a dome and you can't even tell the stuff in the background isn't real.
This is far cheaper than having to take your whole crew on location. Baby Yoda show in the past would have flown to a whole load of places around the world for all those shots by the sea, in the desert, now they just open up the dome and film.
The Disney virtual set is amazing, but the new one is incredible. It's why Sony just invested $250m in Epic to get access to Unreal Engine 5 for their virtual set technology on their backlot as well to licence a custom version to other studios who are using their CLED virtual sets.
It's this kind of stuff where the BBC used to be at the forefront of technology that they've just let others take the lead. The team at Sony who made it happen is all made up of ex-BBC people and now the licence income from virtual sets will go to a Japanese conglomerate instead of the BBC.
As time goes on the further behind the BBC falls.
They used to be technological leaders but they also used to lead on another metric - their content and back catalogue.
If you'd asked 20 years ago for the best prior British shows you'd have almost exclusively received a list of BBC shows: Fawlty Towers, Monty Python, Only Fools etc
But since the dawn of universal HDTVs the new content is increasingly not BBC. Any list of the best British dramas of the past decade would have to include shows like The Crown, Game of Thrones, Downton Abbey etc
People used to feel affectionate towards the BBC. I don't think many of my generation or younger do. The BBC is rapidly facing a day where even if it did open up its archive of old SD dramas it will be met with a grunt of indifference rather than affection.
Game of Thrones is not a British Drama. It's also a bit shit in my opinion but I recognise that's a minority view.
Largely british cast, a lot filmed in northern ireland....what makes it not british?
The fact it's not British? Harry Potter is the same, as is James Bond. These are big American studio productions. Nothing wrong with that, but we can't 'claim it' on the basis of the use of British talent. Hollywood has been borrowing class from British thespians since the ark.
Take out the British talent from GOT and you're left with little more than a few CGI dragons. It's as culturally British as warm beer, fagging, and the thwack of willow on leather.
It seems like some here really want it to be, certainly...
It is a famous fake documentary on medieval England, as Rudy Giuliani told us.
In fairness I think know the point he meant to say.
If it was that it was quite a shit one. Before I switched off a few Kings had already been offed. In medieval England, you didn't actually see many monarchs killing each other. Would have set a very dangerous precedent. Went through swathes of peasants though naturally...
How can they organize procurement of 100 millions of vaccine doses, help set up new manufacturing plants, oversee an impressive vaccine roll out, but not book a few hotel rooms?
Great achievement as the vaccine procurement has been, it was done by getting someone capable in and giving them a remarkably blank cheque. The right thing to do, but you can't run all of government on that basis.
You can always tell when a cherished political betting shibboleth perishes. People start talking about anything but politics. Cricket. telly. Movies. Whatever.
Recently it was the wonderfulness of Britain being in the EU that was totally atomised.
Over the week-end, two more Politicalbetting totemic beliefs went the same way
The first is that the vaccine would set us free. The post vaccine lockdown world is manifestly being constructed as we speak.
The second cherished politicalbetting consensual belief that got destroyed was the notion that the entire government and SAGE do not want to keep us in lockdown a MINUTE longer than they have to. Look at the nice scientists calling for the cancellation of Cheltenham for ever. Oh dear.
Pubs opening by 21 June 2021. This morning, June 2022 looks closer.
Nope. The lockdown must end this spring.
But it manifestly is not going to. Not Spring. Not summer. Not ever.
Not until we decide it does.
Well there you go then. Your first para is instantly alleviated by the second.
It will end because the public's consent will stop at some point.
If you are still mad that there may be consent for longer than you or perhaps I would like, that's a separate point.
After all, if 'we' dont decide it should stop when you would like, will you still claim they will keep us in it forever? Even though it would be by consent?
Actually you are correct that was a silly post by me. We will one day get out of this. But I stand by my other points.
I think it's good to keep up pressure around lockdown just in case. I'm sanguine as it barely affects me, but it must be something done only in extremis.
In extremis is right. I, like Anabobazina, have come onboard purely because (to my surprise) vaccine have been developed very quickly. But the condition is that we face what risk remains, not continue to cower from ANY risk once the chance of an overwhelmed health service goes away.
We are in a war-like situation I guess - where the pause button on liberal democracy is pressed. "Short term only" is implicit.
I agree with this too. So long as the NHS is ok - a ramped up NHS if necessary - we have to get back to as near normal as possible again. Maybe keep some aspects of hygiene and distancing but only ones which don't get in the way of Life.
One caveat. This needs to be the last major lockdown so reopening should not be rushed into under pressure from Tory backbenchers. It's worth a few extra weeks to gain the extra confidence that, yes, "this will be the last time" and "it's all over now".
Credit to you for saying this ... you being of the left an all.
Hey lots of lefties are also libertarians! We are just a vastly under represented group in parliament and in the press.
By definition a leftwinger cannot be a libertarian as a libertarian wants as low tax and low public spending and limited regulation as possible.
Just the same as by definition a social conservative cannot be a libertarian either as a libertarian wants social liberalism and as little government interference in peoples' personal life as possible
Yes, I think I agree.
The Spiked journos, for instance, badge themselves as left-wing libertarians but I wouldn`t say they are left wing and I`m not convinced that they are full-on libertarians either. They are clearly strong liberals, fierce defenders of the working class and pretty much centre ground on the left-right thing.
Libertarians can`t be left wing because thinking about negative and positive conceptions of liberty libertarians only support the former whereas liberals are mad keen on both.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Not just dramas, but documentaries ; the BBC has incredible riches stored, because many of documentaries and dramas made by it between the mid-1960s and mid-1990s stand up with the very best in the world. It would cost the BBC nothing to more regularly screen some on these on BBC4 - if not on the supposedly more ambitious channel that is strapped for cash, then where ? Anyone could reasonably ask.
Yep, the archive is a genuine national treasure. If it isn't, nothing is. I do NOT want some "innovative" capitalist getting their hands on that, thank you very much.
Why? At least we might actually be able to see some of it.
Rather not see it than pay a grubby capitalist for the privilege. Also, the fact it is only dipped into every so often adds to the sense of occasion - and therefore value - when it happens. It brings a lump.
You'd rather pay a telly tax to not see products you've paid for, than have a subscription based BBC make it available to you to watch whenever you want?
You're stark raving bonkers.
You're bonkers wanting an atomized world where people are staring at their own bespoke digital reality the whole time. Wake up.
I've lived in an atomised world since I got my first modem. What we're discussing is how we'd make it a better quality one.
But you know what I mean. No sense of community or even of a shared set of basic facts and realities on which understanding can be built, debates can be had, choices and progress made. The post truth, atomized world. It's a massive problem and getting worse not better. Losing things like the BBC in favour of yet more 'money talks' media is exactly the wrong direction for us. Losing what little we have left of quality impartial media so that whinging precious "libertarians" who wouldn't know what genuine liberty meant if they fell over it can save a few quid and watch more Netflix and Youtube? Fuck off. I mean really, fuck right off. We need to promote the opposite.
The shared set of facts is sadly the most important contribution the BBC can make in the next couple of decades. Ridiculous that humankind has got here, but it is far too easy to live in a world where the news is a mix of what entertains us, drives emotions and what we want to it to be, rather than actual news. The BBC is an important defence against Trumpist false reality.
Therefore I'm happy to accept any pragmatic funding solution that can keep the BBC as an important part of UK society, whether its license fees, grants, advertising or subscriptions - whatever works and keeps the BBC at the centre of UK media.
Yep, this is the point I'm seeking to make. And it's also how I feel about the detail. I'm not wedded to precisely the status quo. For example, a smaller Beeb funded from taxation would be ok with me. Whatever. But we must NOT kill public service broadcasting and leave it 100% to the market just on the grounds of "Why should I pay for something I don't like or use?" I pay, directly or indirectly, for tons of things I don't personally like or use. And so I should. It's one of the key things which shapes a society out of a collection of individuals.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Not just dramas, but documentaries ; the BBC has incredible riches stored, because many of documentaries and dramas made by it between the mid-1960s and mid-1990s stand up with the very best in the world. It would cost the BBC nothing to more regularly screen some on these on BBC4 - if not on the supposedly more ambitious channel that is strapped for cash, then where ? Anyone could reasonably ask.
Yep, the archive is a genuine national treasure. If it isn't, nothing is. I do NOT want some "innovative" capitalist getting their hands on that, thank you very much.
Why? At least we might actually be able to see some of it.
Rather not see it than pay a grubby capitalist for the privilege. Also, the fact it is only dipped into every so often adds to the sense of occasion - and therefore value - when it happens. It brings a lump.
You'd rather pay a telly tax to not see products you've paid for, than have a subscription based BBC make it available to you to watch whenever you want?
You're stark raving bonkers.
You're bonkers wanting an atomized world where people are staring at their own bespoke digital reality the whole time. Wake up.
I've lived in an atomised world since I got my first modem. What we're discussing is how we'd make it a better quality one.
But you know what I mean. No sense of community or even of a shared set of basic facts and realities on which understanding can be built, debates can be had, choices and progress made. The post truth, atomized world. It's a massive problem and getting worse not better. Losing things like the BBC in favour of yet more 'money talks' media is exactly the wrong direction for us. Losing what little we have left of quality impartial media so that whinging precious "libertarians" who wouldn't know what genuine liberty meant if they fell over it can save a few quid and watch more Netflix and Youtube? Fuck off. I mean really, fuck right off. We need to promote the opposite.
The shared set of facts is sadly the most important contribution the BBC can make in the next couple of decades. Ridiculous that humankind has got here, but it is far too easy to live in a world where the news is a mix of what entertains us, drives emotions and what we want to it to be, rather than actual news. The BBC is an important defence against Trumpist false reality.
Therefore I'm happy to accept any pragmatic funding solution that can keep the BBC as an important part of UK society, whether its license fees, grants, advertising or subscriptions - whatever works and keeps the BBC at the centre of UK media.
Yep, this is the point I'm seeking to make. And it's also how I feel about the detail. I'm not wedded to precisely the status quo. For example, a smaller Beeb funded from taxation would be ok with me. Whatever. But we must NOT kill public service broadcasting and leave it 100% to the market just on the grounds of "Why should I pay for something I don't like or use?" I pay, directly or indirectly, for tons of things I don't personally like or use. And so I should. It's one of the key things which shapes a society out of a collection of individuals.
There is no such thing as public service broadcasting.
If there was we wouldn't exclude those who haven't paid the licence fee from receiving the public service by law.
That is such a technical point. But, yes, funding out of taxation should be considered.
So your entertainment should be funded out of my taxes and I should have to pay for mine.....wow and you accuse me of being selfish
I have no problem with tax revenues funding things which you would not choose to fund given pure personal choice. Same for those things I would opt out of if I could.
I agree for essential public services, your entertainment is not an essential service however
But a publicly funded broadcaster with an 'entertain and educate' mission IS essential. Or at least essential enough to be classed as a public service. This has become circular. As all debates involving a clash of values do.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Not just dramas, but documentaries ; the BBC has incredible riches stored, because many of documentaries and dramas made by it between the mid-1960s and mid-1990s stand up with the very best in the world. It would cost the BBC nothing to more regularly screen some on these on BBC4 - if not on the supposedly more ambitious channel that is strapped for cash, then where ? Anyone could reasonably ask.
Yep, the archive is a genuine national treasure. If it isn't, nothing is. I do NOT want some "innovative" capitalist getting their hands on that, thank you very much.
Why? At least we might actually be able to see some of it.
Rather not see it than pay a grubby capitalist for the privilege. Also, the fact it is only dipped into every so often adds to the sense of occasion - and therefore value - when it happens. It brings a lump.
You'd rather pay a telly tax to not see products you've paid for, than have a subscription based BBC make it available to you to watch whenever you want?
You're stark raving bonkers.
You're bonkers wanting an atomized world where people are staring at their own bespoke digital reality the whole time. Wake up.
I've lived in an atomised world since I got my first modem. What we're discussing is how we'd make it a better quality one.
But you know what I mean. No sense of community or even of a shared set of basic facts and realities on which understanding can be built, debates can be had, choices and progress made. The post truth, atomized world. It's a massive problem and getting worse not better. Losing things like the BBC in favour of yet more 'money talks' media is exactly the wrong direction for us. Losing what little we have left of quality impartial media so that whinging precious "libertarians" who wouldn't know what genuine liberty meant if they fell over it can save a few quid and watch more Netflix and Youtube? Fuck off. I mean really, fuck right off. We need to promote the opposite.
The shared set of facts is sadly the most important contribution the BBC can make in the next couple of decades. Ridiculous that humankind has got here, but it is far too easy to live in a world where the news is a mix of what entertains us, drives emotions and what we want to it to be, rather than actual news. The BBC is an important defence against Trumpist false reality.
Therefore I'm happy to accept any pragmatic funding solution that can keep the BBC as an important part of UK society, whether its license fees, grants, advertising or subscriptions - whatever works and keeps the BBC at the centre of UK media.
Yep, this is the point I'm seeking to make. And it's also how I feel about the detail. I'm not wedded to precisely the status quo. For example, a smaller Beeb funded from taxation would be ok with me. Whatever. But we must NOT kill public service broadcasting and leave it 100% to the market just on the grounds of "Why should I pay for something I don't like or use?" I pay, directly or indirectly, for tons of things I don't personally like or use. And so I should. It's one of the key things which shapes a society out of a collection of individuals.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Not just dramas, but documentaries ; the BBC has incredible riches stored, because many of documentaries and dramas made by it between the mid-1960s and mid-1990s stand up with the very best in the world. It would cost the BBC nothing to more regularly screen some on these on BBC4 - if not on the supposedly more ambitious channel that is strapped for cash, then where ? Anyone could reasonably ask.
Yep, the archive is a genuine national treasure. If it isn't, nothing is. I do NOT want some "innovative" capitalist getting their hands on that, thank you very much.
Why? At least we might actually be able to see some of it.
Rather not see it than pay a grubby capitalist for the privilege. Also, the fact it is only dipped into every so often adds to the sense of occasion - and therefore value - when it happens. It brings a lump.
You'd rather pay a telly tax to not see products you've paid for, than have a subscription based BBC make it available to you to watch whenever you want?
You're stark raving bonkers.
You're bonkers wanting an atomized world where people are staring at their own bespoke digital reality the whole time. Wake up.
I've lived in an atomised world since I got my first modem. What we're discussing is how we'd make it a better quality one.
But you know what I mean. No sense of community or even of a shared set of basic facts and realities on which understanding can be built, debates can be had, choices and progress made. The post truth, atomized world. It's a massive problem and getting worse not better. Losing things like the BBC in favour of yet more 'money talks' media is exactly the wrong direction for us. Losing what little we have left of quality impartial media so that whinging precious "libertarians" who wouldn't know what genuine liberty meant if they fell over it can save a few quid and watch more Netflix and Youtube? Fuck off. I mean really, fuck right off. We need to promote the opposite.
The shared set of facts is sadly the most important contribution the BBC can make in the next couple of decades. Ridiculous that humankind has got here, but it is far too easy to live in a world where the news is a mix of what entertains us, drives emotions and what we want to it to be, rather than actual news. The BBC is an important defence against Trumpist false reality.
Therefore I'm happy to accept any pragmatic funding solution that can keep the BBC as an important part of UK society, whether its license fees, grants, advertising or subscriptions - whatever works and keeps the BBC at the centre of UK media.
Yep, this is the point I'm seeking to make. And it's also how I feel about the detail. I'm not wedded to precisely the status quo. For example, a smaller Beeb funded from taxation would be ok with me. Whatever. But we must NOT kill public service broadcasting and leave it 100% to the market just on the grounds of "Why should I pay for something I don't like or use?" I pay, directly or indirectly, for tons of things I don't personally like or use. And so I should. It's one of the key things which shapes a society out of a collection of individuals.
There is no such thing as public service broadcasting.
If there was we wouldn't exclude those who haven't paid the licence fee from receiving the public service by law.
That is such a technical point. But, yes, funding out of taxation should be considered.
So your entertainment should be funded out of my taxes and I should have to pay for mine.....wow and you accuse me of being selfish
I have no problem with tax revenues funding things which you would not choose to fund given pure personal choice. Same for those things I would opt out of if I could.
I agree for essential public services, your entertainment is not an essential service however
But a publicly funded broadcaster with an 'entertain and educate' mission IS essential. Or at least essential enough to be classed as a public service. This has become circular. As all debates involving a clash of values do.
Libertarians would never accept the "educate" bit of what you have written.
How can they organize procurement of 100 millions of vaccine doses, help set up new manufacturing plants, oversee an impressive vaccine roll out, but not book a few hotel rooms?
Great achievement as the vaccine procurement has been, it was done by getting someone capable in and giving them a remarkably blank cheque. The right thing to do, but you can't run all of government on that basis.
The rest of it is still the usual shambles.
Not true. Testing capacity is exceptionally good these days and well organized. See how quickly they have got the surge testing up and running in all these postcodes with the SA variant.
As I pointed out below the UK government managed to quickly do deal with private hospitals back this time last year (and got a good deal in terms of cost / bed).
I really think they underlying motivate is that there are people in government who just don't want to do this policy, hence the constant massive feet dragging. It isn't exactly complicated to get all the CEOs of the major chain hotels on the phone and do a deal with them, they need the business.
You can always tell when a cherished political betting shibboleth perishes. People start talking about anything but politics. Cricket. telly. Movies. Whatever.
Recently it was the wonderfulness of Britain being in the EU that was totally atomised.
Over the week-end, two more Politicalbetting totemic beliefs went the same way
The first is that the vaccine would set us free. The post vaccine lockdown world is manifestly being constructed as we speak.
The second cherished politicalbetting consensual belief that got destroyed was the notion that the entire government and SAGE do not want to keep us in lockdown a MINUTE longer than they have to. Look at the nice scientists calling for the cancellation of Cheltenham for ever. Oh dear.
Pubs opening by 21 June 2021. This morning, June 2022 looks closer.
Your beliefs in a nutshell, described by Christopher Snowdon:
"A virus that has killed millions of people, including 50,000 in Britain last spring, suddenly disappeared, and so the government approved a highly inaccurate diagnostic test to keep the panic going because Boris Johnson has always wanted the public to wear face masks or something. Very few people actually have SARS-CoV-2 and even according to the official figures only two per cent have it at the moment. As luck would have it, a hugely disproportionate number of them happen to be admitted to hospital and die from something else, thereby producing scary death counts which are corroborated by corrupt doctors.
Another stroke of luck for the government is that last year happened to have the largest number of excess deaths since 1940. This could be due to lockdown deaths, whatever they are, or some other epidemic unrelated to the coronavirus. Have you noticed how few flu deaths there are this year? Bit suspicious, isn’t it? One possibility is that despite a drastic reduction in air travel and an unprecedented amount of social distancing, hand-washing, mask-wearing, and self-isolation, Britain is suffering from an exceptionally severe flu season, with flu deaths being wrongly classified as COVID-19 deaths by corrupt and/or incompetent doctors."
That`s from an excellent article - my favorite - probably because I agree with all of it - from Snowdon a few weeks ago which @isam originally posted:
Important to be clear that Snowdon is criticising those who think along the lines of the two paragraphs that you quote.
There are so many strawmen in that article its not true.
The reason that folk like Snowdon and Andy Cooke hate people like me is we will not let them impose lockdowns with a clear conscience.
Covid kills its absolutely true, but so to lockdowns. Its an inconvenient truth for Snowdon, and Andy, and everybody else, but truth it is nevertheless. The covid deaths are happening now, but many of the lockdown deaths will happen down the line, from the horrible problems that lockdown has caused. Mental illness, alcoholism, drug abuse, problems with inactivity and poverty.
The USA may be giving us a laboratory for this because some states, in all climates, did not lockdown meaningfully over winter. How are their excess death rates, relative to those that did? More importantly, how will they be in the future, when covid is gone and the problems lockdown has caused are still with us?
That said, on WATO they referenced vaccination centres in Hackney closing early on 3 days last week because of lack of take up...
If it’s not a supply constraint they should open it up to younger people.
As the volume ramps up, and everyone involved with the vaccine centers has already been done twice, there needs to be a way of encouraging people to queue at the end of the day to collect surplus vaccines - in a socially distanced and responsible way, of course.
Has anyone found a pre-print for the South African AZN study? Is there one? The press reports are really vague, point estimate means nothing without the CI and details on how the study was done, e.g. trial/observational.
Thanks. Have to wait a little bit for the pre-print then. I know the SA variant is probably dominant, but it will be interesting to see the uncertainty in a 2000 person sample size. Part of the picture, but irresponsible reporting of it in some of the press (looking at the Guardian in particular).
More crunchy data here, including confidence intervals (spoiler: huge)
How can they organize procurement of 100 millions of vaccine doses, help set up new manufacturing plants, oversee an impressive vaccine roll out, but not book a few hotel rooms?
That said, on WATO they referenced vaccination centres in Hackney closing early on 3 days last week because of lack of take up...
If it’s not a supply constraint they should open it up to younger people.
As the volume ramps up, and everyone involved with the vaccine centers has already been done twice, there needs to be a way of encouraging people to queue at the end of the day to collect surplus vaccines - in a socially distanced and responsible way, of course.
With social media, it seems like it should be really easy. They must know by early afternoon if they are going to have many spare. They just need a twitter handle / account for all of this, and each centre fires off a tweet saying looks like spares, come queue from 5pm.
Well done to all involved, though think the target for the next group should be earlier than end of April, mid April should be do-able if not earlier still.
I hope so though its worth noting the target keeps edging forwards which is refreshing, normally these things slip the other direction. Only a few days ago May was beaking spoken about.
Also worth noting that there will be increasing amounts of second doses due by the end of this month onwards. So keeping first doses going while not falling behind on second doses will require continued ramping up of capacity.
I'd like to see a target for all adults to be vaccinated. Be good to get that by July IMO. Definitely before the schools reopen.
The target for that is still autumn, again think we are clearly on track for before end of July on that (assuming first jabs count). Autumn covers 1 Sept to 21 Dec so the govt target doesnt tell us much. If its as seasonal as last year and the vulnerable are already vaccinated the exact pace in the summer hopefully might not actually matter much.
Sorry - autumn is 1/9 to 30/11. The use of equinoxes is madness.
Good luck tying this government down to your preferred definitions.
In other news, picking up the keys to our new house tomorrow!
Everything finally went through and we've also just sold our flat.
Moving day on Saturday, finally we'll have a garden. Just hope the weather improves soon.
It's going to be so different living in a 4 bedroom house compared to our tiny little flat. Will be sad to say goodbye to Hampstead, it's been a lovely 5 years.
Congrats.
Unless people are very lucky/hardworking/good euromillions number pickers the trend is to up house and down area!
Enjoy.
Cheers, I think we could have just about got a house around the West Hampstead/Kilburn parts but we would have been stretching to the limit and had to make compromises on life quality afterwards, plus we're only moving up the road to near Fortis Green which I think will have better life quality than West Hampstead.
The only thing I'll miss is being within walking distance to the Heath. It's such a great spot in the summer.
Walking distance to the darts at Ally Pally now though!
You can always tell when a cherished political betting shibboleth perishes. People start talking about anything but politics. Cricket. telly. Movies. Whatever.
Recently it was the wonderfulness of Britain being in the EU that was totally atomised.
Over the week-end, two more Politicalbetting totemic beliefs went the same way
The first is that the vaccine would set us free. The post vaccine lockdown world is manifestly being constructed as we speak.
The second cherished politicalbetting consensual belief that got destroyed was the notion that the entire government and SAGE do not want to keep us in lockdown a MINUTE longer than they have to. Look at the nice scientists calling for the cancellation of Cheltenham for ever. Oh dear.
Pubs opening by 21 June 2021. This morning, June 2022 looks closer.
Your beliefs in a nutshell, described by Christopher Snowdon:
"A virus that has killed millions of people, including 50,000 in Britain last spring, suddenly disappeared, and so the government approved a highly inaccurate diagnostic test to keep the panic going because Boris Johnson has always wanted the public to wear face masks or something. Very few people actually have SARS-CoV-2 and even according to the official figures only two per cent have it at the moment. As luck would have it, a hugely disproportionate number of them happen to be admitted to hospital and die from something else, thereby producing scary death counts which are corroborated by corrupt doctors.
Another stroke of luck for the government is that last year happened to have the largest number of excess deaths since 1940. This could be due to lockdown deaths, whatever they are, or some other epidemic unrelated to the coronavirus. Have you noticed how few flu deaths there are this year? Bit suspicious, isn’t it? One possibility is that despite a drastic reduction in air travel and an unprecedented amount of social distancing, hand-washing, mask-wearing, and self-isolation, Britain is suffering from an exceptionally severe flu season, with flu deaths being wrongly classified as COVID-19 deaths by corrupt and/or incompetent doctors."
That`s from an excellent article - my favorite - probably because I agree with all of it - from Snowdon a few weeks ago which @isam originally posted:
Important to be clear that Snowdon is criticising those who think along the lines of the two paragraphs that you quote.
There are so many strawmen in that article its not true.
The reason that folk like Snowdon and Andy Cooke hate people like me is we will not let them impose lockdowns with a clear conscience.
Covid kills its absolutely true, but so to lockdowns. Its an inconvenient truth for Snowdon, and Andy, and everybody else, but truth it is nevertheless. The covid deaths are happening now, but many of the lockdown deaths will happen down the line, from the horrible problems that lockdown has caused. mental illness, alcoholism, drug abuse, problems with inactivity and poverty.
The USA may be giving us a laboratory for this because some states, in all climates, did not lockdown meaningfully over winter. How are their excess death rates, relative to those that did? More importantly, how will they be in the future, when covid is gone and the problems lockdown has caused are still with us?
I agree with you that the harm by the virus is much more visible than the harm created by the lockdowns, so there is a risk (indeed a reality) that the latter is not sufficiently being factored in. I said as much in my first header for PB.com at the end of March. So I`m not against you Contrarian and value the view that you bring.
It`s a question of balance though.
Snowdon is not pro-lockdown by any measure, he (and I) have come on board on a short-term basis only due to the invention of the vaccines (as long as this implies "short term") and the fact that medical services are stretched.
In other news, picking up the keys to our new house tomorrow!
Everything finally went through and we've also just sold our flat.
Moving day on Saturday, finally we'll have a garden. Just hope the weather improves soon.
It's going to be so different living in a 4 bedroom house compared to our tiny little flat. Will be sad to say goodbye to Hampstead, it's been a lovely 5 years.
Congrats.
Unless people are very lucky/hardworking/good euromillions number pickers the trend is to up house and down area!
Enjoy.
Cheers, I think we could have just about got a house around the West Hampstead/Kilburn parts but we would have been stretching to the limit and had to make compromises on life quality afterwards, plus we're only moving up the road to near Fortis Green which I think will have better life quality than West Hampstead.
The only thing I'll miss is being within walking distance to the Heath. It's such a great spot in the summer.
Fortis Green? I know it well. You’re about 2 minutes from Highgate Woods, which are lovely in summer, if not quite as majestic as the Heath
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Not just dramas, but documentaries ; the BBC has incredible riches stored, because many of documentaries and dramas made by it between the mid-1960s and mid-1990s stand up with the very best in the world. It would cost the BBC nothing to more regularly screen some on these on BBC4 - if not on the supposedly more ambitious channel that is strapped for cash, then where ? Anyone could reasonably ask.
Yep, the archive is a genuine national treasure. If it isn't, nothing is. I do NOT want some "innovative" capitalist getting their hands on that, thank you very much.
Why? At least we might actually be able to see some of it.
Rather not see it than pay a grubby capitalist for the privilege. Also, the fact it is only dipped into every so often adds to the sense of occasion - and therefore value - when it happens. It brings a lump.
You'd rather pay a telly tax to not see products you've paid for, than have a subscription based BBC make it available to you to watch whenever you want?
You're stark raving bonkers.
You're bonkers wanting an atomized world where people are staring at their own bespoke digital reality the whole time. Wake up.
I've lived in an atomised world since I got my first modem. What we're discussing is how we'd make it a better quality one.
But you know what I mean. No sense of community or even of a shared set of basic facts and realities on which understanding can be built, debates can be had, choices and progress made. The post truth, atomized world. It's a massive problem and getting worse not better. Losing things like the BBC in favour of yet more 'money talks' media is exactly the wrong direction for us. Losing what little we have left of quality impartial media so that whinging precious "libertarians" who wouldn't know what genuine liberty meant if they fell over it can save a few quid and watch more Netflix and Youtube? Fuck off. I mean really, fuck right off. We need to promote the opposite.
The shared set of facts is sadly the most important contribution the BBC can make in the next couple of decades. Ridiculous that humankind has got here, but it is far too easy to live in a world where the news is a mix of what entertains us, drives emotions and what we want to it to be, rather than actual news. The BBC is an important defence against Trumpist false reality.
Therefore I'm happy to accept any pragmatic funding solution that can keep the BBC as an important part of UK society, whether its license fees, grants, advertising or subscriptions - whatever works and keeps the BBC at the centre of UK media.
Yep, this is the point I'm seeking to make. And it's also how I feel about the detail. I'm not wedded to precisely the status quo. For example, a smaller Beeb funded from taxation would be ok with me. Whatever. But we must NOT kill public service broadcasting and leave it 100% to the market just on the grounds of "Why should I pay for something I don't like or use?" I pay, directly or indirectly, for tons of things I don't personally like or use. And so I should. It's one of the key things which shapes a society out of a collection of individuals.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Not just dramas, but documentaries ; the BBC has incredible riches stored, because many of documentaries and dramas made by it between the mid-1960s and mid-1990s stand up with the very best in the world. It would cost the BBC nothing to more regularly screen some on these on BBC4 - if not on the supposedly more ambitious channel that is strapped for cash, then where ? Anyone could reasonably ask.
Yep, the archive is a genuine national treasure. If it isn't, nothing is. I do NOT want some "innovative" capitalist getting their hands on that, thank you very much.
Why? At least we might actually be able to see some of it.
Rather not see it than pay a grubby capitalist for the privilege. Also, the fact it is only dipped into every so often adds to the sense of occasion - and therefore value - when it happens. It brings a lump.
You'd rather pay a telly tax to not see products you've paid for, than have a subscription based BBC make it available to you to watch whenever you want?
You're stark raving bonkers.
You're bonkers wanting an atomized world where people are staring at their own bespoke digital reality the whole time. Wake up.
I've lived in an atomised world since I got my first modem. What we're discussing is how we'd make it a better quality one.
But you know what I mean. No sense of community or even of a shared set of basic facts and realities on which understanding can be built, debates can be had, choices and progress made. The post truth, atomized world. It's a massive problem and getting worse not better. Losing things like the BBC in favour of yet more 'money talks' media is exactly the wrong direction for us. Losing what little we have left of quality impartial media so that whinging precious "libertarians" who wouldn't know what genuine liberty meant if they fell over it can save a few quid and watch more Netflix and Youtube? Fuck off. I mean really, fuck right off. We need to promote the opposite.
The shared set of facts is sadly the most important contribution the BBC can make in the next couple of decades. Ridiculous that humankind has got here, but it is far too easy to live in a world where the news is a mix of what entertains us, drives emotions and what we want to it to be, rather than actual news. The BBC is an important defence against Trumpist false reality.
Therefore I'm happy to accept any pragmatic funding solution that can keep the BBC as an important part of UK society, whether its license fees, grants, advertising or subscriptions - whatever works and keeps the BBC at the centre of UK media.
Yep, this is the point I'm seeking to make. And it's also how I feel about the detail. I'm not wedded to precisely the status quo. For example, a smaller Beeb funded from taxation would be ok with me. Whatever. But we must NOT kill public service broadcasting and leave it 100% to the market just on the grounds of "Why should I pay for something I don't like or use?" I pay, directly or indirectly, for tons of things I don't personally like or use. And so I should. It's one of the key things which shapes a society out of a collection of individuals.
There is no such thing as public service broadcasting.
If there was we wouldn't exclude those who haven't paid the licence fee from receiving the public service by law.
That is such a technical point. But, yes, funding out of taxation should be considered.
So your entertainment should be funded out of my taxes and I should have to pay for mine.....wow and you accuse me of being selfish
I have no problem with tax revenues funding things which you would not choose to fund given pure personal choice. Same for those things I would opt out of if I could.
I agree for essential public services, your entertainment is not an essential service however
But a publicly funded broadcaster with an 'entertain and educate' mission IS essential. Or at least essential enough to be classed as a public service. This has become circular. As all debates involving a clash of values do.
The bbc does precious little in the way of educate these days. If was a channel doing 24 hour in depth documentaries I would maybe agree with you. However 90%+ of its output is game shows,talk shows,soaps,second rate drama and what little it does in the form of documentaries is shallow
Just to follow on with my VFX comment....the other thing about not having the VFX tech, it isn't just about little cute green babies and space men in shiny metal suits....What most people don't realise is large amounts of what we would think of as normal shots these days involve a lot of VFX work to adjust the scene, crop out / replace certain elements.
If you can do this really well, you won't even notice, and it is cheaper than having to find the perfect place to film (and spend ages converting it for your shot) or having to build a specialist set.
Again, Disney have this incredible virtual set, where they can film in a dome and you can't even tell the stuff in the background isn't real.
This is far cheaper than having to take your whole crew on location. Baby Yoda show in the past would have flown to a whole load of places around the world for all those shots by the sea, in the desert, now they just open up the dome and film.
The Disney virtual set is amazing, but the new one is incredible. It's why Sony just invested $250m in Epic to get access to Unreal Engine 5 for their virtual set technology on their backlot as well to licence a custom version to other studios who are using their CLED virtual sets.
It's this kind of stuff where the BBC used to be at the forefront of technology that they've just let others take the lead. The team at Sony who made it happen is all made up of ex-BBC people and now the licence income from virtual sets will go to a Japanese conglomerate instead of the BBC.
As time goes on the further behind the BBC falls.
They used to be technological leaders but they also used to lead on another metric - their content and back catalogue.
If you'd asked 20 years ago for the best prior British shows you'd have almost exclusively received a list of BBC shows: Fawlty Towers, Monty Python, Only Fools etc
But since the dawn of universal HDTVs the new content is increasingly not BBC. Any list of the best British dramas of the past decade would have to include shows like The Crown, Game of Thrones, Downton Abbey etc
People used to feel affectionate towards the BBC. I don't think many of my generation or younger do. The BBC is rapidly facing a day where even if it did open up its archive of old SD dramas it will be met with a grunt of indifference rather than affection.
Game of Thrones is not a British Drama. It's also a bit shit in my opinion but I recognise that's a minority view.
Largely british cast, a lot filmed in northern ireland....what makes it not british?
The fact it's not British? Harry Potter is the same, as is James Bond. These are big American studio productions. Nothing wrong with that, but we can't 'claim it' on the basis of the use of British talent. Hollywood has been borrowing class from British thespians since the ark.
Take out the British talent from GOT and you're left with little more than a few CGI dragons. It's as culturally British as warm beer, fagging, and the thwack of willow on leather.
It seems like some here really want it to be, certainly...
It is a famous fake documentary on medieval England, as Rudy Giuliani told us.
In fairness I think know the point he meant to say.
If it was that it was quite a shit one. Before I switched off a few Kings had already been offed. In medieval England, you didn't actually see many monarchs killing each other. Would have set a very dangerous precedent. Went through swathes of peasants though naturally...
That said, on WATO they referenced vaccination centres in Hackney closing early on 3 days last week because of lack of take up...
If it’s not a supply constraint they should open it up to younger people.
I was wondering about this - would the capacity be there to just have a free for all? ie if they just said turn up like the Primark/Harrods sale.
I suspect both issues are occurring - running out of the 1-4 groups and in some places not enough supply. Happily for me I expect to get vaccinated through work fairly soon (Pharmacy education) as will be in contact with students who are out in Hospitals/Community pharmacy placements. i
How can they organize procurement of 100 millions of vaccine doses, help set up new manufacturing plants, oversee an impressive vaccine roll out, but not book a few hotel rooms?
Because they didn't organise the procurement of vaccines - they delegated it to someone who could.....
Well I don't expect Boris to be on booking.com reserving rooms here either. It can't be that hard to find somebody with reasonable experience in travel industry to sort this out, it isn't like they are very busy at the moment otherwise.
This should have been planned months ago - and as the Aussies have found, its not easy to do well....
Well I don't disagree with that. I said on here a few days ago, I can't believe that at the very very least some civil servants hadn't been sent off to do a planning exercise relating to this months ago, even if they never wanted to have to use it.
Again, the UK government were pretty good at quickly doing deals with private hospitals for capacity back this time last year. You would think they could do similar for hotels, especially as they don't exactly have many guests at the moment.
I actually feel it is more the government (for whatever reason) just don't want to implement this policy.
Agree - I suspect its a bit like Cameron's "No planning for Brexit" edict.
You can always tell when a cherished political betting shibboleth perishes. People start talking about anything but politics. Cricket. telly. Movies. Whatever.
Recently it was the wonderfulness of Britain being in the EU that was totally atomised.
Over the week-end, two more Politicalbetting totemic beliefs went the same way
The first is that the vaccine would set us free. The post vaccine lockdown world is manifestly being constructed as we speak.
The second cherished politicalbetting consensual belief that got destroyed was the notion that the entire government and SAGE do not want to keep us in lockdown a MINUTE longer than they have to. Look at the nice scientists calling for the cancellation of Cheltenham for ever. Oh dear.
Pubs opening by 21 June 2021. This morning, June 2022 looks closer.
Nope. The lockdown must end this spring.
But it manifestly is not going to. Not Spring. Not summer. Not ever.
Not until we decide it does.
Well there you go then. Your first para is instantly alleviated by the second.
It will end because the public's consent will stop at some point.
If you are still mad that there may be consent for longer than you or perhaps I would like, that's a separate point.
After all, if 'we' dont decide it should stop when you would like, will you still claim they will keep us in it forever? Even though it would be by consent?
Actually you are correct that was a silly post by me. We will one day get out of this. But I stand by my other points.
I think it's good to keep up pressure around lockdown just in case. I'm sanguine as it barely affects me, but it must be something done only in extremis.
In extremis is right. I, like Anabobazina, have come onboard purely because (to my surprise) vaccine have been developed very quickly. But the condition is that we face what risk remains, not continue to cower from ANY risk once the chance of an overwhelmed health service goes away.
We are in a war-like situation I guess - where the pause button on liberal democracy is pressed. "Short term only" is implicit.
I agree with this too. So long as the NHS is ok - a ramped up NHS if necessary - we have to get back to as near normal as possible again. Maybe keep some aspects of hygiene and distancing but only ones which don't get in the way of Life.
One caveat. This needs to be the last major lockdown so reopening should not be rushed into under pressure from Tory backbenchers. It's worth a few extra weeks to gain the extra confidence that, yes, "this will be the last time" and "it's all over now".
Credit to you for saying this ... you being of the left an all.
Hey lots of lefties are also libertarians! We are just a vastly under represented group in parliament and in the press.
By definition a leftwinger cannot be a libertarian as a libertarian wants as low tax and low public spending and limited regulation as possible.
Just to follow on with my VFX comment....the other thing about not having the VFX tech, it isn't just about little cute green babies and space men in shiny metal suits....What most people don't realise is large amounts of what we would think of as normal shots these days involve a lot of VFX work to adjust the scene, crop out / replace certain elements.
If you can do this really well, you won't even notice, and it is cheaper than having to find the perfect place to film (and spend ages converting it for your shot) or having to build a specialist set.
Again, Disney have this incredible virtual set, where they can film in a dome and you can't even tell the stuff in the background isn't real.
This is far cheaper than having to take your whole crew on location. Baby Yoda show in the past would have flown to a whole load of places around the world for all those shots by the sea, in the desert, now they just open up the dome and film.
The Disney virtual set is amazing, but the new one is incredible. It's why Sony just invested $250m in Epic to get access to Unreal Engine 5 for their virtual set technology on their backlot as well to licence a custom version to other studios who are using their CLED virtual sets.
It's this kind of stuff where the BBC used to be at the forefront of technology that they've just let others take the lead. The team at Sony who made it happen is all made up of ex-BBC people and now the licence income from virtual sets will go to a Japanese conglomerate instead of the BBC.
As time goes on the further behind the BBC falls.
They used to be technological leaders but they also used to lead on another metric - their content and back catalogue.
If you'd asked 20 years ago for the best prior British shows you'd have almost exclusively received a list of BBC shows: Fawlty Towers, Monty Python, Only Fools etc
But since the dawn of universal HDTVs the new content is increasingly not BBC. Any list of the best British dramas of the past decade would have to include shows like The Crown, Game of Thrones, Downton Abbey etc
People used to feel affectionate towards the BBC. I don't think many of my generation or younger do. The BBC is rapidly facing a day where even if it did open up its archive of old SD dramas it will be met with a grunt of indifference rather than affection.
Game of Thrones is not a British Drama. It's also a bit shit in my opinion but I recognise that's a minority view.
Largely british cast, a lot filmed in northern ireland....what makes it not british?
The fact it's not British? Harry Potter is the same, as is James Bond. These are big American studio productions. Nothing wrong with that, but we can't 'claim it' on the basis of the use of British talent. Hollywood has been borrowing class from British thespians since the ark.
Take out the British talent from GOT and you're left with little more than a few CGI dragons. It's as culturally British as warm beer, fagging, and the thwack of willow on leather.
It seems like some here really want it to be, certainly...
It is a famous fake documentary on medieval England, as Rudy Giuliani told us.
In fairness I think know the point he meant to say.
If it was that it was quite a shit one. Before I switched off a few Kings had already been offed. In medieval England, you didn't actually see many monarchs killing each other. Would have set a very dangerous precedent. Went through swathes of peasants though naturally...
The amazing thing if you look at it is how many medieval kings ruled/lived for such a long time.
Even the plonkers - John, Edward II, Stephen.
And the ones that ruled/lived for a long time did so for a hugely long time given the circs (of being in medieval England).
Edward the second did some good things: he was know as "our memorable founder" in the college prayer when I was at university...
Graced the lovely, wee beauty spot of Bannockburn with his presence..
From all accounts Eddie 2 seemed a bit of an odd fish by the kingly standards of the day. Apparently liked to get down and dirty with peasant folk going about their work, ditching, hedging etc. Probably not what was needed or expected by the elites of the day...
You can always tell when a cherished political betting shibboleth perishes. People start talking about anything but politics. Cricket. telly. Movies. Whatever.
Recently it was the wonderfulness of Britain being in the EU that was totally atomised.
Over the week-end, two more Politicalbetting totemic beliefs went the same way
The first is that the vaccine would set us free. The post vaccine lockdown world is manifestly being constructed as we speak.
The second cherished politicalbetting consensual belief that got destroyed was the notion that the entire government and SAGE do not want to keep us in lockdown a MINUTE longer than they have to. Look at the nice scientists calling for the cancellation of Cheltenham for ever. Oh dear.
Pubs opening by 21 June 2021. This morning, June 2022 looks closer.
Your beliefs in a nutshell, described by Christopher Snowdon:
"A virus that has killed millions of people, including 50,000 in Britain last spring, suddenly disappeared, and so the government approved a highly inaccurate diagnostic test to keep the panic going because Boris Johnson has always wanted the public to wear face masks or something. Very few people actually have SARS-CoV-2 and even according to the official figures only two per cent have it at the moment. As luck would have it, a hugely disproportionate number of them happen to be admitted to hospital and die from something else, thereby producing scary death counts which are corroborated by corrupt doctors.
Another stroke of luck for the government is that last year happened to have the largest number of excess deaths since 1940. This could be due to lockdown deaths, whatever they are, or some other epidemic unrelated to the coronavirus. Have you noticed how few flu deaths there are this year? Bit suspicious, isn’t it? One possibility is that despite a drastic reduction in air travel and an unprecedented amount of social distancing, hand-washing, mask-wearing, and self-isolation, Britain is suffering from an exceptionally severe flu season, with flu deaths being wrongly classified as COVID-19 deaths by corrupt and/or incompetent doctors."
That`s from an excellent article - my favorite - probably because I agree with all of it - from Snowdon a few weeks ago which @isam originally posted:
Important to be clear that Snowdon is criticising those who think along the lines of the two paragraphs that you quote.
There are so many strawmen in that article its not true.
The reason that folk like Snowdon and Andy Cooke hate people like me is we will not let them impose lockdowns with a clear conscience.
Covid kills its absolutely true, but so to lockdowns. Its an inconvenient truth for Snowdon, and Andy, and everybody else, but truth it is nevertheless. The covid deaths are happening now, but many of the lockdown deaths will happen down the line, from the horrible problems that lockdown has caused. Mental illness, alcoholism, drug abuse, problems with inactivity and poverty.
The USA may be giving us a laboratory for this because some states, in all climates, did not lockdown meaningfully over winter. How are their excess death rates, relative to those that did? More importantly, how will they be in the future, when covid is gone and the problems lockdown has caused are still with us?
Oh, I don't hate you. I'm amused by your fantasies. The ones that "whatever-it-is" is being made up (such as vaccine issues, or transmissibility, or mortality) in order to justify a mysterious and dark conspiracy of scientists and world leaders to keep us all under control.
As it happens, I hate lockdowns. I had been advocating regional restrictions instead, and targetting them more strongly. My frequent use of the term "find the low hanging fruit" back in the day refers to that: some restrictions are far more efficacious than others and have less impact - find them and use them. And use of rapid testing to avoid lockdowns and even restrictions. Never happened, unfortunately.
Unfortunately lockdowns have been shown to be the only reliable way of turning the spread down. I still think there are more intelligent ways to do it, but experimenting right now is unwise. Should have been tried in August and early September (when the Cummins, Young, Yeadon, Hartley-Brewers, etc were screaming "False Positives!" and "Casedemic!")
You persist in ignoring the negative effects of not locking down as well - the impact on economies and mental health of letting the virus have freer rein. I very much doubt you'll ever change that; it doesn't seem to fit your worldview and habit of very motivated reasoning.
'Tis a pity; there's a useful debate to be had on what types of restriction and what level of them is best overall, but you do persist in the dark conspiracies.
How can they organize procurement of 100 millions of vaccine doses, help set up new manufacturing plants, oversee an impressive vaccine roll out, but not book a few hotel rooms?
Great achievement as the vaccine procurement has been, it was done by getting someone capable in and giving them a remarkably blank cheque. The right thing to do, but you can't run all of government on that basis.
The rest of it is still the usual shambles.
Not true. Testing capacity is exceptionally good these days and well organized. See how quickly they have got the surge testing up and running in all these postcodes with the SA variant.
As I pointed out below the UK government managed to quickly do deal with private hospitals back this time last year (and got a good deal in terms of cost / bed).
I really think they underlying motivate is that there are people in government who just don't want to do this policy, hence the constant massive feet dragging. It isn't exactly complicated to get all the CEOs of the major chain hotels on the phone and do a deal with them, they need the business.
Yep - the "Civil" service don't want to do it, and the lawyers will be suggesting that there's some breach of human rights etc etc.
There's also an unwillingness to understand the scale of the issue - there were a million people through LHR in December, how many hotel rooms do we actually need?
The hotelliers will be wanting government to underwrite every single room in such an hotel, including for staff, for periods of disinfection and all the additional security required. Security was a huge issue in Australia, they initially hired a bunch of 'bouncers' in the hotels who had a habit of ending up in guest bedrooms and going home afterwards infected.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Not just dramas, but documentaries ; the BBC has incredible riches stored, because many of documentaries and dramas made by it between the mid-1960s and mid-1990s stand up with the very best in the world. It would cost the BBC nothing to more regularly screen some on these on BBC4 - if not on the supposedly more ambitious channel that is strapped for cash, then where ? Anyone could reasonably ask.
Yep, the archive is a genuine national treasure. If it isn't, nothing is. I do NOT want some "innovative" capitalist getting their hands on that, thank you very much.
Why? At least we might actually be able to see some of it.
Rather not see it than pay a grubby capitalist for the privilege. Also, the fact it is only dipped into every so often adds to the sense of occasion - and therefore value - when it happens. It brings a lump.
You'd rather pay a telly tax to not see products you've paid for, than have a subscription based BBC make it available to you to watch whenever you want?
You're stark raving bonkers.
You're bonkers wanting an atomized world where people are staring at their own bespoke digital reality the whole time. Wake up.
I've lived in an atomised world since I got my first modem. What we're discussing is how we'd make it a better quality one.
But you know what I mean. No sense of community or even of a shared set of basic facts and realities on which understanding can be built, debates can be had, choices and progress made. The post truth, atomized world. It's a massive problem and getting worse not better. Losing things like the BBC in favour of yet more 'money talks' media is exactly the wrong direction for us. Losing what little we have left of quality impartial media so that whinging precious "libertarians" who wouldn't know what genuine liberty meant if they fell over it can save a few quid and watch more Netflix and Youtube? Fuck off. I mean really, fuck right off. We need to promote the opposite.
The shared set of facts is sadly the most important contribution the BBC can make in the next couple of decades. Ridiculous that humankind has got here, but it is far too easy to live in a world where the news is a mix of what entertains us, drives emotions and what we want to it to be, rather than actual news. The BBC is an important defence against Trumpist false reality.
Therefore I'm happy to accept any pragmatic funding solution that can keep the BBC as an important part of UK society, whether its license fees, grants, advertising or subscriptions - whatever works and keeps the BBC at the centre of UK media.
Yep, this is the point I'm seeking to make. And it's also how I feel about the detail. I'm not wedded to precisely the status quo. For example, a smaller Beeb funded from taxation would be ok with me. Whatever. But we must NOT kill public service broadcasting and leave it 100% to the market just on the grounds of "Why should I pay for something I don't like or use?" I pay, directly or indirectly, for tons of things I don't personally like or use. And so I should. It's one of the key things which shapes a society out of a collection of individuals.
I cancelled my tv license about 3 months back, primarily to save money. Haven't missed it much other than live sport. Have been exclusively watching Netflix and Prime.
The idea that the BBC is worth the same as Netflix and Prime combined is absolutely ludicrous.
I just find it strange that political geeks would not want to watch live tv news and current affairs.
What do you do on election night? PB?
Yes the internet trumps TV.
I watch live TV news. Sky typically, its not paid for by the licence fee last I checked. Yes a fee is legally requried but that's an absurdity I oppose.
Current affairs I don't watch on TV, I get my current affairs online.
Election night is one of the few times I watch the BBC, but I could just as easily watch Sky. Though yes PB trumps them both.
So that's cool. You are breaking the law because you watch live tv news which counts as live tv and hence you need a licence fee. But you have decided that such a law doesn't apply to you.
As for election night, I see that you don't like the BBC apart from when you do.
What are you talking about? I pay my licence fee.
I don't want to, I campaign against it, but I do.
Yes I do (very rarely) watch the BBC. I pay through the nose for it so why shouldn't I? I just recognise how rarely I do and what terrible value for money it is, which is why many others are cancelling. Good for them.
I agree that BBC TV is terrible, and not value for money. The paradox is that BBC radio is in many ways good, though not as good as it ought to be, - and there is no decent quality alternative anyway - and very convenient. And it is currently free. To me it alone is worth the licence.
The other thing about BBC TV is that occasionally either for news or event coverage (and IMHO election nights) it has the edge because of its range and reliability and (even) caution. Its (relative) commitment to neutrality and truth is important. I think like without BBC would be much worse.
Is there anyone else in radio who would produce the World Service or, say, Tim Harford?
BBC Radio still retains a lot of the pre-Birt ethos - it's somehow got away with it - and is well-worth the license fee alone, agreed.
On TV, BBC Four is an example of how the rot continually sets in to the BBC's televisual ethos since the late 1990s ; a genuinely ambitious and promising channel when it launched 10 to 15 years ago, it's now too often anonymous, unambitious and average-to-poor, mimicking the mundanity of the modern BBC2 in its regular output.
The BBC has a huge archive of documentaries that seem to be unavailable anywhere other than low quality YouTube rips and yet they fill BBC4 with 40 year old PBS painting shows.
And it’s not like these things are languishing on rotting betamax somewhere - they spent an absolute fortune digitising them in the late naughties.
Not just dramas, but documentaries ; the BBC has incredible riches stored, because many of documentaries and dramas made by it between the mid-1960s and mid-1990s stand up with the very best in the world. It would cost the BBC nothing to more regularly screen some on these on BBC4 - if not on the supposedly more ambitious channel that is strapped for cash, then where ? Anyone could reasonably ask.
Yep, the archive is a genuine national treasure. If it isn't, nothing is. I do NOT want some "innovative" capitalist getting their hands on that, thank you very much.
Why? At least we might actually be able to see some of it.
Rather not see it than pay a grubby capitalist for the privilege. Also, the fact it is only dipped into every so often adds to the sense of occasion - and therefore value - when it happens. It brings a lump.
You'd rather pay a telly tax to not see products you've paid for, than have a subscription based BBC make it available to you to watch whenever you want?
You're stark raving bonkers.
You're bonkers wanting an atomized world where people are staring at their own bespoke digital reality the whole time. Wake up.
I've lived in an atomised world since I got my first modem. What we're discussing is how we'd make it a better quality one.
But you know what I mean. No sense of community or even of a shared set of basic facts and realities on which understanding can be built, debates can be had, choices and progress made. The post truth, atomized world. It's a massive problem and getting worse not better. Losing things like the BBC in favour of yet more 'money talks' media is exactly the wrong direction for us. Losing what little we have left of quality impartial media so that whinging precious "libertarians" who wouldn't know what genuine liberty meant if they fell over it can save a few quid and watch more Netflix and Youtube? Fuck off. I mean really, fuck right off. We need to promote the opposite.
The shared set of facts is sadly the most important contribution the BBC can make in the next couple of decades. Ridiculous that humankind has got here, but it is far too easy to live in a world where the news is a mix of what entertains us, drives emotions and what we want to it to be, rather than actual news. The BBC is an important defence against Trumpist false reality.
Therefore I'm happy to accept any pragmatic funding solution that can keep the BBC as an important part of UK society, whether its license fees, grants, advertising or subscriptions - whatever works and keeps the BBC at the centre of UK media.
Yep, this is the point I'm seeking to make. And it's also how I feel about the detail. I'm not wedded to precisely the status quo. For example, a smaller Beeb funded from taxation would be ok with me. Whatever. But we must NOT kill public service broadcasting and leave it 100% to the market just on the grounds of "Why should I pay for something I don't like or use?" I pay, directly or indirectly, for tons of things I don't personally like or use. And so I should. It's one of the key things which shapes a society out of a collection of individuals.
There is no such thing as public service broadcasting.
If there was we wouldn't exclude those who haven't paid the licence fee from receiving the public service by law.
That is such a technical point. But, yes, funding out of taxation should be considered.
So your entertainment should be funded out of my taxes and I should have to pay for mine.....wow and you accuse me of being selfish
I have no problem with tax revenues funding things which you would not choose to fund given pure personal choice. Same for those things I would opt out of if I could.
I agree for essential public services, your entertainment is not an essential service however
But a publicly funded broadcaster with an 'entertain and educate' mission IS essential. Or at least essential enough to be classed as a public service. This has become circular. As all debates involving a clash of values do.
Libertarians would never accept the "educate" bit of what you have written.
Well that's fine. I'm not one. Of course I do mean educate in the non-loaded, non-sinister sense.
Anybody else feeling a bit rough from all the early starts to watch the cricket? Never mind, only one more day to go.
I see I'm not the only poster here to question the logic of the odds. England are no certainties to clinch the win but I reckon they should be about 4/6 to take nine wickets on this Chennai wicket. Betdaq have it about the other way round. I really think that must be Asian money betting according to the heart rather than the head. England took six wickets on day three so nine on day five looks about par for the course.
Anyway, I'm on, as you may have figured, and looking forward to getting up nice and early tomorrow for the crucial first session.
In other news, picking up the keys to our new house tomorrow!
Everything finally went through and we've also just sold our flat.
Moving day on Saturday, finally we'll have a garden. Just hope the weather improves soon.
It's going to be so different living in a 4 bedroom house compared to our tiny little flat. Will be sad to say goodbye to Hampstead, it's been a lovely 5 years.
Yup, that has got to be weather related. It's going to be a very disappointing return and will put the government under a slight pressure for the rest of the week.
More snow forecast today and tomorrow. It's been snowing here all day!
You can always tell when a cherished political betting shibboleth perishes. People start talking about anything but politics. Cricket. telly. Movies. Whatever.
Recently it was the wonderfulness of Britain being in the EU that was totally atomised.
Over the week-end, two more Politicalbetting totemic beliefs went the same way
The first is that the vaccine would set us free. The post vaccine lockdown world is manifestly being constructed as we speak.
The second cherished politicalbetting consensual belief that got destroyed was the notion that the entire government and SAGE do not want to keep us in lockdown a MINUTE longer than they have to. Look at the nice scientists calling for the cancellation of Cheltenham for ever. Oh dear.
Pubs opening by 21 June 2021. This morning, June 2022 looks closer.
Nope. The lockdown must end this spring.
But it manifestly is not going to. Not Spring. Not summer. Not ever.
Not until we decide it does.
Well there you go then. Your first para is instantly alleviated by the second.
It will end because the public's consent will stop at some point.
If you are still mad that there may be consent for longer than you or perhaps I would like, that's a separate point.
After all, if 'we' dont decide it should stop when you would like, will you still claim they will keep us in it forever? Even though it would be by consent?
Actually you are correct that was a silly post by me. We will one day get out of this. But I stand by my other points.
I think it's good to keep up pressure around lockdown just in case. I'm sanguine as it barely affects me, but it must be something done only in extremis.
In extremis is right. I, like Anabobazina, have come onboard purely because (to my surprise) vaccine have been developed very quickly. But the condition is that we face what risk remains, not continue to cower from ANY risk once the chance of an overwhelmed health service goes away.
We are in a war-like situation I guess - where the pause button on liberal democracy is pressed. "Short term only" is implicit.
I agree with this too. So long as the NHS is ok - a ramped up NHS if necessary - we have to get back to as near normal as possible again. Maybe keep some aspects of hygiene and distancing but only ones which don't get in the way of Life.
One caveat. This needs to be the last major lockdown so reopening should not be rushed into under pressure from Tory backbenchers. It's worth a few extra weeks to gain the extra confidence that, yes, "this will be the last time" and "it's all over now".
Credit to you for saying this ... you being of the left an all.
Hey lots of lefties are also libertarians! We are just a vastly under represented group in parliament and in the press.
By definition a leftwinger cannot be a libertarian as a libertarian wants as low tax and low public spending and limited regulation as possible.
Has anyone found a pre-print for the South African AZN study? Is there one? The press reports are really vague, point estimate means nothing without the CI and details on how the study was done, e.g. trial/observational.
Thanks. Have to wait a little bit for the pre-print then. I know the SA variant is probably dominant, but it will be interesting to see the uncertainty in a 2000 person sample size. Part of the picture, but irresponsible reporting of it in some of the press (looking at the Guardian in particular).
More crunchy data here, including confidence intervals (spoiler: huge)
You can always tell when a cherished political betting shibboleth perishes. People start talking about anything but politics. Cricket. telly. Movies. Whatever.
Recently it was the wonderfulness of Britain being in the EU that was totally atomised.
Over the week-end, two more Politicalbetting totemic beliefs went the same way
The first is that the vaccine would set us free. The post vaccine lockdown world is manifestly being constructed as we speak.
The second cherished politicalbetting consensual belief that got destroyed was the notion that the entire government and SAGE do not want to keep us in lockdown a MINUTE longer than they have to. Look at the nice scientists calling for the cancellation of Cheltenham for ever. Oh dear.
Pubs opening by 21 June 2021. This morning, June 2022 looks closer.
Your beliefs in a nutshell, described by Christopher Snowdon:
"A virus that has killed millions of people, including 50,000 in Britain last spring, suddenly disappeared, and so the government approved a highly inaccurate diagnostic test to keep the panic going because Boris Johnson has always wanted the public to wear face masks or something. Very few people actually have SARS-CoV-2 and even according to the official figures only two per cent have it at the moment. As luck would have it, a hugely disproportionate number of them happen to be admitted to hospital and die from something else, thereby producing scary death counts which are corroborated by corrupt doctors.
Another stroke of luck for the government is that last year happened to have the largest number of excess deaths since 1940. This could be due to lockdown deaths, whatever they are, or some other epidemic unrelated to the coronavirus. Have you noticed how few flu deaths there are this year? Bit suspicious, isn’t it? One possibility is that despite a drastic reduction in air travel and an unprecedented amount of social distancing, hand-washing, mask-wearing, and self-isolation, Britain is suffering from an exceptionally severe flu season, with flu deaths being wrongly classified as COVID-19 deaths by corrupt and/or incompetent doctors."
That`s from an excellent article - my favorite - probably because I agree with all of it - from Snowdon a few weeks ago which @isam originally posted:
Important to be clear that Snowdon is criticising those who think along the lines of the two paragraphs that you quote.
There are so many strawmen in that article its not true.
The reason that folk like Snowdon and Andy Cooke hate people like me is we will not let them impose lockdowns with a clear conscience.
Covid kills its absolutely true, but so to lockdowns. Its an inconvenient truth for Snowdon, and Andy, and everybody else, but truth it is nevertheless. The covid deaths are happening now, but many of the lockdown deaths will happen down the line, from the horrible problems that lockdown has caused. Mental illness, alcoholism, drug abuse, problems with inactivity and poverty.
The USA may be giving us a laboratory for this because some states, in all climates, did not lockdown meaningfully over winter. How are their excess death rates, relative to those that did? More importantly, how will they be in the future, when covid is gone and the problems lockdown has caused are still with us?
Oh, I don't hate you. I'm amused by your fantasies. The ones that "whatever-it-is" is being made up (such as vaccine issues, or transmissibility, or mortality) in order to justify a mysterious and dark conspiracy of scientists and world leaders to keep us all under control.
As it happens, I hate lockdowns. I had been advocating regional restrictions instead, and targetting them more strongly. My frequent use of the term "find the low hanging fruit" back in the day refers to that: some restrictions are far more efficacious than others and have less impact - find them and use them. And use of rapid testing to avoid lockdowns and even restrictions. Never happened, unfortunately.
Unfortunately lockdowns have been shown to be the only reliable way of turning the spread down. I still think there are more intelligent ways to do it, but experimenting right now is unwise. Should have been tried in August and early September (when the Cummins, Young, Yeadon, Hartley-Brewers, etc were screaming "False Positives!" and "Casedemic!")
You persist in ignoring the negative effects of not locking down as well - the impact on economies and mental health of letting the virus have freer rein. I very much doubt you'll ever change that; it doesn't seem to fit your worldview and habit of very motivated reasoning.
'Tis a pity; there's a useful debate to be had on what types of restriction and what level of them is best overall, but you do persist in the dark conspiracies.
There is no grand conspiracy on lockdown. None at all. But as the government itself is finding out today, amid a concerted effort to discredit its vaccine program, there are powerful people out there with their own agenda.
In other news, picking up the keys to our new house tomorrow!
Everything finally went through and we've also just sold our flat.
Moving day on Saturday, finally we'll have a garden. Just hope the weather improves soon.
It's going to be so different living in a 4 bedroom house compared to our tiny little flat. Will be sad to say goodbye to Hampstead, it's been a lovely 5 years.
Whereabouts are you moving to Max?
Just off Fortis Green, we've bought the worst house on the best street kind of house. It needs a lot of work which is also why I'm keen for this lockdown to end so we can get the ball rolling for all of the work it needs doing to it. It's not very far tbf, only a 10-15 minute drive.
The question for the government now is, when we start to get all these other vaccines that appear to be much better against Saffers Covid, do we send all the oldies back around again and give them shots of that, rather than wait until the winter for the updated vaccines?
Anybody else feeling a bit rough from all the early starts to watch the cricket? Never mind, only one more day to go.
I see I'm not the only poster here to question the logic of the odds. England are no certainties to clinch the win but I reckon they should be about 4/6 to take nine wickets on this Chennai wicket. Betdaq have it about the other way round. I really think that must be Asian money betting according to the heart rather than the head. England took six wickets on day three so nine on day five looks about par for the course.
Anyway, I'm on, as you may have figured, and looking forward to getting up nice and early tomorrow for the crucial first session.
Having mostly avoided external work for the past four days, I will annoyingly catch only about an hour in the morning and an hour in the evening tomorrow. The Betfair odds make no sense unless there's rain which isn't forecast - dodgy bookies in India can't make them bat any better.
Shit. The truly alarming thing there is what I feared most: past infection with ‘normal’ Covid provides no immunity against SA Covid. This bug is Satanic
If the Safferbug runs riot in the UK this spring we will be back to square one. They won’t be able to tweak any of the vaccines in time. People will catch it again who’ve already had it. People vaxxed with AZ will also get it. Hopefully they will only get mild/moderate cases, but we don’t know that yet, for sure.
I don’t want to come over all Black Rook but this is ominous. To me it suggests lockdown until Autumn. And yet I just don’t think the economy can hack that, or the nation’s mental health. So what gives?
You can always tell when a cherished political betting shibboleth perishes. People start talking about anything but politics. Cricket. telly. Movies. Whatever.
Recently it was the wonderfulness of Britain being in the EU that was totally atomised.
Over the week-end, two more Politicalbetting totemic beliefs went the same way
The first is that the vaccine would set us free. The post vaccine lockdown world is manifestly being constructed as we speak.
The second cherished politicalbetting consensual belief that got destroyed was the notion that the entire government and SAGE do not want to keep us in lockdown a MINUTE longer than they have to. Look at the nice scientists calling for the cancellation of Cheltenham for ever. Oh dear.
Pubs opening by 21 June 2021. This morning, June 2022 looks closer.
Your beliefs in a nutshell, described by Christopher Snowdon:
"A virus that has killed millions of people, including 50,000 in Britain last spring, suddenly disappeared, and so the government approved a highly inaccurate diagnostic test to keep the panic going because Boris Johnson has always wanted the public to wear face masks or something. Very few people actually have SARS-CoV-2 and even according to the official figures only two per cent have it at the moment. As luck would have it, a hugely disproportionate number of them happen to be admitted to hospital and die from something else, thereby producing scary death counts which are corroborated by corrupt doctors.
Another stroke of luck for the government is that last year happened to have the largest number of excess deaths since 1940. This could be due to lockdown deaths, whatever they are, or some other epidemic unrelated to the coronavirus. Have you noticed how few flu deaths there are this year? Bit suspicious, isn’t it? One possibility is that despite a drastic reduction in air travel and an unprecedented amount of social distancing, hand-washing, mask-wearing, and self-isolation, Britain is suffering from an exceptionally severe flu season, with flu deaths being wrongly classified as COVID-19 deaths by corrupt and/or incompetent doctors."
That`s from an excellent article - my favorite - probably because I agree with all of it - from Snowdon a few weeks ago which @isam originally posted:
Important to be clear that Snowdon is criticising those who think along the lines of the two paragraphs that you quote.
There are so many strawmen in that article its not true.
The reason that folk like Snowdon and Andy Cooke hate people like me is we will not let them impose lockdowns with a clear conscience.
Covid kills its absolutely true, but so to lockdowns. Its an inconvenient truth for Snowdon, and Andy, and everybody else, but truth it is nevertheless. The covid deaths are happening now, but many of the lockdown deaths will happen down the line, from the horrible problems that lockdown has caused. Mental illness, alcoholism, drug abuse, problems with inactivity and poverty.
The USA may be giving us a laboratory for this because some states, in all climates, did not lockdown meaningfully over winter. How are their excess death rates, relative to those that did? More importantly, how will they be in the future, when covid is gone and the problems lockdown has caused are still with us?
Oh, I don't hate you. I'm amused by your fantasies. The ones that "whatever-it-is" is being made up (such as vaccine issues, or transmissibility, or mortality) in order to justify a mysterious and dark conspiracy of scientists and world leaders to keep us all under control.
As it happens, I hate lockdowns. I had been advocating regional restrictions instead, and targetting them more strongly. My frequent use of the term "find the low hanging fruit" back in the day refers to that: some restrictions are far more efficacious than others and have less impact - find them and use them. And use of rapid testing to avoid lockdowns and even restrictions. Never happened, unfortunately.
Unfortunately lockdowns have been shown to be the only reliable way of turning the spread down. I still think there are more intelligent ways to do it, but experimenting right now is unwise. Should have been tried in August and early September (when the Cummins, Young, Yeadon, Hartley-Brewers, etc were screaming "False Positives!" and "Casedemic!")
You persist in ignoring the negative effects of not locking down as well - the impact on economies and mental health of letting the virus have freer rein. I very much doubt you'll ever change that; it doesn't seem to fit your worldview and habit of very motivated reasoning.
'Tis a pity; there's a useful debate to be had on what types of restriction and what level of them is best overall, but you do persist in the dark conspiracies.
There is no grand conspiracy on lockdown. None at all. But as the government itself is finding out today, amid a concerted effort to discredit its vaccine program, there are powerful people out there with their own agenda.
I don't think there is a grand conspiracy about lockdown but I do think, as I have said from March, that government by Chief Medical Officer is not something I approve of.
Equally, if you have a press conference every day at 5pm with the PM and CMO and Head of the NHS about, say, smoking, or mountaineering, or 3-day eventing, you will pretty soon end up with a ban on those activities.
The only relevant criteria are hospitalisations and deaths. The lockdowns were, depending on the govt's particular PR aim, to protect the NHS and/or to save lives. If hospitalisations decrease to the point whereby we are not facing a "crisis" and there is a reduced or no danger of hospitals being overwhelmed, the lockdowns should end.
In other news, picking up the keys to our new house tomorrow!
Everything finally went through and we've also just sold our flat.
Moving day on Saturday, finally we'll have a garden. Just hope the weather improves soon.
It's going to be so different living in a 4 bedroom house compared to our tiny little flat. Will be sad to say goodbye to Hampstead, it's been a lovely 5 years.
Nice one. But that's a big final choice. Once you leave Hampstead the door closes on a particular world. No more nosing around nooks and crannies near the Heath. No more chewing the fat with ruined old geezers down the Flask. No more early evening joshing with vibrant young progressives around the crepe van.
Yeah it's definitely going to be different. Hampstead definitely has a really different feel to it than other parts I've lived in. It's like a self contained little suburb near the centre of London with amazing pubs, cafes and restaurants. We didn't really frequent the Flask, on the other side of the Heath, more Highgate than Hampstead.
Is there a similar pro and con about Hitler? (Kind to animals, made trains run on time, promoted cross stitch, helped old ladies over the road and so on)
Shit. The truly alarming thing there is what I feared most: past infection with ‘normal’ Covid provides no immunity against SA Covid. This bug is Satanic
If the Safferbug runs riot in the UK this spring we will be back to square one. They won’t be able to tweak any of the vaccines in time. People will catch it again who’ve already had it. People vaxxed with AZ will also get it. Hopefully they will only get mild/moderate cases, but we don’t know that yet, for sure.
I don’t want to come over all Black Rook but this is ominous. To me it suggests lockdown until Autumn. And yet I just don’t think the economy can hack that, or the nation’s mental health. So what gives?
We've already got booster shots for it on the way and daily capacity to vaccinate 1m people per day.
We also have a long term bet with Valneva and CureVac.
We're also investing in world leading mutation busting modelling to predict viral evolutionary pathways so that future vaccines are one step ahead of the game.
What this means is that the government needs to get serious about border controls. Have a completely open economy and I'd also suggest a two island approach with Ireland. Once we've got the infrastructure in place to rapidly immunise people to variants with CureVac we can begin to roll out vaccine passports for overseas travel.
You can always tell when a cherished political betting shibboleth perishes. People start talking about anything but politics. Cricket. telly. Movies. Whatever.
Recently it was the wonderfulness of Britain being in the EU that was totally atomised.
Over the week-end, two more Politicalbetting totemic beliefs went the same way
The first is that the vaccine would set us free. The post vaccine lockdown world is manifestly being constructed as we speak.
The second cherished politicalbetting consensual belief that got destroyed was the notion that the entire government and SAGE do not want to keep us in lockdown a MINUTE longer than they have to. Look at the nice scientists calling for the cancellation of Cheltenham for ever. Oh dear.
Pubs opening by 21 June 2021. This morning, June 2022 looks closer.
Nope. The lockdown must end this spring.
But it manifestly is not going to. Not Spring. Not summer. Not ever.
Not until we decide it does.
Well there you go then. Your first para is instantly alleviated by the second.
It will end because the public's consent will stop at some point.
If you are still mad that there may be consent for longer than you or perhaps I would like, that's a separate point.
After all, if 'we' dont decide it should stop when you would like, will you still claim they will keep us in it forever? Even though it would be by consent?
Actually you are correct that was a silly post by me. We will one day get out of this. But I stand by my other points.
I think it's good to keep up pressure around lockdown just in case. I'm sanguine as it barely affects me, but it must be something done only in extremis.
In extremis is right. I, like Anabobazina, have come onboard purely because (to my surprise) vaccine have been developed very quickly. But the condition is that we face what risk remains, not continue to cower from ANY risk once the chance of an overwhelmed health service goes away.
We are in a war-like situation I guess - where the pause button on liberal democracy is pressed. "Short term only" is implicit.
I agree with this too. So long as the NHS is ok - a ramped up NHS if necessary - we have to get back to as near normal as possible again. Maybe keep some aspects of hygiene and distancing but only ones which don't get in the way of Life.
One caveat. This needs to be the last major lockdown so reopening should not be rushed into under pressure from Tory backbenchers. It's worth a few extra weeks to gain the extra confidence that, yes, "this will be the last time" and "it's all over now".
Credit to you for saying this ... you being of the left an all.
Hey lots of lefties are also libertarians! We are just a vastly under represented group in parliament and in the press.
By definition a leftwinger cannot be a libertarian as a libertarian wants as low tax and low public spending and limited regulation as possible.
On topic - great article by Allister. I really hadn't thought about distribution effect on changes. It matters not a significant amount if a majority is 80 or 90 and people are most keen to see equity as votes are balanced out.
If my calculation is correct 17 mil/ 75 days = approx 225000 a day - surely we will be quicker than that
In other news, picking up the keys to our new house tomorrow!
Everything finally went through and we've also just sold our flat.
Moving day on Saturday, finally we'll have a garden. Just hope the weather improves soon.
It's going to be so different living in a 4 bedroom house compared to our tiny little flat. Will be sad to say goodbye to Hampstead, it's been a lovely 5 years.
Nice one. But that's a big final choice. Once you leave Hampstead the door closes on a particular world. No more nosing around nooks and crannies near the Heath. No more chewing the fat with ruined old geezers down the Flask. No more early evening joshing with vibrant young progressives around the crepe van.
Yeah it's definitely going to be different. Hampstead definitely has a really different feel to it than other parts I've lived in. It's like a self contained little suburb near the centre of London with amazing pubs, cafes and restaurants. We didn't really frequent the Flask, on the other side of the Heath, more Highgate than Hampstead.
Hampstead is great, but nobody should live there too long. Five years would be about right.
On topic - great article by Allister. I really hadn't thought about distribution effect on changes. It matters not a significant amount if a majority is 80 or 90 and people are most keen to see equity as votes are balanced out.
If my calculation is correct 17 mil/ 75 days = approx 225000 a day - surely we will be quicker than that
Don't forget we'll be starting to ramp up second doses from next month, so that'll eat into some of the capacity and supply, but it does seem doable.
How can they organize procurement of 100 millions of vaccine doses, help set up new manufacturing plants, oversee an impressive vaccine roll out, but not book a few hotel rooms?
Great achievement as the vaccine procurement has been, it was done by getting someone capable in and giving them a remarkably blank cheque. The right thing to do, but you can't run all of government on that basis.
The rest of it is still the usual shambles.
It wasn't a blank cheque so much as complete freedom to choose partners and negotiate deals for the government to sign off on.
The blank cheque approach seems to have been taken with test, track & trace. With pretty dismal results.
Just to follow on with my VFX comment....the other thing about not having the VFX tech, it isn't just about little cute green babies and space men in shiny metal suits....What most people don't realise is large amounts of what we would think of as normal shots these days involve a lot of VFX work to adjust the scene, crop out / replace certain elements.
If you can do this really well, you won't even notice, and it is cheaper than having to find the perfect place to film (and spend ages converting it for your shot) or having to build a specialist set.
Again, Disney have this incredible virtual set, where they can film in a dome and you can't even tell the stuff in the background isn't real.
This is far cheaper than having to take your whole crew on location. Baby Yoda show in the past would have flown to a whole load of places around the world for all those shots by the sea, in the desert, now they just open up the dome and film.
The Disney virtual set is amazing, but the new one is incredible. It's why Sony just invested $250m in Epic to get access to Unreal Engine 5 for their virtual set technology on their backlot as well to licence a custom version to other studios who are using their CLED virtual sets.
It's this kind of stuff where the BBC used to be at the forefront of technology that they've just let others take the lead. The team at Sony who made it happen is all made up of ex-BBC people and now the licence income from virtual sets will go to a Japanese conglomerate instead of the BBC.
As time goes on the further behind the BBC falls.
They used to be technological leaders but they also used to lead on another metric - their content and back catalogue.
If you'd asked 20 years ago for the best prior British shows you'd have almost exclusively received a list of BBC shows: Fawlty Towers, Monty Python, Only Fools etc
But since the dawn of universal HDTVs the new content is increasingly not BBC. Any list of the best British dramas of the past decade would have to include shows like The Crown, Game of Thrones, Downton Abbey etc
People used to feel affectionate towards the BBC. I don't think many of my generation or younger do. The BBC is rapidly facing a day where even if it did open up its archive of old SD dramas it will be met with a grunt of indifference rather than affection.
Game of Thrones is not a British Drama. It's also a bit shit in my opinion but I recognise that's a minority view.
Largely british cast, a lot filmed in northern ireland....what makes it not british?
The fact it's not British? Harry Potter is the same, as is James Bond. These are big American studio productions. Nothing wrong with that, but we can't 'claim it' on the basis of the use of British talent. Hollywood has been borrowing class from British thespians since the ark.
Take out the British talent from GOT and you're left with little more than a few CGI dragons. It's as culturally British as warm beer, fagging, and the thwack of willow on leather.
It seems like some here really want it to be, certainly...
It is a famous fake documentary on medieval England, as Rudy Giuliani told us.
In fairness I think know the point he meant to say.
If it was that it was quite a shit one. Before I switched off a few Kings had already been offed. In medieval England, you didn't actually see many monarchs killing each other. Would have set a very dangerous precedent. Went through swathes of peasants though naturally...
Inspired not based I'd say. That's a good series, up to the bizarre moment the author's favourite character dies and the story essentially just stops, and the last book is in a very different style and crap.
Obviously GOT is not even attempting to be follow a pseudo historical narrative (Crown of Stars might be closer) and Giuliani just meant its inspired by medieval times, but hes an idiot.
You can always tell when a cherished political betting shibboleth perishes. People start talking about anything but politics. Cricket. telly. Movies. Whatever.
Recently it was the wonderfulness of Britain being in the EU that was totally atomised.
Over the week-end, two more Politicalbetting totemic beliefs went the same way
The first is that the vaccine would set us free. The post vaccine lockdown world is manifestly being constructed as we speak.
The second cherished politicalbetting consensual belief that got destroyed was the notion that the entire government and SAGE do not want to keep us in lockdown a MINUTE longer than they have to. Look at the nice scientists calling for the cancellation of Cheltenham for ever. Oh dear.
Pubs opening by 21 June 2021. This morning, June 2022 looks closer.
Nope. The lockdown must end this spring.
But it manifestly is not going to. Not Spring. Not summer. Not ever.
Not until we decide it does.
Well there you go then. Your first para is instantly alleviated by the second.
It will end because the public's consent will stop at some point.
If you are still mad that there may be consent for longer than you or perhaps I would like, that's a separate point.
After all, if 'we' dont decide it should stop when you would like, will you still claim they will keep us in it forever? Even though it would be by consent?
Actually you are correct that was a silly post by me. We will one day get out of this. But I stand by my other points.
I think it's good to keep up pressure around lockdown just in case. I'm sanguine as it barely affects me, but it must be something done only in extremis.
In extremis is right. I, like Anabobazina, have come onboard purely because (to my surprise) vaccine have been developed very quickly. But the condition is that we face what risk remains, not continue to cower from ANY risk once the chance of an overwhelmed health service goes away.
We are in a war-like situation I guess - where the pause button on liberal democracy is pressed. "Short term only" is implicit.
I agree with this too. So long as the NHS is ok - a ramped up NHS if necessary - we have to get back to as near normal as possible again. Maybe keep some aspects of hygiene and distancing but only ones which don't get in the way of Life.
One caveat. This needs to be the last major lockdown so reopening should not be rushed into under pressure from Tory backbenchers. It's worth a few extra weeks to gain the extra confidence that, yes, "this will be the last time" and "it's all over now".
Credit to you for saying this ... you being of the left an all.
Hey lots of lefties are also libertarians! We are just a vastly under represented group in parliament and in the press.
By definition a leftwinger cannot be a libertarian as a libertarian wants as low tax and low public spending and limited regulation as possible.
Just the same as by definition a social conservative cannot be a libertarian either as a libertarian wants social liberalism and as little government interference in peoples' personal life as possible
Yes, I think I agree.
The Spiked journos, for instance, badge themselves as left-wing libertarians but I wouldn`t say they are left wing and I`m not convinced that they are full-on libertarians either. They are clearly strong liberals, fierce defenders of the working class and pretty much centre ground on the left-right thing.
Libertarians can`t be left wing because thinking about negative and positive conceptions of liberty libertarians only support the former whereas liberals are mad keen on both.
A libertarian is someone who advocates civil liberty, that's a perfectly reasonable definition of the word. It's the opposite of an authoritarian (of which there are very many on PB, from both left and right).
I do worry about the Left Authoritarians on here. I would get on much better with Right Libertarians, despite being left of centre myself, liberty over all.
You can always tell when a cherished political betting shibboleth perishes. People start talking about anything but politics. Cricket. telly. Movies. Whatever.
Recently it was the wonderfulness of Britain being in the EU that was totally atomised.
Over the week-end, two more Politicalbetting totemic beliefs went the same way
The first is that the vaccine would set us free. The post vaccine lockdown world is manifestly being constructed as we speak.
The second cherished politicalbetting consensual belief that got destroyed was the notion that the entire government and SAGE do not want to keep us in lockdown a MINUTE longer than they have to. Look at the nice scientists calling for the cancellation of Cheltenham for ever. Oh dear.
Pubs opening by 21 June 2021. This morning, June 2022 looks closer.
Nope. The lockdown must end this spring.
But it manifestly is not going to. Not Spring. Not summer. Not ever.
Not until we decide it does.
Well there you go then. Your first para is instantly alleviated by the second.
It will end because the public's consent will stop at some point.
If you are still mad that there may be consent for longer than you or perhaps I would like, that's a separate point.
After all, if 'we' dont decide it should stop when you would like, will you still claim they will keep us in it forever? Even though it would be by consent?
Actually you are correct that was a silly post by me. We will one day get out of this. But I stand by my other points.
I think it's good to keep up pressure around lockdown just in case. I'm sanguine as it barely affects me, but it must be something done only in extremis.
In extremis is right. I, like Anabobazina, have come onboard purely because (to my surprise) vaccine have been developed very quickly. But the condition is that we face what risk remains, not continue to cower from ANY risk once the chance of an overwhelmed health service goes away.
We are in a war-like situation I guess - where the pause button on liberal democracy is pressed. "Short term only" is implicit.
I agree with this too. So long as the NHS is ok - a ramped up NHS if necessary - we have to get back to as near normal as possible again. Maybe keep some aspects of hygiene and distancing but only ones which don't get in the way of Life.
One caveat. This needs to be the last major lockdown so reopening should not be rushed into under pressure from Tory backbenchers. It's worth a few extra weeks to gain the extra confidence that, yes, "this will be the last time" and "it's all over now".
Credit to you for saying this ... you being of the left an all.
Hey lots of lefties are also libertarians! We are just a vastly under represented group in parliament and in the press.
By definition a leftwinger cannot be a libertarian as a libertarian wants as low tax and low public spending and limited regulation as possible.
Comments
https://twitter.com/kevin_larkin/status/1352393701633515527
We had stories 3-4 weeks ago about half and 2/3 the amount to be delivered to particular areas, then when we actually get the numbers for those weeks across the whole country, it was all well up on previous weeks.
Maybe this week will be different, but it hasn't followed so far.
I think the issue is how to we get from here where we have got a medical and hospital emergency to a point where we are preventing people from getting it in the first place globally. That isn't an easy question to answer IMO, the US, UK and other developed countries will be fine, we have the means to subsidise development of these new generation of vaccines that will help us defeat it domestically. I don't know how the developing world deals with this though.
https://twitter.com/ExStrategist/status/1358783167541477379?s=20
Somewhere along the way the Left got terribly confused.
Again, the UK government were pretty good at quickly doing deals with private hospitals for capacity back this time last year. You would think they could do similar for hotels, especially as they don't exactly have many guests at the moment.
I actually feel it is more the government (for whatever reason) just don't want to implement this policy.
Those who in the past led the peasants revolt or the American colonists revolt and initially the French revolution for example were against the ancien regime and Feudal system, they were not really leftwing.
Indeed the libertarian, small state Tea Party grouping within the Republican Party were so named after the Boston Tea Party revolt against British rule and the tax on tea but are anything but leftwing
https://twitter.com/UKMisBrussels/status/1358786278318292999?s=20
The rest of it is still the usual shambles.
The Spiked journos, for instance, badge themselves as left-wing libertarians but I wouldn`t say they are left wing and I`m not convinced that they are full-on libertarians either. They are clearly strong liberals, fierce defenders of the working class and pretty much centre ground on the left-right thing.
Libertarians can`t be left wing because thinking about negative and positive conceptions of liberty libertarians only support the former whereas liberals are mad keen on both.
As I pointed out below the UK government managed to quickly do deal with private hospitals back this time last year (and got a good deal in terms of cost / bed).
I really think they underlying motivate is that there are people in government who just don't want to do this policy, hence the constant massive feet dragging. It isn't exactly complicated to get all the CEOs of the major chain hotels on the phone and do a deal with them, they need the business.
The reason that folk like Snowdon and Andy Cooke hate people like me is we will not let them impose lockdowns with a clear conscience.
Covid kills its absolutely true, but so to lockdowns. Its an inconvenient truth for Snowdon, and Andy, and everybody else, but truth it is nevertheless. The covid deaths are happening now, but many of the lockdown deaths will happen down the line, from the horrible problems that lockdown has caused. Mental illness, alcoholism, drug abuse, problems with inactivity and poverty.
The USA may be giving us a laboratory for this because some states, in all climates, did not lockdown meaningfully over winter. How are their excess death rates, relative to those that did? More importantly, how will they be in the future, when covid is gone and the problems lockdown has caused are still with us?
https://twitter.com/mugecevik/status/1358540001051627522
No need for complex app or anything.
It`s a question of balance though.
Snowdon is not pro-lockdown by any measure, he (and I) have come on board on a short-term basis only due to the invention of the vaccines (as long as this implies "short term") and the fact that medical services are stretched.
Also a very good state school there: Fortismere
Happily for me I expect to get vaccinated through work fairly soon (Pharmacy education) as will be in contact with students who are out in Hospitals/Community pharmacy placements.
i
I'm amused by your fantasies.
The ones that "whatever-it-is" is being made up (such as vaccine issues, or transmissibility, or mortality) in order to justify a mysterious and dark conspiracy of scientists and world leaders to keep us all under control.
As it happens, I hate lockdowns. I had been advocating regional restrictions instead, and targetting them more strongly. My frequent use of the term "find the low hanging fruit" back in the day refers to that: some restrictions are far more efficacious than others and have less impact - find them and use them.
And use of rapid testing to avoid lockdowns and even restrictions. Never happened, unfortunately.
Unfortunately lockdowns have been shown to be the only reliable way of turning the spread down. I still think there are more intelligent ways to do it, but experimenting right now is unwise. Should have been tried in August and early September (when the Cummins, Young, Yeadon, Hartley-Brewers, etc were screaming "False Positives!" and "Casedemic!")
You persist in ignoring the negative effects of not locking down as well - the impact on economies and mental health of letting the virus have freer rein.
I very much doubt you'll ever change that; it doesn't seem to fit your worldview and habit of very motivated reasoning.
'Tis a pity; there's a useful debate to be had on what types of restriction and what level of them is best overall, but you do persist in the dark conspiracies.
There's also an unwillingness to understand the scale of the issue - there were a million people through LHR in December, how many hotel rooms do we actually need?
The hotelliers will be wanting government to underwrite every single room in such an hotel, including for staff, for periods of disinfection and all the additional security required. Security was a huge issue in Australia, they initially hired a bunch of 'bouncers' in the hotels who had a habit of ending up in guest bedrooms and going home afterwards infected.
Is this a spoof?
Of course I do mean educate in the non-loaded, non-sinister sense.
https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1358631228832907266?s=20
‘He got rid of’ = had them kidnapped, brutally tortured and murdered
I see I'm not the only poster here to question the logic of the odds. England are no certainties to clinch the win but I reckon they should be about 4/6 to take nine wickets on this Chennai wicket. Betdaq have it about the other way round. I really think that must be Asian money betting according to the heart rather than the head. England took six wickets on day three so nine on day five looks about par for the course.
Anyway, I'm on, as you may have figured, and looking forward to getting up nice and early tomorrow for the crucial first session.
https://twitter.com/DrZoeHyde/status/1358749325610737665?s=20
Con: Living standards did not go up
Pro: Living standards went up
Yup, that has got to be weather related. It's going to be a very disappointing return and will put the government under a slight pressure for the rest of the week.
More snow forecast today and tomorrow. It's been snowing here all day!
So obviously not a libertarian who is by definition the opposite of a socialist but still respects the rule of law
The pros and cons of Hamas and the IRA will be enlightening, no doubt.
If the Safferbug runs riot in the UK this spring we will be back to square one. They won’t be able to tweak any of the vaccines in time. People will catch it again who’ve already had it. People vaxxed with AZ will also get it. Hopefully they will only get mild/moderate cases, but we don’t know that yet, for sure.
I don’t want to come over all Black Rook but this is ominous. To me it suggests lockdown until Autumn. And yet I just don’t think the economy can hack that, or the nation’s mental health. So what gives?
Equally, if you have a press conference every day at 5pm with the PM and CMO and Head of the NHS about, say, smoking, or mountaineering, or 3-day eventing, you will pretty soon end up with a ban on those activities.
The only relevant criteria are hospitalisations and deaths. The lockdowns were, depending on the govt's particular PR aim, to protect the NHS and/or to save lives. If hospitalisations decrease to the point whereby we are not facing a "crisis" and there is a reduced or no danger of hospitals being overwhelmed, the lockdowns should end.
We also have a long term bet with Valneva and CureVac.
We're also investing in world leading mutation busting modelling to predict viral evolutionary pathways so that future vaccines are one step ahead of the game.
What this means is that the government needs to get serious about border controls. Have a completely open economy and I'd also suggest a two island approach with Ireland. Once we've got the infrastructure in place to rapidly immunise people to variants with CureVac we can begin to roll out vaccine passports for overseas travel.
If my calculation is correct 17 mil/ 75 days = approx 225000 a day - surely we will be quicker than that
Good luck in your new place, Max.
The blank cheque approach seems to have been taken with test, track & trace. With pretty dismal results.
Obviously GOT is not even attempting to be follow a pseudo historical narrative (Crown of Stars might be closer) and Giuliani just meant its inspired by medieval times, but hes an idiot.
For crying out loud given the first in the con column I dont think anyone thought he personally fired every shot either.
I do worry about the Left Authoritarians on here. I would get on much better with Right Libertarians, despite being left of centre myself, liberty over all.
I can’t do another year of this.
The other is the opposite off authoritarian – one who advocates civil liberty.
The Libertarian Party (capital L) has somewhat hijacked the term, sadly.
https://chambers.co.uk/search/?query=libertarian&title=21st