You tried to abuse your unfounded fears of your partner's health to try and gazzump an election you lost. There was no basis to your paranoid delusions but your unsubstantiated phobias supposedly mean I'm disgusting? Pathetic.
As for engaging, this is Mike Smithson's site. I'll engage with whoever I want to here unless he decides to start telling people not to do so.
As for "preferred measure" - I prefer accuracy. Excess deaths shows how many people have actually died. In Italy's case by 30 November they had 92,730 excess deaths contrasted with supposedly having had 54,380.
I prefer accurate figures. If you prefer inaccurate dodgy ones then that just speaks about your own lack of integrity it doesn't mean the UK is worse than Italy simply because in Italy half of their Covid deaths went without Covid being recorded as the reason they died.
I have asked you to stop engaging with me. Since you are unable to respect even that simple wish, I shall withdraw from the site permanently.
And to think that scientists used to believe that there was a physical limit to the size of snowflakes.
I see the Guardian says the Begum ruling is “controversial”
This is one of those special Guardian word-definitions, where “controversial” means “it dismays three people in Islington”
The view of the court about the respect to be given to the views and judgment of Ministers is something of a throw back and may cause ripples. It is not easy to reconcile that view with the unanimous view of the Court in the Prorogation case, to take an example.
The court over-reached with the prorogation case; this time they are exactly right. These difficult executive decisions must be made by people who are democratically accountable
These two cases are easily reconciled.
In both cases the court found it had the power to intervene. It took the view that it should intervene in the prorogation case because the government was taking the piss (which it was): the government's refusal to give any account under oath for its actions may well have proven fatal to its case. You seem to have forgotten that at the time of the purported prorogation Britain had a Prime Minister who had not been elected at a general election, who did not command a majority in Parliament and indeed had not won a vote in Parliament pursuing a policy that had not been put before the British public and using prorogation as a tool to impose that irreversibly.
In the present case it took the view that the government had acted within the wide latitude granted to governments when taking decisions. Which, given that the Home Secretary was exercising statutory powers given to them in an extreme case, is not all that surprising.
The main consequence of the prorogation case was political. The public decided, unlike in the USA, that they were AOK with self-coups. As a result Britain now has a government with a light attachment to democracy and an extreme aversion to any form of accountability enthusiastically supported by a self-radicalised posse who are quite willing to overlook anything it does, up to and including the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands.
Nice example of ensuring people wont pay attention to your solidly put points because you wanted to indulge in unrelated theatrical condemnation.
Now you can pretend to be affronted when people ignore your good first paras, even though that was presumably your intention and you want Brexiteers to rage at you so you can respond in turn.
Well, each of us has fun in their own way i suppose.
The last bit is the important bit. Tens of thousands of people have died avoidable deaths, but the government's supporters simply don't think that's as important as supporting the government.
I am staggered at the self-degradation of these partisans.
Pot meet kettle. I assume the Italians, French, Germans, Americans (need I go on?) who died were all unavoidable deaths? Or maybe. just maybe there is a nasty virus in worldwide circulation causing epic problems to all governments. Ours has not performed well, I think most would accept that, but they are not the only ones to struggle in this pandemic. At least we have one of the most open and trustworthy reporting systems. How many Chinese died in Wuhan province? How many Spaniards have died (unclear reporting, and a suggestion that that true figure is far higher than the official one? I get that you hate Brexit and the current government, but you are one of the most blinkered on this site. You are an intelligent man, but your own lack of self awareness is stark.
Britain has done exceptionally badly, in the bottommost tier of countries in its response to Covid-19. Only the most crazed zealots would suggest otherwise.
Sadly, many of those crazed zealots infest this site. Here's the sort of problem that they're determined to avoid discussing:
I raised this this morning but the hypothesis of that comment that this is something that could have been avoided is at best unproven. As far as we can tell what happened was that Kent variant took a much greater hold in this country than elsewhere, it was far more infectious and possibly marginally more dangerous.
Your default assumption that this was a consequence of government incompetence or ineptitude may prove to be correct but it is an assumption. The UK has the best genomic analysis in the world. By that time (December) it had amongst the best test and trace and was one of the very highest levels of testing. And yet we were still caught with our trousers down. Incompetence? Maybe but it is possible that we did our very best and were simply unlucky.
My memory is good enough to remember early December, when cases in Britain were obviously rising and the government was resisting tightening up. I remember the Prime Minister mocking the Leader of the Opposition for suggesting the same thing.
It was obvious what was happening at the time. And untold thousands paid with their lives because the Prime Minister couldn't bear to do the unpopular but necessary thing.
I'm sure you're diligently noting down in your ledger the untold thousands of EU citizens who will perish completely unnecessarily due to the EU, and various Member State governments, putting political ideology and dogma ahead of the lives of their citizens.
Your position the other night was that this was a pandemic and as such a natural phenomenon for which no government could be blamed for anything at all. Have you yet moved on from that ridiculous position?
Not at all. I'm just naively assuming you must be doing as I mentioned as a logical extension of your criticisms of the UK government.
If you're not then it doesn't bother me, but it would be interesting to know. Unless of course there's axes to be ground.
I don't blame any government for anything as it happens. No government is deliberately seeking to kill their citizens. All are doing what they consider to be the best at the time they make any decision, in rapidly changing situations, with new and constantly evolving scientific evidence or theories.
But if there's an axe to be ground then so be it. Fill your boots. It won't assuage your evident hate of the UK government though. Use your vote instead. If enough people agree with you then democracy will have its say.
I have a feeling though that it won't be your current angst that'll be the undoing of Johnson.
So you do agree that the outrageous number of avoidable deaths that the British government is responsible for is something that they should be held accountable for?
No I don't as I don't consider them to be "outrageous" or ultimately what I would consider to be "avoidable".
Comparatively high to others, at this precise moment in time, yes. Expected, yes.
We have a habit of making our governments "accountable" every 4 or 5 years. If your belief is shared by the majority of people come judgement day then you'll be the first to celebrate I'm sure.
Expected? The fourth worst in the world? This country is well and truly up shit creek if your disgusting complacency about such disastrous performance is widely shared.
Except fourth in the world is not true. There is no semblance of truth to it whatsoever so only someone trying to lie to score partisan points would use that claim.
4th is a frequently quoted (by reputable sources) current estimate of where we stand. It can be disputed - as all precise country comparisons can be - but it's not a bad faith claim. You, OTOH, with nonsense such as "there is no semblance of truth to it whatsoever", are lying.
The light is very definitely at the end of the tunnel. Given how quickly we're now getting jabs into arms (and even getting people second doses), I can't help think that June seems increasingly pessimistic.
Yes, out forwards projection is for deaths to be at around 10-40 per day by the 12th of April based on the vaccine numbers alone. Anything like that and the pressure to unlock faster will have to tell, especially for the June date.
My favourite is still
One the deaths...
It's a hard one - at some point the descent will slow. But yes, probably at a very low number.
If anything - and I know lag, and everything, but there are other graphs too - the decline appears to be picking up speed.
Actually, on this subject it would be interesting to know in which areas these increases are truly of concern and in which they are not.
If a remote rural area has 10 cases this week instead of 5 in the last then its case rate has doubled, but that's not necessarily cause for panic.
Does the government, or Van Tam, have a shred of evidence that observance of lockdown is any different now than it was last month or last year.
No. He has come to a conclusion on this based on a theory of a relationship between lockdown and cases that is at least debatable, at worst false.
Speaking as somebody who has spent a lot of time criticising Van Tam’s statistical errors around education, do you have evidence that he is wrong?
Because unless you do, it’s not as though we have a reason to believe you ahead of him.
If you do, please produce it.
My critique is based on the fact that cases in America have dropped sharply, whatever the state's approach to lockdown.
That being the case, how can Van Tam's thermostat reality be correct? The relationship is much more complex. For Hancock and Van Tam this is political now.
Soon the public will see the true extent of the downsides of lockdown. Its won't be pretty. Voters must believe that lockdown worked.
I mean, lockdown has worked. That's undeniable. It's basic common sense that if you keep people away from each other they can't spread the virus to each other.
The question is not whether lockdown has worked but rather if it was worth it.
Most of the population think it was worth it.
Basic common sense, I agree. But basic common sense doesn't always come to the right answer. The evidence that lockdown has worked is pretty equivocal. Though you never have a perfect control so you can never really compare like with like.
I don't really agree because it's a physical impossibility for people to transmit the virus to each other without contact.
Hence reduced contact suppresses the virus.
Whether or not a British-style lockdown works better than a US style self-imposed lockdown or a French-style curfew remains to be seen. Either way public opinion remains in favour of our approach.
Actually, on this subject it would be interesting to know in which areas these increases are truly of concern and in which they are not.
If a remote rural area has 10 cases this week instead of 5 in the last then its case rate has doubled, but that's not necessarily cause for panic.
Does the government, or Van Tam, have a shred of evidence that observance of lockdown is any different now than it was last month or last year.
No. He has come to a conclusion on this based on a theory of a relationship between lockdown and cases that is at least debatable, at worst false.
Speaking as somebody who has spent a lot of time criticising Van Tam’s statistical errors around education, do you have evidence that he is wrong?
Because unless you do, it’s not as though we have a reason to believe you ahead of him.
If you do, please produce it.
My critique is based on the fact that cases in America have dropped sharply, whatever the state's approach to lockdown.
That being the case, how can Van Tam's thermostat reality be correct? The relationship is much more complex. For Hancock and Van Tam this is political now.
Soon the public will see the true extent of the downsides of lockdown. Its won't be pretty. Voters must believe that lockdown worked.
As I recall, there was a suggestion made that you were incorrect in this assumption.
Do you have the figures? Because without them, your statement is asserted, not proved.
There was an explainer (I think in the FT?) suggesting California's lockdown may have latterly enabled it to beat Florida in case declines, taking a number of factors into consideration.
Fair enough. Lockdown may have had an effect. It does not make Van Tam's representation of the relationship the truth. Not by a long chalk.
Actually, on this subject it would be interesting to know in which areas these increases are truly of concern and in which they are not.
If a remote rural area has 10 cases this week instead of 5 in the last then its case rate has doubled, but that's not necessarily cause for panic.
My favourite was when Twitter got really excited about a map of Gloucestershire showing one small town had over 10,000 cases just after Cheltenham.
But Newent doesn’t have 10,000 people. They had got the scale wrong, and it was one case per ten thousand
In fact I think there was one case in Foley Road.
I've been investigating some of the areas where cases have actually been increasing, simply by clicking on the map on the dashboard website to investigate the data. Here are a couple of examples:
On the one hand, I give you the City of Edinburgh: 499 cases, up 178 (55.5%) on the previous week On the other hand, I give you North Norfolk: 54 cases, up 2 (3.8%) on the previous week
These two areas would, presumably, count just the same towards that total of one fifth of authorities in which cases have recently risen.
I think we need a better understanding of where exactly the problems actually are, and where changes in case numbers are statistical noise.
Yes, the figures used in the press conference were clearly to make a comms point more than anything (not saying that’s wrong if there are concerns at the start of a trend).
Actually, on this subject it would be interesting to know in which areas these increases are truly of concern and in which they are not.
If a remote rural area has 10 cases this week instead of 5 in the last then its case rate has doubled, but that's not necessarily cause for panic.
Does the government, or Van Tam, have a shred of evidence that observance of lockdown is any different now than it was last month or last year.
No. He has come to a conclusion on this based on a theory of a relationship between lockdown and cases that is at least debatable, at worst false.
You can literally walk around any town or city to see for yourself that lockdown observance is different.
That is anecdote not evidence. Believe the Van Tam thermostat like a good little boy if you want. You won't mind when your education, life chances and future income is f8cked by the downside of lockdown. You won;t mind when you are wading through a treacle of taxation and regulation.
I want lockdown to end just as much as you mate.
I'm sure you do but you wanted to know why today was so down beat. And I was just offering an explanation. It has to happen their way, because if it doesn't you will question their approach.
There's a very simple explanation, something I've mentioned on here.
My father is out vaccinating people and one thing he is telling people as the age profile of the vaccinated is lowering is to tell them that getting their first dose doesn't mean they are now immortal from Covid nor are anyone they might see.
The vaccine is a magic bullet against this plague, but only when a sufficient number of the population have been vaccinated.
Younger people are more likely to take risks when it comes to the plague.
Actually, on this subject it would be interesting to know in which areas these increases are truly of concern and in which they are not.
If a remote rural area has 10 cases this week instead of 5 in the last then its case rate has doubled, but that's not necessarily cause for panic.
Does the government, or Van Tam, have a shred of evidence that observance of lockdown is any different now than it was last month or last year.
No. He has come to a conclusion on this based on a theory of a relationship between lockdown and cases that is at least debatable, at worst false.
Speaking as somebody who has spent a lot of time criticising Van Tam’s statistical errors around education, do you have evidence that he is wrong?
Because unless you do, it’s not as though we have a reason to believe you ahead of him.
If you do, please produce it.
My critique is based on the fact that cases in America have dropped sharply, whatever the state's approach to lockdown.
That being the case, how can Van Tam's thermostat reality be correct? The relationship is much more complex. For Hancock and Van Tam this is political now.
Soon the public will see the true extent of the downsides of lockdown. Its won't be pretty. Voters must believe that lockdown worked.
I mean, lockdown has worked. That's undeniable. It's basic common sense that if you keep people away from each other they can't spread the virus to each other.
The question is not whether lockdown has worked but rather if it was worth it.
Most of the population think it was worth it.
Although it is customary not to judge whether something was worth it until you have paid the bill.
Actually, on this subject it would be interesting to know in which areas these increases are truly of concern and in which they are not.
If a remote rural area has 10 cases this week instead of 5 in the last then its case rate has doubled, but that's not necessarily cause for panic.
Does the government, or Van Tam, have a shred of evidence that observance of lockdown is any different now than it was last month or last year.
No. He has come to a conclusion on this based on a theory of a relationship between lockdown and cases that is at least debatable, at worst false.
You can literally walk around any town or city to see for yourself that lockdown observance is different.
That is anecdote not evidence. Believe the Van Tam thermostat like a good little boy if you want. You won't mind when your education, life chances and future income is f8cked by the downside of lockdown. You won;t mind when you are wading through a treacle of taxation and regulation.
I want lockdown to end just as much as you mate.
I'm sure you do but you wanted to know why today was so down beat. And I was just offering an explanation. It has to happen their way, because if it doesn't you will question their approach.
There's a very simple explanation, something I've mentioned on here.
My father is out vaccinating people and one thing he is telling people as the age profile of the vaccinated is lowering is to tell them that getting their first dose doesn't mean they are now immortal from Covid nor are anyone they might see.
The vaccine is a magic bullet against this plague, but only when a sufficient number of the population have been vaccinated.
Younger people are more likely to take risks when it comes to the plague.
It would help if, like your quite admirable dad, they were honest with people. Why not just say this?
Actually, on this subject it would be interesting to know in which areas these increases are truly of concern and in which they are not.
If a remote rural area has 10 cases this week instead of 5 in the last then its case rate has doubled, but that's not necessarily cause for panic.
Does the government, or Van Tam, have a shred of evidence that observance of lockdown is any different now than it was last month or last year.
No. He has come to a conclusion on this based on a theory of a relationship between lockdown and cases that is at least debatable, at worst false.
Speaking as somebody who has spent a lot of time criticising Van Tam’s statistical errors around education, do you have evidence that he is wrong?
Because unless you do, it’s not as though we have a reason to believe you ahead of him.
If you do, please produce it.
My critique is based on the fact that cases in America have dropped sharply, whatever the state's approach to lockdown.
That being the case, how can Van Tam's thermostat reality be correct? The relationship is much more complex. For Hancock and Van Tam this is political now.
Soon the public will see the true extent of the downsides of lockdown. Its won't be pretty. Voters must believe that lockdown worked.
I mean, lockdown has worked. That's undeniable. It's basic common sense that if you keep people away from each other they can't spread the virus to each other.
The question is not whether lockdown has worked but rather if it was worth it.
Most of the population think it was worth it.
Although it is customary not to judge whether something was worth it until you have paid the bill.
My generation will pay the bill, don't worry. You're welcome everyone.
The light is very definitely at the end of the tunnel. Given how quickly we're now getting jabs into arms (and even getting people second doses), I can't help think that June seems increasingly pessimistic.
Yes, out forwards projection is for deaths to be at around 10-40 per day by the 12th of April based on the vaccine numbers alone. Anything like that and the pressure to unlock faster will have to tell, especially for the June date.
My favourite is still
One the deaths...
It's a hard one - at some point the descent will slow. But yes, probably at a very low number.
If anything - and I know lag, and everything, but there are other graphs too - the decline appears to be picking up speed.
Actually, on this subject it would be interesting to know in which areas these increases are truly of concern and in which they are not.
If a remote rural area has 10 cases this week instead of 5 in the last then its case rate has doubled, but that's not necessarily cause for panic.
Does the government, or Van Tam, have a shred of evidence that observance of lockdown is any different now than it was last month or last year.
No. He has come to a conclusion on this based on a theory of a relationship between lockdown and cases that is at least debatable, at worst false.
You can literally walk around any town or city to see for yourself that lockdown observance is different.
That is anecdote not evidence. Believe the Van Tam thermostat like a good little boy if you want. You won't mind when your education, life chances and future income is f8cked by the downside of lockdown. You won;t mind when you are wading through a treacle of taxation and regulation.
I want lockdown to end just as much as you mate.
I'm sure you do but you wanted to know why today was so down beat. And I was just offering an explanation. It has to happen their way, because if it doesn't you will question their approach.
There's a very simple explanation, something I've mentioned on here.
My father is out vaccinating people and one thing he is telling people as the age profile of the vaccinated is lowering is to tell them that getting their first dose doesn't mean they are now immortal from Covid nor are anyone they might see.
The vaccine is a magic bullet against this plague, but only when a sufficient number of the population have been vaccinated.
Younger people are more likely to take risks when it comes to the plague.
It would help if, like your quite admirable dad, they were honest with people. Why not just say this?
They have, this is like the hardcore who deliberately ignore the drink and drive laws.
You tried to abuse your unfounded fears of your partner's health to try and gazzump an election you lost. There was no basis to your paranoid delusions but your unsubstantiated phobias supposedly mean I'm disgusting? Pathetic.
As for engaging, this is Mike Smithson's site. I'll engage with whoever I want to here unless he decides to start telling people not to do so.
As for "preferred measure" - I prefer accuracy. Excess deaths shows how many people have actually died. In Italy's case by 30 November they had 92,730 excess deaths contrasted with supposedly having had 54,380.
I prefer accurate figures. If you prefer inaccurate dodgy ones then that just speaks about your own lack of integrity it doesn't mean the UK is worse than Italy simply because in Italy half of their Covid deaths went without Covid being recorded as the reason they died.
I have asked you to stop engaging with me. Since you are unable to respect even that simple wish, I shall withdraw from the site permanently.
Did you see that Economist data on excess deaths? It put UK (which it idiosynratically calls 'Britain') roughly mid table in Europe, along with Spain and Italy. The ones with the most excess deaths tend to be Eastern European - Russia, Bulgaria, and so on. The UK seems to be the only country in which Covid deaths exceed excess deaths. Data was only up to late January, mind - will be interesting to see an update.
I see the Guardian says the Begum ruling is “controversial”
This is one of those special Guardian word-definitions, where “controversial” means “it dismays three people in Islington”
The view of the court about the respect to be given to the views and judgment of Ministers is something of a throw back and may cause ripples. It is not easy to reconcile that view with the unanimous view of the Court in the Prorogation case, to take an example.
The court over-reached with the prorogation case; this time they are exactly right. These difficult executive decisions must be made by people who are democratically accountable
These two cases are easily reconciled.
In both cases the court found it had the power to intervene. It took the view that it should intervene in the prorogation case because the government was taking the piss (which it was): the government's refusal to give any account under oath for its actions may well have proven fatal to its case. You seem to have forgotten that at the time of the purported prorogation Britain had a Prime Minister who had not been elected at a general election, who did not command a majority in Parliament and indeed had not won a vote in Parliament pursuing a policy that had not been put before the British public and using prorogation as a tool to impose that irreversibly.
In the present case it took the view that the government had acted within the wide latitude granted to governments when taking decisions. Which, given that the Home Secretary was exercising statutory powers given to them in an extreme case, is not all that surprising.
The main consequence of the prorogation case was political. The public decided, unlike in the USA, that they were AOK with self-coups. As a result Britain now has a government with a light attachment to democracy and an extreme aversion to any form of accountability enthusiastically supported by a self-radicalised posse who are quite willing to overlook anything it does, up to and including the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands.
Nice example of ensuring people wont pay attention to your solidly put points because you wanted to indulge in unrelated theatrical condemnation.
Now you can pretend to be affronted when people ignore your good first paras, even though that was presumably your intention and you want Brexiteers to rage at you so you can respond in turn.
Well, each of us has fun in their own way i suppose.
The last bit is the important bit. Tens of thousands of people have died avoidable deaths, but the government's supporters simply don't think that's as important as supporting the government.
I am staggered at the self-degradation of these partisans.
Pot meet kettle. I assume the Italians, French, Germans, Americans (need I go on?) who died were all unavoidable deaths? Or maybe. just maybe there is a nasty virus in worldwide circulation causing epic problems to all governments. Ours has not performed well, I think most would accept that, but they are not the only ones to struggle in this pandemic. At least we have one of the most open and trustworthy reporting systems. How many Chinese died in Wuhan province? How many Spaniards have died (unclear reporting, and a suggestion that that true figure is far higher than the official one? I get that you hate Brexit and the current government, but you are one of the most blinkered on this site. You are an intelligent man, but your own lack of self awareness is stark.
Britain has done exceptionally badly, in the bottommost tier of countries in its response to Covid-19. Only the most crazed zealots would suggest otherwise.
Sadly, many of those crazed zealots infest this site. Here's the sort of problem that they're determined to avoid discussing:
I raised this this morning but the hypothesis of that comment that this is something that could have been avoided is at best unproven. As far as we can tell what happened was that Kent variant took a much greater hold in this country than elsewhere, it was far more infectious and possibly marginally more dangerous.
Your default assumption that this was a consequence of government incompetence or ineptitude may prove to be correct but it is an assumption. The UK has the best genomic analysis in the world. By that time (December) it had amongst the best test and trace and was one of the very highest levels of testing. And yet we were still caught with our trousers down. Incompetence? Maybe but it is possible that we did our very best and were simply unlucky.
My memory is good enough to remember early December, when cases in Britain were obviously rising and the government was resisting tightening up. I remember the Prime Minister mocking the Leader of the Opposition for suggesting the same thing.
It was obvious what was happening at the time. And untold thousands paid with their lives because the Prime Minister couldn't bear to do the unpopular but necessary thing.
I'm sure you're diligently noting down in your ledger the untold thousands of EU citizens who will perish completely unnecessarily due to the EU, and various Member State governments, putting political ideology and dogma ahead of the lives of their citizens.
Your position the other night was that this was a pandemic and as such a natural phenomenon for which no government could be blamed for anything at all. Have you yet moved on from that ridiculous position?
Not at all. I'm just naively assuming you must be doing as I mentioned as a logical extension of your criticisms of the UK government.
If you're not then it doesn't bother me, but it would be interesting to know. Unless of course there's axes to be ground.
I don't blame any government for anything as it happens. No government is deliberately seeking to kill their citizens. All are doing what they consider to be the best at the time they make any decision, in rapidly changing situations, with new and constantly evolving scientific evidence or theories.
But if there's an axe to be ground then so be it. Fill your boots. It won't assuage your evident hate of the UK government though. Use your vote instead. If enough people agree with you then democracy will have its say.
I have a feeling though that it won't be your current angst that'll be the undoing of Johnson.
So you do agree that the outrageous number of avoidable deaths that the British government is responsible for is something that they should be held accountable for?
No I don't as I don't consider them to be "outrageous" or ultimately what I would consider to be "avoidable".
Comparatively high to others, at this precise moment in time, yes. Expected, yes.
We have a habit of making our governments "accountable" every 4 or 5 years. If your belief is shared by the majority of people come judgement day then you'll be the first to celebrate I'm sure.
Expected? The fourth worst in the world? This country is well and truly up shit creek if your disgusting complacency about such disastrous performance is widely shared.
Except fourth in the world is not true. There is no semblance of truth to it whatsoever so only someone trying to lie to score partisan points would use that claim.
4th is a frequently quoted (by reputable sources) current estimate of where we stand. It can be disputed - as all precise country comparisons can be - but it's not a bad faith claim. You, OTOH, with nonsense such as "there is no semblance of truth to it whatsoever", are lying.
Show me how you can get 4th from that? Or do you think we should be using the guesstimate trackers that we know are missing half or more of some countries deaths?
Which matters more for you: how many people have actually died (excess deaths) or using figures you know are wrong because they put Britain in a bad light (recorded Covid19 deaths)?
Actually, on this subject it would be interesting to know in which areas these increases are truly of concern and in which they are not.
If a remote rural area has 10 cases this week instead of 5 in the last then its case rate has doubled, but that's not necessarily cause for panic.
Does the government, or Van Tam, have a shred of evidence that observance of lockdown is any different now than it was last month or last year.
No. He has come to a conclusion on this based on a theory of a relationship between lockdown and cases that is at least debatable, at worst false.
Speaking as somebody who has spent a lot of time criticising Van Tam’s statistical errors around education, do you have evidence that he is wrong?
Because unless you do, it’s not as though we have a reason to believe you ahead of him.
If you do, please produce it.
My critique is based on the fact that cases in America have dropped sharply, whatever the state's approach to lockdown.
That being the case, how can Van Tam's thermostat reality be correct? The relationship is much more complex. For Hancock and Van Tam this is political now.
Soon the public will see the true extent of the downsides of lockdown. Its won't be pretty. Voters must believe that lockdown worked.
I mean, lockdown has worked. That's undeniable. It's basic common sense that if you keep people away from each other they can't spread the virus to each other.
The question is not whether lockdown has worked but rather if it was worth it.
Most of the population think it was worth it.
Although it is customary not to judge whether something was worth it until you have paid the bill.
My generation will pay the bill, don't worry.
I doubt any generation will, it'll just be shunted on.
Looking forward to the newspaper reports of Salmond's testimony. That will tell us how free the press is and how well it performs it's social duties as the 4th Estate
Actually, on this subject it would be interesting to know in which areas these increases are truly of concern and in which they are not.
If a remote rural area has 10 cases this week instead of 5 in the last then its case rate has doubled, but that's not necessarily cause for panic.
Does the government, or Van Tam, have a shred of evidence that observance of lockdown is any different now than it was last month or last year.
No. He has come to a conclusion on this based on a theory of a relationship between lockdown and cases that is at least debatable, at worst false.
Speaking as somebody who has spent a lot of time criticising Van Tam’s statistical errors around education, do you have evidence that he is wrong?
Because unless you do, it’s not as though we have a reason to believe you ahead of him.
If you do, please produce it.
My critique is based on the fact that cases in America have dropped sharply, whatever the state's approach to lockdown.
That being the case, how can Van Tam's thermostat reality be correct? The relationship is much more complex. For Hancock and Van Tam this is political now.
Soon the public will see the true extent of the downsides of lockdown. Its won't be pretty. Voters must believe that lockdown worked.
I mean, lockdown has worked. That's undeniable. It's basic common sense that if you keep people away from each other they can't spread the virus to each other.
The question is not whether lockdown has worked but rather if it was worth it.
Most of the population think it was worth it.
Although it is customary not to judge whether something was worth it until you have paid the bill.
My generation will pay the bill, don't worry.
I doubt any generation will, it'll just be shunted on.
I think that's quite likely. Didn't the Treasury only just pay off some Napoleonic War gilts?
Actually, on this subject it would be interesting to know in which areas these increases are truly of concern and in which they are not.
If a remote rural area has 10 cases this week instead of 5 in the last then its case rate has doubled, but that's not necessarily cause for panic.
Does the government, or Van Tam, have a shred of evidence that observance of lockdown is any different now than it was last month or last year.
No. He has come to a conclusion on this based on a theory of a relationship between lockdown and cases that is at least debatable, at worst false.
Speaking as somebody who has spent a lot of time criticising Van Tam’s statistical errors around education, do you have evidence that he is wrong?
Because unless you do, it’s not as though we have a reason to believe you ahead of him.
If you do, please produce it.
My critique is based on the fact that cases in America have dropped sharply, whatever the state's approach to lockdown.
That being the case, how can Van Tam's thermostat reality be correct? The relationship is much more complex. For Hancock and Van Tam this is political now.
Soon the public will see the true extent of the downsides of lockdown. Its won't be pretty. Voters must believe that lockdown worked.
I mean, lockdown has worked. That's undeniable. It's basic common sense that if you keep people away from each other they can't spread the virus to each other.
The question is not whether lockdown has worked but rather if it was worth it.
Most of the population think it was worth it.
Basic common sense, I agree. But basic common sense doesn't always come to the right answer. The evidence that lockdown has worked is pretty equivocal. Though you never have a perfect control so you can never really compare like with like.
If and when this ends, we will all have the choice to decide whether the means justified the end or not.
Given the height of the stakes, the government would very, very much prefer you to come to the conclusion what they did was justified.
Surely this informs their approach now. Quite naturally. Most will get on with their lives, some of us will continue to be extremely angry with the government and want a peaceful political payback.
That's a problem only I will have to live with, on here.
Actually, on this subject it would be interesting to know in which areas these increases are truly of concern and in which they are not.
If a remote rural area has 10 cases this week instead of 5 in the last then its case rate has doubled, but that's not necessarily cause for panic.
Does the government, or Van Tam, have a shred of evidence that observance of lockdown is any different now than it was last month or last year.
No. He has come to a conclusion on this based on a theory of a relationship between lockdown and cases that is at least debatable, at worst false.
Speaking as somebody who has spent a lot of time criticising Van Tam’s statistical errors around education, do you have evidence that he is wrong?
Because unless you do, it’s not as though we have a reason to believe you ahead of him.
If you do, please produce it.
My critique is based on the fact that cases in America have dropped sharply, whatever the state's approach to lockdown.
That being the case, how can Van Tam's thermostat reality be correct? The relationship is much more complex. For Hancock and Van Tam this is political now.
Soon the public will see the true extent of the downsides of lockdown. Its won't be pretty. Voters must believe that lockdown worked.
I mean, lockdown has worked. That's undeniable. It's basic common sense that if you keep people away from each other they can't spread the virus to each other.
The question is not whether lockdown has worked but rather if it was worth it.
Most of the population think it was worth it.
Basic common sense, I agree. But basic common sense doesn't always come to the right answer. The evidence that lockdown has worked is pretty equivocal. Though you never have a perfect control so you can never really compare like with like.
If and when this ends, we will all have the choice to decided whether the means justified the end or not.
Given the height of the stakes, the government would very, very much prefer you to come to the conclusion what they did was justified.
Surely this informs their approach now. Quite naturally. Most will get on with their lives, some of us will continue to be extremely angry with the government and want a peaceful political payback.
That's a problem only I will have to live with, on here.
Life's too short to hold such a grudge. I'll be in the pub necking pints of Guinness and singing Champagne Supernova.
Actually, on this subject it would be interesting to know in which areas these increases are truly of concern and in which they are not.
If a remote rural area has 10 cases this week instead of 5 in the last then its case rate has doubled, but that's not necessarily cause for panic.
Does the government, or Van Tam, have a shred of evidence that observance of lockdown is any different now than it was last month or last year.
No. He has come to a conclusion on this based on a theory of a relationship between lockdown and cases that is at least debatable, at worst false.
Speaking as somebody who has spent a lot of time criticising Van Tam’s statistical errors around education, do you have evidence that he is wrong?
Because unless you do, it’s not as though we have a reason to believe you ahead of him.
If you do, please produce it.
My critique is based on the fact that cases in America have dropped sharply, whatever the state's approach to lockdown.
That being the case, how can Van Tam's thermostat reality be correct? The relationship is much more complex. For Hancock and Van Tam this is political now.
Soon the public will see the true extent of the downsides of lockdown. Its won't be pretty. Voters must believe that lockdown worked.
I mean, lockdown has worked. That's undeniable. It's basic common sense that if you keep people away from each other they can't spread the virus to each other.
The question is not whether lockdown has worked but rather if it was worth it.
Most of the population think it was worth it.
Basic common sense, I agree. But basic common sense doesn't always come to the right answer. The evidence that lockdown has worked is pretty equivocal. Though you never have a perfect control so you can never really compare like with like.
If and when this ends, we will all have the choice to decided whether the means justified the end or not.
Given the height of the stakes, the government would very, very much prefer you to come to the conclusion what they did was justified.
Surely this informs their approach now. Quite naturally. Most will get on with their lives, some of us will continue to be extremely angry with the government and want a peaceful political payback.
That's a problem only I will have to live with, on here.
Life's too short to hold such a grudge. I'll be in the pub necking pints of Guinness.
Actually, on this subject it would be interesting to know in which areas these increases are truly of concern and in which they are not.
If a remote rural area has 10 cases this week instead of 5 in the last then its case rate has doubled, but that's not necessarily cause for panic.
Does the government, or Van Tam, have a shred of evidence that observance of lockdown is any different now than it was last month or last year.
No. He has come to a conclusion on this based on a theory of a relationship between lockdown and cases that is at least debatable, at worst false.
Speaking as somebody who has spent a lot of time criticising Van Tam’s statistical errors around education, do you have evidence that he is wrong?
Because unless you do, it’s not as though we have a reason to believe you ahead of him.
If you do, please produce it.
My critique is based on the fact that cases in America have dropped sharply, whatever the state's approach to lockdown.
That being the case, how can Van Tam's thermostat reality be correct? The relationship is much more complex. For Hancock and Van Tam this is political now.
Soon the public will see the true extent of the downsides of lockdown. Its won't be pretty. Voters must believe that lockdown worked.
I mean, lockdown has worked. That's undeniable. It's basic common sense that if you keep people away from each other they can't spread the virus to each other.
The question is not whether lockdown has worked but rather if it was worth it.
Most of the population think it was worth it.
Although it is customary not to judge whether something was worth it until you have paid the bill.
My generation will pay the bill, don't worry. You're welcome everyone.
Perhaps not if Rishi takes up my budget suggestions
Actually, on this subject it would be interesting to know in which areas these increases are truly of concern and in which they are not.
If a remote rural area has 10 cases this week instead of 5 in the last then its case rate has doubled, but that's not necessarily cause for panic.
Does the government, or Van Tam, have a shred of evidence that observance of lockdown is any different now than it was last month or last year.
No. He has come to a conclusion on this based on a theory of a relationship between lockdown and cases that is at least debatable, at worst false.
Speaking as somebody who has spent a lot of time criticising Van Tam’s statistical errors around education, do you have evidence that he is wrong?
Because unless you do, it’s not as though we have a reason to believe you ahead of him.
If you do, please produce it.
My critique is based on the fact that cases in America have dropped sharply, whatever the state's approach to lockdown.
That being the case, how can Van Tam's thermostat reality be correct? The relationship is much more complex. For Hancock and Van Tam this is political now.
Soon the public will see the true extent of the downsides of lockdown. Its won't be pretty. Voters must believe that lockdown worked.
I mean, lockdown has worked. That's undeniable. It's basic common sense that if you keep people away from each other they can't spread the virus to each other.
The question is not whether lockdown has worked but rather if it was worth it.
Most of the population think it was worth it.
Basic common sense, I agree. But basic common sense doesn't always come to the right answer. The evidence that lockdown has worked is pretty equivocal. Though you never have a perfect control so you can never really compare like with like.
If and when this ends, we will all have the choice to decided whether the means justified the end or not.
Given the height of the stakes, the government would very, very much prefer you to come to the conclusion what they did was justified.
Surely this informs their approach now. Quite naturally. Most will get on with their lives, some of us will continue to be extremely angry with the government and want a peaceful political payback.
That's a problem only I will have to live with, on here.
Would you personally have kept pubs and nightclubs open throughout the pandemic?
Actually, on this subject it would be interesting to know in which areas these increases are truly of concern and in which they are not.
If a remote rural area has 10 cases this week instead of 5 in the last then its case rate has doubled, but that's not necessarily cause for panic.
Does the government, or Van Tam, have a shred of evidence that observance of lockdown is any different now than it was last month or last year.
No. He has come to a conclusion on this based on a theory of a relationship between lockdown and cases that is at least debatable, at worst false.
Speaking as somebody who has spent a lot of time criticising Van Tam’s statistical errors around education, do you have evidence that he is wrong?
Because unless you do, it’s not as though we have a reason to believe you ahead of him.
If you do, please produce it.
My critique is based on the fact that cases in America have dropped sharply, whatever the state's approach to lockdown.
That being the case, how can Van Tam's thermostat reality be correct? The relationship is much more complex. For Hancock and Van Tam this is political now.
Soon the public will see the true extent of the downsides of lockdown. Its won't be pretty. Voters must believe that lockdown worked.
I mean, lockdown has worked. That's undeniable. It's basic common sense that if you keep people away from each other they can't spread the virus to each other.
The question is not whether lockdown has worked but rather if it was worth it.
Most of the population think it was worth it.
Although it is customary not to judge whether something was worth it until you have paid the bill.
My generation will pay the bill, don't worry.
I doubt any generation will, it'll just be shunted on.
I think that's quite likely. Didn't the Treasury only just pay off some Napoleonic War gilts?
Probably - Osborne paid off some debts from the 1720s
Actually, on this subject it would be interesting to know in which areas these increases are truly of concern and in which they are not.
If a remote rural area has 10 cases this week instead of 5 in the last then its case rate has doubled, but that's not necessarily cause for panic.
Does the government, or Van Tam, have a shred of evidence that observance of lockdown is any different now than it was last month or last year.
No. He has come to a conclusion on this based on a theory of a relationship between lockdown and cases that is at least debatable, at worst false.
Speaking as somebody who has spent a lot of time criticising Van Tam’s statistical errors around education, do you have evidence that he is wrong?
Because unless you do, it’s not as though we have a reason to believe you ahead of him.
If you do, please produce it.
My critique is based on the fact that cases in America have dropped sharply, whatever the state's approach to lockdown.
That being the case, how can Van Tam's thermostat reality be correct? The relationship is much more complex. For Hancock and Van Tam this is political now.
Soon the public will see the true extent of the downsides of lockdown. Its won't be pretty. Voters must believe that lockdown worked.
I mean, lockdown has worked. That's undeniable. It's basic common sense that if you keep people away from each other they can't spread the virus to each other.
The question is not whether lockdown has worked but rather if it was worth it.
Most of the population think it was worth it.
Although it is customary not to judge whether something was worth it until you have paid the bill.
My generation will pay the bill, don't worry.
I doubt any generation will, it'll just be shunted on.
I think that's quite likely. Didn't the Treasury only just pay off some Napoleonic War gilts?
Fantastic! Salmond advises the committee to ask his solicitors for for any information withheld by branches of government, and tells them that the Scotland Act enables this
On JVT - on the district by district scale, progress is bumpy. But most areas which go up then subsequently go down again. Typically out of 300-odd Districts, 50-odd are going up, 20 or so static and the rest goimg down. But it won't be the same ones going up now as a fortnight ago, and it won't be the same in a fortnight. Think of it as a bumpy slide we're all at differwnt stages of. The general trend is still very firmly downward. I'm not saying we should all head down the nightclubs straight away. But nothing to suggest we aren't going firmly in the rigjt direction.
I see the Guardian says the Begum ruling is “controversial”
This is one of those special Guardian word-definitions, where “controversial” means “it dismays three people in Islington”
The view of the court about the respect to be given to the views and judgment of Ministers is something of a throw back and may cause ripples. It is not easy to reconcile that view with the unanimous view of the Court in the Prorogation case, to take an example.
The court over-reached with the prorogation case; this time they are exactly right. These difficult executive decisions must be made by people who are democratically accountable
These two cases are easily reconciled.
In both cases the court found it had the power to intervene. It took the view that it should intervene in the prorogation case because the government was taking the piss (which it was): the government's refusal to give any account under oath for its actions may well have proven fatal to its case. You seem to have forgotten that at the time of the purported prorogation Britain had a Prime Minister who had not been elected at a general election, who did not command a majority in Parliament and indeed had not won a vote in Parliament pursuing a policy that had not been put before the British public and using prorogation as a tool to impose that irreversibly.
In the present case it took the view that the government had acted within the wide latitude granted to governments when taking decisions. Which, given that the Home Secretary was exercising statutory powers given to them in an extreme case, is not all that surprising.
The main consequence of the prorogation case was political. The public decided, unlike in the USA, that they were AOK with self-coups. As a result Britain now has a government with a light attachment to democracy and an extreme aversion to any form of accountability enthusiastically supported by a self-radicalised posse who are quite willing to overlook anything it does, up to and including the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands.
Nice example of ensuring people wont pay attention to your solidly put points because you wanted to indulge in unrelated theatrical condemnation.
Now you can pretend to be affronted when people ignore your good first paras, even though that was presumably your intention and you want Brexiteers to rage at you so you can respond in turn.
Well, each of us has fun in their own way i suppose.
The last bit is the important bit. Tens of thousands of people have died avoidable deaths, but the government's supporters simply don't think that's as important as supporting the government.
I am staggered at the self-degradation of these partisans.
Pot meet kettle. I assume the Italians, French, Germans, Americans (need I go on?) who died were all unavoidable deaths? Or maybe. just maybe there is a nasty virus in worldwide circulation causing epic problems to all governments. Ours has not performed well, I think most would accept that, but they are not the only ones to struggle in this pandemic. At least we have one of the most open and trustworthy reporting systems. How many Chinese died in Wuhan province? How many Spaniards have died (unclear reporting, and a suggestion that that true figure is far higher than the official one? I get that you hate Brexit and the current government, but you are one of the most blinkered on this site. You are an intelligent man, but your own lack of self awareness is stark.
Britain has done exceptionally badly, in the bottommost tier of countries in its response to Covid-19. Only the most crazed zealots would suggest otherwise.
Sadly, many of those crazed zealots infest this site. Here's the sort of problem that they're determined to avoid discussing:
I raised this this morning but the hypothesis of that comment that this is something that could have been avoided is at best unproven. As far as we can tell what happened was that Kent variant took a much greater hold in this country than elsewhere, it was far more infectious and possibly marginally more dangerous.
Your default assumption that this was a consequence of government incompetence or ineptitude may prove to be correct but it is an assumption. The UK has the best genomic analysis in the world. By that time (December) it had amongst the best test and trace and was one of the very highest levels of testing. And yet we were still caught with our trousers down. Incompetence? Maybe but it is possible that we did our very best and were simply unlucky.
My memory is good enough to remember early December, when cases in Britain were obviously rising and the government was resisting tightening up. I remember the Prime Minister mocking the Leader of the Opposition for suggesting the same thing.
It was obvious what was happening at the time. And untold thousands paid with their lives because the Prime Minister couldn't bear to do the unpopular but necessary thing.
I'm sure you're diligently noting down in your ledger the untold thousands of EU citizens who will perish completely unnecessarily due to the EU, and various Member State governments, putting political ideology and dogma ahead of the lives of their citizens.
Your position the other night was that this was a pandemic and as such a natural phenomenon for which no government could be blamed for anything at all. Have you yet moved on from that ridiculous position?
Not at all. I'm just naively assuming you must be doing as I mentioned as a logical extension of your criticisms of the UK government.
If you're not then it doesn't bother me, but it would be interesting to know. Unless of course there's axes to be ground.
I don't blame any government for anything as it happens. No government is deliberately seeking to kill their citizens. All are doing what they consider to be the best at the time they make any decision, in rapidly changing situations, with new and constantly evolving scientific evidence or theories.
But if there's an axe to be ground then so be it. Fill your boots. It won't assuage your evident hate of the UK government though. Use your vote instead. If enough people agree with you then democracy will have its say.
I have a feeling though that it won't be your current angst that'll be the undoing of Johnson.
So you do agree that the outrageous number of avoidable deaths that the British government is responsible for is something that they should be held accountable for?
No I don't as I don't consider them to be "outrageous" or ultimately what I would consider to be "avoidable".
Comparatively high to others, at this precise moment in time, yes. Expected, yes.
We have a habit of making our governments "accountable" every 4 or 5 years. If your belief is shared by the majority of people come judgement day then you'll be the first to celebrate I'm sure.
Expected? The fourth worst in the world? This country is well and truly up shit creek if your disgusting complacency about such disastrous performance is widely shared.
Except fourth in the world is not true. There is no semblance of truth to it whatsoever so only someone trying to lie to score partisan points would use that claim.
4th is a frequently quoted (by reputable sources) current estimate of where we stand. It can be disputed - as all precise country comparisons can be - but it's not a bad faith claim. You, OTOH, with nonsense such as "there is no semblance of truth to it whatsoever", are lying.
Show me how you can get 4th from that? Or do you think we should be using the guesstimate trackers that we know are missing half or more of some countries deaths?
Which matters more for you: how many people have actually died (excess deaths) or using figures you know are wrong because they put Britain in a bad light (recorded Covid19 deaths)?
I have two very strong suspicions.
a) if the 'official' Covid deaths on Worldometer showed the UK with a much lower death rate than others, you would be trumpeting the government's success ad infinitum, regardless of what excess deaths showed (currently).
I see the Guardian says the Begum ruling is “controversial”
This is one of those special Guardian word-definitions, where “controversial” means “it dismays three people in Islington”
The view of the court about the respect to be given to the views and judgment of Ministers is something of a throw back and may cause ripples. It is not easy to reconcile that view with the unanimous view of the Court in the Prorogation case, to take an example.
The court over-reached with the prorogation case; this time they are exactly right. These difficult executive decisions must be made by people who are democratically accountable
These two cases are easily reconciled.
In both cases the court found it had the power to intervene. It took the view that it should intervene in the prorogation case because the government was taking the piss (which it was): the government's refusal to give any account under oath for its actions may well have proven fatal to its case. You seem to have forgotten that at the time of the purported prorogation Britain had a Prime Minister who had not been elected at a general election, who did not command a majority in Parliament and indeed had not won a vote in Parliament pursuing a policy that had not been put before the British public and using prorogation as a tool to impose that irreversibly.
In the present case it took the view that the government had acted within the wide latitude granted to governments when taking decisions. Which, given that the Home Secretary was exercising statutory powers given to them in an extreme case, is not all that surprising.
The main consequence of the prorogation case was political. The public decided, unlike in the USA, that they were AOK with self-coups. As a result Britain now has a government with a light attachment to democracy and an extreme aversion to any form of accountability enthusiastically supported by a self-radicalised posse who are quite willing to overlook anything it does, up to and including the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands.
Nice example of ensuring people wont pay attention to your solidly put points because you wanted to indulge in unrelated theatrical condemnation.
Now you can pretend to be affronted when people ignore your good first paras, even though that was presumably your intention and you want Brexiteers to rage at you so you can respond in turn.
Well, each of us has fun in their own way i suppose.
The last bit is the important bit. Tens of thousands of people have died avoidable deaths, but the government's supporters simply don't think that's as important as supporting the government.
I am staggered at the self-degradation of these partisans.
Pot meet kettle. I assume the Italians, French, Germans, Americans (need I go on?) who died were all unavoidable deaths? Or maybe. just maybe there is a nasty virus in worldwide circulation causing epic problems to all governments. Ours has not performed well, I think most would accept that, but they are not the only ones to struggle in this pandemic. At least we have one of the most open and trustworthy reporting systems. How many Chinese died in Wuhan province? How many Spaniards have died (unclear reporting, and a suggestion that that true figure is far higher than the official one? I get that you hate Brexit and the current government, but you are one of the most blinkered on this site. You are an intelligent man, but your own lack of self awareness is stark.
Britain has done exceptionally badly, in the bottommost tier of countries in its response to Covid-19. Only the most crazed zealots would suggest otherwise.
Sadly, many of those crazed zealots infest this site. Here's the sort of problem that they're determined to avoid discussing:
I am not claiming we have done well. Only a lunatic would. We have been hit extremely hard and I hope the resulting enquiries will help to understand why.
BUT
Our death rate to the current time is better than Belgium, Czechia and Slovenia, and slightly worse than Italy, Portugal, USA, Hungary and Spain. At the current time. Lets see where we end up.
My point is that NO-ONE is doing particularly at preventing "avoidable" deaths. You clearly feel we are by far and away the worst country, but the evidence doesn't fit that, and as I said, I have doubts over some countries reporting (Russia for instance).
Your point is bullshit. The day that Britain measures its public health performance against Brazil and Russia will be a very sad day indeed, so cavilling about statistics in countries like that is pathetic.
By any measure Britain did exceptionally badly. You have named the three countries with a worse death rate in an attempt to suggest Britain is mid table. It is fourth worst in the world (and set to overtake Slovenia imminently). It is closer to the death rate in worst-performing Belgium than to fifth-placed Italy. If Britain had done as well to date as "slightly worse" Italy, more than 14,000 people in Britain would not have died of Covid-19.
Britain's success at vaccination is fantastic. It in no way erases the appalling and avoidable errors that the government has repeatedly made in every other aspect of its handling of this disease. Anyone with a conscience should feel shame at that awful failure of our most vulnerable.
But far too many on this site want only to sweep it under the carpet.
Its a strawman to say people want to sweep it under the carpet. I specifically mentioned the enquiries which will be crucial to understanding why we have been hit so hard. I believe it is wrong to decide already the outcome of this and just pin it on the government. The pandemic is not over, people are horrifically still dying around the work. You also neglected to mention the USA, the nation with the greatest medical resources in the world.
Do you believe the Spanish figures, despite their own press/media doubting the government figures? I guess you do, as its only the UK (or is it just the Tory government) who have struggled through this?
Many countries have struggled. I live in one of the worst performing. I'm surrounded by government supporters who contemptibly try to pretend that it's been mid-table to date, when it obviously has not.
Now, you started your deranged attack on me by suggesting this is about Brexit. But all I can see from you is wishful thinking.
We owe it to the dead to see that the mistakes made are properly investigated. There may well be lessons to learn. Incidentally, there may be government ministers who should lose their jobs, but that's actually the least interesting bit. But Britain has no hope of getting some governance that is above atrocious until government supporters start to exercise some critical faculties.
Instead, they hope to conceal the mistakes and move on.
Deranged? A bit harsh for Friday. I'm glad that you admit that other countries have struggled. What is the wishful thinking I am engaging in? My wish would be covid never happened. I hate the 'ranking' of deaths that is going on. I want full, transparent enquiries after the event to change things for the future. I worry that too many have already decided that they know what went wrong and who was to blame and why. That's not the approach needed for an enquiry.
I withdraw my point about Brexit, but you are fixated on attacking the UK government. Does your ire also assail the Welsh government, or the Scottish?
Your wishful thinking is to pretend that the UK has put in an average performance and to try to present information misleadingly to that end. By any sensible measure it has put in an awful performance.
I live in Essex. The Westminster government is my concern. Not Scotland, Estonia, Nepal or Sudan.
You call it wishful thinking to think our government is not noticeably out of line with others? That's my opinion - this has been a one in a hundred years event with no operational manual on how to handle it. I also believe we should wait until the end of the pandemic to judge the totality of the response. You already know all the answers.
Looking forward to the newspaper reports of Salmond's testimony. That will tell us how free the press is and how well it performs it's social duties as the 4th Estate
Given that 90% of the Scottish media is simply the London newspapers, some with a bit of Scottish content added, and much of the rest is ferociously anti-indy, it will be interesting. I can't understand the PB fantasy that the SNP minority government have total control of the "Scottish" media.
I see the Guardian says the Begum ruling is “controversial”
This is one of those special Guardian word-definitions, where “controversial” means “it dismays three people in Islington”
The view of the court about the respect to be given to the views and judgment of Ministers is something of a throw back and may cause ripples. It is not easy to reconcile that view with the unanimous view of the Court in the Prorogation case, to take an example.
The court over-reached with the prorogation case; this time they are exactly right. These difficult executive decisions must be made by people who are democratically accountable
These two cases are easily reconciled.
In both cases the court found it had the power to intervene. It took the view that it should intervene in the prorogation case because the government was taking the piss (which it was): the government's refusal to give any account under oath for its actions may well have proven fatal to its case. You seem to have forgotten that at the time of the purported prorogation Britain had a Prime Minister who had not been elected at a general election, who did not command a majority in Parliament and indeed had not won a vote in Parliament pursuing a policy that had not been put before the British public and using prorogation as a tool to impose that irreversibly.
In the present case it took the view that the government had acted within the wide latitude granted to governments when taking decisions. Which, given that the Home Secretary was exercising statutory powers given to them in an extreme case, is not all that surprising.
The main consequence of the prorogation case was political. The public decided, unlike in the USA, that they were AOK with self-coups. As a result Britain now has a government with a light attachment to democracy and an extreme aversion to any form of accountability enthusiastically supported by a self-radicalised posse who are quite willing to overlook anything it does, up to and including the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands.
Nice example of ensuring people wont pay attention to your solidly put points because you wanted to indulge in unrelated theatrical condemnation.
Now you can pretend to be affronted when people ignore your good first paras, even though that was presumably your intention and you want Brexiteers to rage at you so you can respond in turn.
Well, each of us has fun in their own way i suppose.
The last bit is the important bit. Tens of thousands of people have died avoidable deaths, but the government's supporters simply don't think that's as important as supporting the government.
I am staggered at the self-degradation of these partisans.
Pot meet kettle. I assume the Italians, French, Germans, Americans (need I go on?) who died were all unavoidable deaths? Or maybe. just maybe there is a nasty virus in worldwide circulation causing epic problems to all governments. Ours has not performed well, I think most would accept that, but they are not the only ones to struggle in this pandemic. At least we have one of the most open and trustworthy reporting systems. How many Chinese died in Wuhan province? How many Spaniards have died (unclear reporting, and a suggestion that that true figure is far higher than the official one? I get that you hate Brexit and the current government, but you are one of the most blinkered on this site. You are an intelligent man, but your own lack of self awareness is stark.
Britain has done exceptionally badly, in the bottommost tier of countries in its response to Covid-19. Only the most crazed zealots would suggest otherwise.
Sadly, many of those crazed zealots infest this site. Here's the sort of problem that they're determined to avoid discussing:
I raised this this morning but the hypothesis of that comment that this is something that could have been avoided is at best unproven. As far as we can tell what happened was that Kent variant took a much greater hold in this country than elsewhere, it was far more infectious and possibly marginally more dangerous.
Your default assumption that this was a consequence of government incompetence or ineptitude may prove to be correct but it is an assumption. The UK has the best genomic analysis in the world. By that time (December) it had amongst the best test and trace and was one of the very highest levels of testing. And yet we were still caught with our trousers down. Incompetence? Maybe but it is possible that we did our very best and were simply unlucky.
My memory is good enough to remember early December, when cases in Britain were obviously rising and the government was resisting tightening up. I remember the Prime Minister mocking the Leader of the Opposition for suggesting the same thing.
It was obvious what was happening at the time. And untold thousands paid with their lives because the Prime Minister couldn't bear to do the unpopular but necessary thing.
I'm sure you're diligently noting down in your ledger the untold thousands of EU citizens who will perish completely unnecessarily due to the EU, and various Member State governments, putting political ideology and dogma ahead of the lives of their citizens.
Your position the other night was that this was a pandemic and as such a natural phenomenon for which no government could be blamed for anything at all. Have you yet moved on from that ridiculous position?
Not at all. I'm just naively assuming you must be doing as I mentioned as a logical extension of your criticisms of the UK government.
If you're not then it doesn't bother me, but it would be interesting to know. Unless of course there's axes to be ground.
I don't blame any government for anything as it happens. No government is deliberately seeking to kill their citizens. All are doing what they consider to be the best at the time they make any decision, in rapidly changing situations, with new and constantly evolving scientific evidence or theories.
But if there's an axe to be ground then so be it. Fill your boots. It won't assuage your evident hate of the UK government though. Use your vote instead. If enough people agree with you then democracy will have its say.
I have a feeling though that it won't be your current angst that'll be the undoing of Johnson.
So you do agree that the outrageous number of avoidable deaths that the British government is responsible for is something that they should be held accountable for?
No I don't as I don't consider them to be "outrageous" or ultimately what I would consider to be "avoidable".
Comparatively high to others, at this precise moment in time, yes. Expected, yes.
We have a habit of making our governments "accountable" every 4 or 5 years. If your belief is shared by the majority of people come judgement day then you'll be the first to celebrate I'm sure.
Expected? The fourth worst in the world? This country is well and truly up shit creek if your disgusting complacency about such disastrous performance is widely shared.
Except fourth in the world is not true. There is no semblance of truth to it whatsoever so only someone trying to lie to score partisan points would use that claim.
4th is a frequently quoted (by reputable sources) current estimate of where we stand. It can be disputed - as all precise country comparisons can be - but it's not a bad faith claim. You, OTOH, with nonsense such as "there is no semblance of truth to it whatsoever", are lying.
Show me how you can get 4th from that? Or do you think we should be using the guesstimate trackers that we know are missing half or more of some countries deaths?
Which matters more for you: how many people have actually died (excess deaths) or using figures you know are wrong because they put Britain in a bad light (recorded Covid19 deaths)?
I have two very strong suspicions.
a) if the 'official' Covid deaths on Worldometer showed the UK with a much lower death rate than others, you would be trumpeting the government's success ad infinitum, regardless of what excess deaths showed (currently).
b) you will emphatically deny a).
He's helped by the fact excess deaths are thought to be the best way to measure the effect. Your scenario doesn't seem that realistic.
I see the Guardian says the Begum ruling is “controversial”
This is one of those special Guardian word-definitions, where “controversial” means “it dismays three people in Islington”
The view of the court about the respect to be given to the views and judgment of Ministers is something of a throw back and may cause ripples. It is not easy to reconcile that view with the unanimous view of the Court in the Prorogation case, to take an example.
The court over-reached with the prorogation case; this time they are exactly right. These difficult executive decisions must be made by people who are democratically accountable
These two cases are easily reconciled.
In both cases the court found it had the power to intervene. It took the view that it should intervene in the prorogation case because the government was taking the piss (which it was): the government's refusal to give any account under oath for its actions may well have proven fatal to its case. You seem to have forgotten that at the time of the purported prorogation Britain had a Prime Minister who had not been elected at a general election, who did not command a majority in Parliament and indeed had not won a vote in Parliament pursuing a policy that had not been put before the British public and using prorogation as a tool to impose that irreversibly.
In the present case it took the view that the government had acted within the wide latitude granted to governments when taking decisions. Which, given that the Home Secretary was exercising statutory powers given to them in an extreme case, is not all that surprising.
The main consequence of the prorogation case was political. The public decided, unlike in the USA, that they were AOK with self-coups. As a result Britain now has a government with a light attachment to democracy and an extreme aversion to any form of accountability enthusiastically supported by a self-radicalised posse who are quite willing to overlook anything it does, up to and including the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands.
Nice example of ensuring people wont pay attention to your solidly put points because you wanted to indulge in unrelated theatrical condemnation.
Now you can pretend to be affronted when people ignore your good first paras, even though that was presumably your intention and you want Brexiteers to rage at you so you can respond in turn.
Well, each of us has fun in their own way i suppose.
The last bit is the important bit. Tens of thousands of people have died avoidable deaths, but the government's supporters simply don't think that's as important as supporting the government.
I am staggered at the self-degradation of these partisans.
Pot meet kettle. I assume the Italians, French, Germans, Americans (need I go on?) who died were all unavoidable deaths? Or maybe. just maybe there is a nasty virus in worldwide circulation causing epic problems to all governments. Ours has not performed well, I think most would accept that, but they are not the only ones to struggle in this pandemic. At least we have one of the most open and trustworthy reporting systems. How many Chinese died in Wuhan province? How many Spaniards have died (unclear reporting, and a suggestion that that true figure is far higher than the official one? I get that you hate Brexit and the current government, but you are one of the most blinkered on this site. You are an intelligent man, but your own lack of self awareness is stark.
Britain has done exceptionally badly, in the bottommost tier of countries in its response to Covid-19. Only the most crazed zealots would suggest otherwise.
Sadly, many of those crazed zealots infest this site. Here's the sort of problem that they're determined to avoid discussing:
I raised this this morning but the hypothesis of that comment that this is something that could have been avoided is at best unproven. As far as we can tell what happened was that Kent variant took a much greater hold in this country than elsewhere, it was far more infectious and possibly marginally more dangerous.
Your default assumption that this was a consequence of government incompetence or ineptitude may prove to be correct but it is an assumption. The UK has the best genomic analysis in the world. By that time (December) it had amongst the best test and trace and was one of the very highest levels of testing. And yet we were still caught with our trousers down. Incompetence? Maybe but it is possible that we did our very best and were simply unlucky.
My memory is good enough to remember early December, when cases in Britain were obviously rising and the government was resisting tightening up. I remember the Prime Minister mocking the Leader of the Opposition for suggesting the same thing.
It was obvious what was happening at the time. And untold thousands paid with their lives because the Prime Minister couldn't bear to do the unpopular but necessary thing.
I don't remember it being obvious or indeed any actual relaxation in December. There was an argument about Christmas where clearly Boris wanted a relaxation and which he eventually had to concede was inappropriate and cancelled it. What happened was that the underlying facts changed because of the Kent variant. That led to the spike in cases and then deaths in January and early February.
My recollection is closer to AlistairMeeks on this one - we had relaxed a bit from November, cases were creeping up, and all the talk was opening up for a Christmas break essentially. Eventually it was realised that was a very stupid idea, but I think it improbable the planned position had no impact. How much impact I think is hard to say. Can it really all be down to Kent?
January was bloody awful though, far worse than anticipated.
There was certainly a lot of talk about the Christmas relaxation, how long, how many people etc but it did not happen. In Scotland, which also suffered badly in January, I do not recall any relaxations over that period at all. Did some people make plans for Christmas and then decide not to cancel them? Maybe, some. Did that lead to the January spike? Almost certainly not.
Did you see the graphs in the FT article? Scotland shows quite a big difference, in fact.
You tried to abuse your unfounded fears of your partner's health to try and gazzump an election you lost. There was no basis to your paranoid delusions but your unsubstantiated phobias supposedly mean I'm disgusting? Pathetic.
As for engaging, this is Mike Smithson's site. I'll engage with whoever I want to here unless he decides to start telling people not to do so.
As for "preferred measure" - I prefer accuracy. Excess deaths shows how many people have actually died. In Italy's case by 30 November they had 92,730 excess deaths contrasted with supposedly having had 54,380.
I prefer accurate figures. If you prefer inaccurate dodgy ones then that just speaks about your own lack of integrity it doesn't mean the UK is worse than Italy simply because in Italy half of their Covid deaths went without Covid being recorded as the reason they died.
I have asked you to stop engaging with me. Since you are unable to respect even that simple wish, I shall withdraw from the site permanently.
Did you see that Economist data on excess deaths? It put UK (which it idiosynratically calls 'Britain') roughly mid table in Europe, along with Spain and Italy. The ones with the most excess deaths tend to be Eastern European - Russia, Bulgaria, and so on. The UK seems to be the only country in which Covid deaths exceed excess deaths. Data was only up to late January, mind - will be interesting to see an update.
This is a genuinely difficult dataset to analyse so as to identify which countries have done well or badly. All kinds of variables are changing when we compare one country to another (e.g, population density, age, demographics, wealth, etc).
The analysis is well worth doing, and some professional statisticians will surely look at the problem very seriously. I would trust their results. If they conclude that England (or W or S) did a really poor job, then I will believe them.
People I don't trust to do the job are people who know nothing about the pit-falls of analysing messy, heteroscedastic data.
This include inter alia (i) journalists who cherry-pick small sections of data to make a point, and (ii) shriekers and flame-throwers on a blog who know lots of pension law but zero statistics.
You tried to abuse your unfounded fears of your partner's health to try and gazzump an election you lost. There was no basis to your paranoid delusions but your unsubstantiated phobias supposedly mean I'm disgusting? Pathetic.
As for engaging, this is Mike Smithson's site. I'll engage with whoever I want to here unless he decides to start telling people not to do so.
As for "preferred measure" - I prefer accuracy. Excess deaths shows how many people have actually died. In Italy's case by 30 November they had 92,730 excess deaths contrasted with supposedly having had 54,380.
I prefer accurate figures. If you prefer inaccurate dodgy ones then that just speaks about your own lack of integrity it doesn't mean the UK is worse than Italy simply because in Italy half of their Covid deaths went without Covid being recorded as the reason they died.
I have asked you to stop engaging with me. Since you are unable to respect even that simple wish, I shall withdraw from the site permanently.
Did you see that Economist data on excess deaths? It put UK (which it idiosynratically calls 'Britain') roughly mid table in Europe, along with Spain and Italy. The ones with the most excess deaths tend to be Eastern European - Russia, Bulgaria, and so on. The UK seems to be the only country in which Covid deaths exceed excess deaths. Data was only up to late January, mind - will be interesting to see an update.
This is a genuinely difficult dataset to analyse so as to identify which countries have done well or badly. All kinds of variables are changing when we compare one country to another (e.g, population density, age, demographics, wealth, etc).
The analysis is well worth doing, and some professional statisticians will surely look at the problem very seriously. I would trust their results. If they conclude that England (or W or S) did a really poor job, then I will believe them.
People I don't trust to do the job are people who know nothing about the pit-falls of analysing messy, heteroscedastic data.
This include inter alia (i) journalists who cherry-pick small sections of data to make a point, and (ii) shriekers and flame-throwers on a blog who know lots of pension law but zero statistics.
Definitely agree with you about journalists. It was fairly dry and well-written and presentes the stats fairly well - but pinch of salt and all that. We won't really kniw for sure for a few years yet.
I'm a bit worried about Alex Salmond's health after he had to pause giving evidence. What are the symptoms of novichok poisoning?
IIRC, He has had two serious bouts of bronchial illnesses, so being in an indoor court for two weeks when COVID was running rampant last spring was a stressful experience, and his subsequent health issues not the stuff of a cheap joke.
She is an HR professional and has the effrontery to say that neither mediation nor arbitration are suitable for HR matters. Just astonishing and, as Salmond pointed out, contrary to the Scottish government's policy in respect of current ministers.
We see little of the MSPs down here but if this lot are the cream of the crop theyre a shower of shite. Fraser is the only one with any gravitas and he's just having fun giving Salmond more ammo to fire.
It helps explain why Ian Blackford is seen as talent
Baillie is reasonable. Allan and Watt are on a wicket that makes that one in Ahmedabad look like a road.
you have to say the pressure to reveal the missing documents will soon become irresistable
if it doesnt get published it will get leaked.
If they get leaked, the Crown Office will just forbid the committee from looking at them
I await the joy of the documents being published outside Scotland
Comments
Spectator soon?
Hence reduced contact suppresses the virus.
Whether or not a British-style lockdown works better than a US style self-imposed lockdown or a French-style curfew remains to be seen. Either way public opinion remains in favour of our approach.
Fair enough. Lockdown may have had an effect. It does not make Van Tam's representation of the relationship the truth. Not by a long chalk.
My father is out vaccinating people and one thing he is telling people as the age profile of the vaccinated is lowering is to tell them that getting their first dose doesn't mean they are now immortal from Covid nor are anyone they might see.
The vaccine is a magic bullet against this plague, but only when a sufficient number of the population have been vaccinated.
Younger people are more likely to take risks when it comes to the plague.
Different messaging for differing groups.
Data was only up to late January, mind - will be interesting to see an update.
Show me how you can get 4th from that? Or do you think we should be using the guesstimate trackers that we know are missing half or more of some countries deaths?
Which matters more for you: how many people have actually died (excess deaths) or using figures you know are wrong because they put Britain in a bad light (recorded Covid19 deaths)?
Given the height of the stakes, the government would very, very much prefer you to come to the conclusion what they did was justified.
Surely this informs their approach now. Quite naturally. Most will get on with their lives, some of us will continue to be extremely angry with the government and want a peaceful political payback.
That's a problem only I will have to live with, on here.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/repayment-of-26-billion-historical-debt-to-be-completed-by-government
Must have been real low interest I guess, so we never got around to it.
(I used to be in the gilt market, and these issues were like old friends)
The general trend is still very firmly downward.
I'm not saying we should all head down the nightclubs straight away. But nothing to suggest we aren't going firmly in the rigjt direction.
NEW THREAD
a) if the 'official' Covid deaths on Worldometer showed the UK with a much lower death rate than others, you would be trumpeting the government's success ad infinitum, regardless of what excess deaths showed (currently).
b) you will emphatically deny a).
The stats are markedly lower, esp. ,in care homes, than England (albeit with YBarddCwsc's proviso on the lack of error bars).
variables are changing when we compare one country to another (e.g, population density, age, demographics, wealth, etc).
The analysis is well worth doing, and some professional statisticians will surely look at the problem very seriously. I would trust their results. If they conclude that England (or W or S) did a really poor job, then I will believe them.
People I don't trust to do the job are people who know nothing about the pit-falls of analysing messy, heteroscedastic data.
This include inter alia (i) journalists who cherry-pick small sections of data to make a point, and (ii) shriekers and flame-throwers on a blog who know lots of pension law but zero statistics.