I love the marathon/sprint analogy, used to claim going faster is a bad thing essentially (until they have gone faster). People still run fast in a marathon, in fact they go as fast as they possibly can. If they could physically sprint a marathon they would.
Some of them do! Amazing to think that the top male marathon runners average a mile about every four and a half minutes. That's absolutely mind-blowing to me.
Oh indeed. I was speaking equivalently - it's faster than many people sprint, but for them they could still, over short periods (like right at the end) go faster than through most of the race.
That people speed up at the end of a marathon/10000m whatever is pretty mindblowing. I know why 100m is more of a spectacle, but it doesn't wow like the long distance guys for me.
Europe aren't treating vaccination like a marathon, either. More like dressage.
LOL. A typical Grand Prix dressage test takes around 6 minutes to complete. It just seems like an eternity to anyone who does not ride dressage.
One year at Burghley a friend and I finally found somewhere nice and quiet to sit and chat and were happily doing so for some time before we noticed the looks of death from those around us. At which point we realised that we had inadvertently wandered into the dressage arena.
My daughter rides both Eventing (3 Star) and Dressage (Grand Prix), so I am not allowed to make dressage jokes at home.
Ha no I bet not. Most of the events this year have been cancelled here, Rockingham, Bramham, etc, plus it looks like this equine virus (EHV-1), which is already wreaking havoc in Europe might make it over here to the UK shortly - is your daughter in the US?
It's amazing how many people still don't get this.
If only someone had recognised this early...
That doesn't specifically help Europe though as the US will likely prefer to use its spare capacity to counter Chinese vaccine diplomacy in APAC and over here our spare capacity has basically already been pledged to developing nations eligible for foreign aid.
The issue Europe has is that it underinvested from April 2020 until January 2021 and now they have got 9 months of catching up to do relative to the UK or US who both invested very heavily in domestic production and domestic supply chains to support independent manufacturing.
I don't see either the US or UK using bought spare capacity to bail out the EU, which leaves them playing catch up with their own domestic manufacturing. Something they may struggle to attract private investment for now that their export bans have been realised so it's all going to have to come from the public purse.
With all due respect, I think you're still missing the scale of the increase in vaccine production, and that fact that the producers of vaccines are private companies.
Don't forget Novavax is manufacturing with an Indian partner, Moderna with a Swiss one, and J&J is also announcing non-US manufacturing partners in the coming weeks. CureVac has signed up Bayer and Novartis to manufacture for it. Plus there's the billion doses each from Pfizer and AZ this year.
Let's put this in context for a second, the Lonza plant in Switzerland alone will be producing close to a million doses a day from the end of April.
You are also seeing European countries go beyond the EU now. Denmark and Austria have struck deals with Israel to pick up their excess doses, to example.
The EU will be functionally done by the end of summer, because the doses exist, and these are rich countries that can afford to write checks.
Yes, I think some European countries will go outside of the the programme and secure vaccine doses by just writing a big blank cheque to Moderna or Novavax. What worries me is that it leaves the larger EU countries who feel bound by the programme waiting for months because we know the EU scheme is still basically stuck, France and Germany in particular will be under a lot of pressure to make it seem like the EU has succeeded and given how reliant the EU (and therefore the UK) is on those two as a growth engine it could set them back 6-8 months more than if they just went and wrote gigantic cheques for additional supply.
I'm a lockdown sceptic, and I didn't really find much to complain about in what Chris Whitty said. It was pretty factual - 'the modelling shows another surge' etc. Now we might disbelieve the modelling, but he wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't report what it was saying.
And I wouldn't expect deaths to go down to zero. The point is to see deaths in the right context.
Exactly. It joins the flu. There's a touch of paranoia around imo. Perhaps understandably given the strange experience we're living through. It's affecting us all in different ways. Certainly is me. I've forgotten many of the social niceties. Feeling a bit "wild".
I fully expect the timetable to be stuck to. My point earlier was that everyone has their red lines and one person's "Surely they will open up earlier given the stats" is another's "Best to wait a few more months to be sure". Both scenarios should be in anyone's analysis.
I give extension as no more than a 15-1 shot and I'll have a fiver with you on it as you kindly offered.
Hang on. That's ripping yourself off. I only offered you 5s.
The press would think that ; they're part of the problem.
Perhaps. Nevertheless, as a statement despite being brief it does, quite reasonably, not accept the premise of the accusations, which in itself is a rebuttal that some will not have expected. Without accepting the accusations they could hardly apologise, but the 'some recollections may vary' is a pretty strong signal that the Palace does not intend to accept that when someone says they have been victimised that that is the truth. Which is not unreasonable, but they could have left it out.
One year at Burghley a friend and I finally found somewhere nice and quiet to sit and chat and were happily doing so for some time before we noticed the looks of death from those around us. At which point we realised that we had inadvertently wandered into the dressage arena.
Dressage richly deserves its reputation as the most tedious spectacle known to mankind. It's also quite baffling: the contestants enter the arena and do their stuff, and then the judges put up scores presumably based on some criteria, but what these criteria might be is completely unfathomable. I did once attend a rodeo in Texas, which works on the same principle and is equally baffling, but it was much more entertaining, seeing as the exercises involve things like the rider leaping off the horse at high speed on to a steer, rather than having the horse lift its left foot six inches.
All sport is tedious unless you know the rules and what counts as skill. Dressage is all about accuracy and energy - but highly contained energy; and it is about rider control (or, more accurately, horse/rider harmony), but with the prompts the rider uses to get that control as minimal and as invisible as possible.
That said, even knowing a certain amount now, I still find dressage hard to watch unless it is my daughter riding.
She, on the other had, claims it is THE most intellectual sport. I guess she's called us dressage-doubters out.
It's amazing how many people still don't get this.
If only someone had recognised this early...
That doesn't specifically help Europe though as the US will likely prefer to use its spare capacity to counter Chinese vaccine diplomacy in APAC and over here our spare capacity has basically already been pledged to developing nations eligible for foreign aid.
The issue Europe has is that it underinvested from April 2020 until January 2021 and now they have got 9 months of catching up to do relative to the UK or US who both invested very heavily in domestic production and domestic supply chains to support independent manufacturing.
I don't see either the US or UK using bought spare capacity to bail out the EU, which leaves them playing catch up with their own domestic manufacturing. Something they may struggle to attract private investment for now that their export bans have been realised so it's all going to have to come from the public purse.
With all due respect, I think you're still missing the scale of the increase in vaccine production, and that fact that the producers of vaccines are private companies.
Don't forget Novavax is manufacturing with an Indian partner, Moderna with a Swiss one, and J&J is also announcing non-US manufacturing partners in the coming weeks. CureVac has signed up Bayer and Novartis to manufacture for it. Plus there's the billion doses each from Pfizer and AZ this year.
Let's put this in context for a second, the Lonza plant in Switzerland alone will be producing close to a million doses a day from the end of April.
You are also seeing European countries go beyond the EU now. Denmark and Austria have struck deals with Israel to pick up their excess doses, to example.
The EU will be functionally done by the end of summer, because the doses exist, and these are rich countries that can afford to write checks.
Yes, I think some European countries will go outside of the the programme and secure vaccine doses by just writing a big blank cheque to Moderna or Novavax. What worries me is that it leaves the larger EU countries who feel bound by the programme waiting for months because we know the EU scheme is still basically stuck, France and Germany in particular will be under a lot of pressure to make it seem like the EU has succeeded and given how reliant the EU (and therefore the UK) is on those two as a growth engine it could set them back 6-8 months more than if they just went and wrote gigantic cheques for additional supply.
The smaller EU countries are paying with the bigger EU counties money anyway.
If you're in the Netherlands you may well see little vaccination now and a bill for the vaccination effort elsewhere later.
The EU is very good at weathering these sorts of things, but they have an enormously challenging few years ahead.
I'm a lockdown sceptic, and I didn't really find much to complain about in what Chris Whitty said. It was pretty factual - 'the modelling shows another surge' etc. Now we might disbelieve the modelling, but he wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't report what it was saying.
And I wouldn't expect deaths to go down to zero. The point is to see deaths in the right context.
Exactly. It joins the flu. There's a touch of paranoia around imo. Perhaps understandably given the strange experience we're living through. It's affecting us all in different ways. Certainly is me. I've forgotten many of the social niceties. Feeling a bit "wild".
I fully expect the timetable to be stuck to. My point earlier was that everyone has their red lines and one person's "Surely they will open up earlier given the stats" is another's "Best to wait a few more months to be sure". Both scenarios should be in anyone's analysis.
I give extension as no more than a 15-1 shot and I'll have a fiver with you on it as you kindly offered.
Hang on. That's ripping yourself off. I only offered you 5s.
Your £5 my £25 - you sure?
I will have a fiver at the 15s you are offering that the lockdown will be extended beyond the current June deadline. If it is extended that's £75 you owe me. If not the fiver's yours.
Johnson’s decision [not to lock down] flew in the face of all the advice over the summer from the World Bank, the cross-party group of politicians and leading international public health experts. Some of his advisers were incandescent. “I don’t have sympathy for the government making the same mistake twice,” said a senior source on the Sage committee. “We told them quite clearly what they need to do for it to work. They don’t do that . . . It’s been wishful thinking all the way through. I think that probably characterises Boris Johnson, frankly.” "
...
"Vallance gave an example of what might happen if the current levels of infections were allowed to carry on doubling every week — as they appeared to be doing. This, he said, would lead to around 200-plus deaths per day by the middle of November. It was a shocking prediction that drew scathing criticism — one newspaper quoted an unnamed Tory MP describing them as Messrs “Witless and Unbalanced” for exaggerating the figures. In fact, Vallance had hugely downplayed the predicted November death figures, which would be nearer the 500 daily fatalities upper estimate he had given Johnson a few days earlier. "
...
"On October 30, the operation committee met again in Downing Street. Johnson, Sunak, Gove and Hancock were all present to listen to a presentation from Sir Simon Stevens, head of the NHS, who delivered an unequivocal message: hospitals would be overrun in every part of England within weeks if nothing was done.
The prime minister had no choice. He had to finally give in — despite everything he and his chancellor had said about their determination to avoid locking down. A decision was taken to announce a lockdown after the weekend. But fearing that Johnson might wobble again, someone in the prime minister’s close circle leaked the news to the The Times. The prime minister was forced to call a press conference the next day."
------------
Jesus. The thing is, we all saw this coming at the time. (The other two academics at that meeting other than Tegnell were Gupta and Heneghan. Such a surprise.)
It's only looking back that we can recall just how forecasts of 200 deaths a day were so thoroughly mocked by the lockdown sceptics. We went above that on the 21st of October and we are JUST about to drop below a 200-a-day seven day average now for the first time since then. We were past 350 a day on the 1st of November and past 400 a day by the end of the first week in November.
Thanks a bunch, Heneghan, Tegnell, Gupta, Sunak, and the Lockdown Sceptics. And by paying the price of those thousands upon thousands of bereaved families... they ended up fucking up the economy with an even longer and deeper lockdown, anyway. Thanks to the moronic denialists. [2/2]
Sorry if I missed it in your posts, but on what date were HMG still giving Tegnell, Gupta and Heneghan a hearing?
Mid-September. It was thanks to them that the "circuit breaker" lockdown for early October got canned. Leading to the full-on second wave, letting it get out of control, and needing drastic measures to bring it back under control.
They and the Lockdown Sceptics pressure (via the Covid Recovery Group of Tory MPs) against any restrictions (so it always got worse and needed more and more restrictions) are why we've had such a hell of a winter, and why we've been in lockdown so long.
In an alternate timeline, where they weren't listened to, we locked down in October, saw off the rise, went with tougher Tiers, and kept it all under control without kids missing one day of school or the need for any full-on lockdown.
This is the Sunak/Gupta/Heneghan lockdown - needed thanks to their idiocy.
Except circuit breakers don't work.
Wales tried the circuit break, it was a miserable failure.
Other nations around the globe have tried circuit breaks. Not one of them has succeeded.
So other than that, good point, well done.
They do work. It's coming out of them that doesn't work as well. The four week circuit break in November brought it down. The nine weeks since early January has worked as well.
Call it what you like; we're talking about applying lockdown rules for a given period to bring down infection rates. And every time we've done this, infection rates have dropped.
Lockdowns work, circuit breaks don't. That's the point.
The second you lift the "circuit break" cases instantly start rising again. And if its only 2 weeks that achieves squat since people party "last night of freedom" before the 2 weeks, then party "wahay free again" afterwards counteracting the whole point of just 2 weeks which isn't long enough to do much.
So you can't point to today's lockdown and act as if it would have all been avoidable had we just wished it away with a 2 week circuit break. 2 weeks doesn't work.
If you want a lockdown, fair enough, but then don't complain about having a lockdown. The idea a lockdown could be avoided if we'd just done one for 2 weeks then got back to normal is farcical wishful thinking.
If the 4 weeks in November worked then you can't blame today's lockdown on not having a 2 week one in October.
A circuit breaker is slang for a short lockdown. Can a lockdown be so short as to not work because the "last night party" effect outweighs the gains? Yes. But can a lockdown be long enough to work but still short enough to be called a circuit breaker? Also yes.
Ergo "lockdowns work, circuit breaks don't" = tilt.
How short is short enough to still be called a circuit breaker? Especially when the circuit breaker has been defined as 2 weeks.
If you say that a circuit break works, so long as you don't come out of it, then that is a lockdown not a circuit break. A circuit break only works if you can come out of it in the time stated.
Can you name any country, anywhere, which has had significant case numbers and rising cases which has seen a 2 week circuit break work?
I'm wasn't aware we had an accepted definition of it as being of duration 2 weeks.
Link?
The proposed SAGE circuit break was explicitly for 2 weeks. As Wales tried and it didn't work.
See the Times article Andy linked to that started this discussion.
Yes, I get it now. I was fooled by the way you put it - Lockdowns Work. Circuit breakers Don't.
Like that was a law of science or something. But it was just you being you. It's fine.
It is. SAGE defined a "circuit break" as a 2 week lockdown and it didn't work in Wales, it hasn't worked anywhere in the world as far as I know.
If you don't wish to define a "circuit break" as a 2 week lockdown as SAGE defined it, then how do you define it? Do you consider it to be a lockdown of indeterminate length?
If so what is the difference between a lockdown and a circuit break to you @kinabalu ?
A lot of timid folk, such as myself, voted for the status quo in 2016. It stands to reason, therefore, that we would now tend to vote to stay out, rather than repeating the tortuous negotiations of the past 4 years. On the other hand, a few of those who voted Leave are lifelong radicals always on the lookout for something to change. It's hard to see how rejoining the EU would satisfy their craving.
Yes, and there were many like you. Leavers, really, but too wussy to vote for it. This is why 52/48 does not sum up the result. It wasn't, in truth, that close. The true mood of the nation was clear Leave. It was a mood landslide.
I felt on balance that the benefits of international cooperation outweighed the loss of sovereignty and I was disappointed that a small majority felt differently. And I agree with the view that many of them were misled about the likely gains and will eventually come to realise this. But rejoining isn't the answer. The omelette has been cooked.
You've managed to write a sizeable post that does not have a single bit in either substance or form that I do not 100% agree with. This does not happen too often on here.
The press would think that ; they're part of the problem.
Perhaps. Nevertheless, as a statement despite being brief it does, quite reasonably, not accept the premise of the accusations, which in itself is a rebuttal that some will not have expected. Without accepting the accusations they could hardly apologise, but the 'some recollections may vary' is a pretty strong signal that the Palace does not intend to accept that when someone says they have been victimised that that is the truth. Which is not unreasonable, but they could have left it out.
I'm not sure I agree there. In the predictably turbocharged social media atmosphere, there's been huge clamour from the right not to accept that racism was an issue, and from the left essentially to accept all the accusations withour first taking any qualifying stance. This statement is about as concilatory as it could be without accepting all the accusation. It quite notably accepts the themes but not necessarily all the details, and even more notably it sounds like it's genuinely spoken in the Queen's voice, the voice of her recent Covid broadcast.
A lot of timid folk, such as myself, voted for the status quo in 2016. It stands to reason, therefore, that we would now tend to vote to stay out, rather than repeating the tortuous negotiations of the past 4 years. On the other hand, a few of those who voted Leave are lifelong radicals always on the lookout for something to change. It's hard to see how rejoining the EU would satisfy their craving.
Yes, and there were many like you. Leavers, really, but too wussy to vote for it. This is why 52/48 does not sum up the result. It wasn't, in truth, that close. The true mood of the nation was clear Leave. It was a mood landslide.
I felt on balance that the benefits of international cooperation outweighed the loss of sovereignty and I was disappointed that a small majority felt differently. And I agree with the view that many of them were misled about the likely gains and will eventually come to realise this. But rejoining isn't the answer. The omelette has been cooked.
You've managed to write a sizeable post that does not have a single bit in either substance or form that I do not 100% agree with. This does not happen too often on here.
The press would think that ; they're part of the problem.
Perhaps. Nevertheless, as a statement despite being brief it does, quite reasonably, not accept the premise of the accusations, which in itself is a rebuttal that some will not have expected. Without accepting the accusations they could hardly apologise, but the 'some recollections may vary' is a pretty strong signal that the Palace does not intend to accept that when someone says they have been victimised that that is the truth. Which is not unreasonable, but they could have left it out.
I'm not sure I agree there. In the predictably turbocharged social media atmosphere, there's been huge clamour from the right not to accept that racism was an issue at all, and from the left essentially to accept all the accusations withour first taking any qualifying stance. This statement is about as concilatory as it could be without accepting all the accusations ; it quite notably accepts the themes but not the details, and even more notably it sounds like it's genuinely spoken in the Queen's voice, from her Covid broadcast.
I agree. But I don't think there's much space between 'It's conciliatory but careful not to accept accusations' and 'a subtle fuck you'.
Not for me. I get it but I can't abide it which I appreciate is probably my failing. Not sure there are many horses in the wild, or anywhere for that matter, happily doing flying changes or piaffes.
One of the freedoms of consenting adults that have been curtailed during lockdown, I shouldn't wonder.
There was that story about a couple having sex in the middle of the night outdoors in February being arrested which seemed over the top, since lord only knows how anyone spotted them in the first place
The press would think that ; they're part of the problem.
Perhaps. Nevertheless, as a statement despite being brief it does, quite reasonably, not accept the premise of the accusations, which in itself is a rebuttal that some will not have expected. Without accepting the accusations they could hardly apologise, but the 'some recollections may vary' is a pretty strong signal that the Palace does not intend to accept that when someone says they have been victimised that that is the truth. Which is not unreasonable, but they could have left it out.
I'm not sure I agree there. In the predictably turbocharged social media atmosphere, there's been huge clamour from the right not to accept that racism was an issue at all, and from the left essentially to accept all the accusations withour first taking any qualifying stance. This statement is about as concilatory as it could be without accepting all the accusations ; it quite notably accepts the themes but not the details, and even more notably it sounds like it's genuinely spoken in the Queen's voice, from her Covid broadcast.
I agree. But I don't think there's much space between 'It's conciliatory but careful not to accept accusations' and 'a subtle fuck you'.
That would be more of a question of your starting premises, I think, and the press's premises have been hostile for a long time, so it would probably suit them emotionally, for themselves, and commercially, for sales and legitimacy, to continue in the same way.
I'm a lockdown sceptic, and I didn't really find much to complain about in what Chris Whitty said. It was pretty factual - 'the modelling shows another surge' etc. Now we might disbelieve the modelling, but he wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't report what it was saying.
And I wouldn't expect deaths to go down to zero. The point is to see deaths in the right context.
Exactly. It joins the flu. There's a touch of paranoia around imo. Perhaps understandably given the strange experience we're living through. It's affecting us all in different ways. Certainly is me. I've forgotten many of the social niceties. Feeling a bit "wild".
I fully expect the timetable to be stuck to. My point earlier was that everyone has their red lines and one person's "Surely they will open up earlier given the stats" is another's "Best to wait a few more months to be sure". Both scenarios should be in anyone's analysis.
I give extension as no more than a 15-1 shot and I'll have a fiver with you on it as you kindly offered.
Hang on. That's ripping yourself off. I only offered you 5s.
Your £5 my £25 - you sure?
I will have a fiver at the 15s you are offering that the lockdown will be extended beyond the current June deadline. If it is extended that's £75 you owe me. If not the fiver's yours.
My post to you at 5:06. I offered you 5/1. Put your monocle in!
The press would think that ; they're part of the problem.
Perhaps. Nevertheless, as a statement despite being brief it does, quite reasonably, not accept the premise of the accusations, which in itself is a rebuttal that some will not have expected. Without accepting the accusations they could hardly apologise, but the 'some recollections may vary' is a pretty strong signal that the Palace does not intend to accept that when someone says they have been victimised that that is the truth. Which is not unreasonable, but they could have left it out.
I'm not sure I agree there. In the predictably turbocharged social media atmosphere, there's been huge clamour from the right not to accept that racism was an issue, and from the left essentially to accept all the accusations withour first taking any qualifying stance. This statement is about as concilatory as it could be without accepting all the accusation. It quite notably accepts the themes but not necessarily all the details, and even more notably it sounds like it's genuinely spoken in the Queen's voice, the voice of her recent Covid broadcast.
Yes it comes across as the Queens response. I wonder what Charles' would be.....
Not for me. I get it but I can't abide it which I appreciate is probably my failing. Not sure there are many horses in the wild, or anywhere for that matter, happily doing flying changes or piaffes.
Most horses do flying changes naturally when they change direction. Piaffes not so much.
The press would think that ; they're part of the problem.
Perhaps. Nevertheless, as a statement despite being brief it does, quite reasonably, not accept the premise of the accusations, which in itself is a rebuttal that some will not have expected. Without accepting the accusations they could hardly apologise, but the 'some recollections may vary' is a pretty strong signal that the Palace does not intend to accept that when someone says they have been victimised that that is the truth. Which is not unreasonable, but they could have left it out.
I'm not sure I agree there. In the predictably turbocharged social media atmosphere, there's been huge clamour from the right not to accept that racism was an issue, and from the left essentially to accept all the accusations withour first taking any qualifying stance. This statement is about as concilatory as it could be without accepting all the accusation. It quite notably accepts the themes but not necessarily all the details, and even more notably it sounds like it's genuinely spoken in the Queen's voice, the voice of her recent Covid broadcast.
Yes it comes across as the Queens response. I wonder what Charles' would be.....
Probably get the new speech-writer general @HYUFD in for the task.
One of the freedoms of consenting adults that have been curtailed during lockdown, I shouldn't wonder.
There was that story about a couple having sex in the middle of the night outdoors in February being arrested which seemed over the top, since lord only knows how anyone spotted them in the first place
I remember the general hilarity when at the beginning of lockdown a dogging society tweeted there would be no more meetings for the time being.
Not for me. I get it but I can't abide it which I appreciate is probably my failing. Not sure there are many horses in the wild, or anywhere for that matter, happily doing flying changes or piaffes.
Most horses do flying changes naturally when they change direction. Piaffes not so much.
I have a friend who managed to "procure" a one night stand with a total stranger whilst having a rule of 6 pub night out in the summer - you know where you were supposed to stay at your table the whole time. Quite a hilarious story really. She got mega props.
One of the freedoms of consenting adults that have been curtailed during lockdown, I shouldn't wonder.
One night stands are still happening between consenting adults, regardless of lockdown rules.
Legally?
Of course not 😂
I have no knowledge of this but fewer, I would have thought. No social events, no office events, no beer goggles. I wonder what the STI clinics are like. Less busy?
Johnson’s decision [not to lock down] flew in the face of all the advice over the summer from the World Bank, the cross-party group of politicians and leading international public health experts. Some of his advisers were incandescent. “I don’t have sympathy for the government making the same mistake twice,” said a senior source on the Sage committee. “We told them quite clearly what they need to do for it to work. They don’t do that . . . It’s been wishful thinking all the way through. I think that probably characterises Boris Johnson, frankly.” "
...
"Vallance gave an example of what might happen if the current levels of infections were allowed to carry on doubling every week — as they appeared to be doing. This, he said, would lead to around 200-plus deaths per day by the middle of November. It was a shocking prediction that drew scathing criticism — one newspaper quoted an unnamed Tory MP describing them as Messrs “Witless and Unbalanced” for exaggerating the figures. In fact, Vallance had hugely downplayed the predicted November death figures, which would be nearer the 500 daily fatalities upper estimate he had given Johnson a few days earlier. "
...
"On October 30, the operation committee met again in Downing Street. Johnson, Sunak, Gove and Hancock were all present to listen to a presentation from Sir Simon Stevens, head of the NHS, who delivered an unequivocal message: hospitals would be overrun in every part of England within weeks if nothing was done.
The prime minister had no choice. He had to finally give in — despite everything he and his chancellor had said about their determination to avoid locking down. A decision was taken to announce a lockdown after the weekend. But fearing that Johnson might wobble again, someone in the prime minister’s close circle leaked the news to the The Times. The prime minister was forced to call a press conference the next day."
------------
Jesus. The thing is, we all saw this coming at the time. (The other two academics at that meeting other than Tegnell were Gupta and Heneghan. Such a surprise.)
It's only looking back that we can recall just how forecasts of 200 deaths a day were so thoroughly mocked by the lockdown sceptics. We went above that on the 21st of October and we are JUST about to drop below a 200-a-day seven day average now for the first time since then. We were past 350 a day on the 1st of November and past 400 a day by the end of the first week in November.
Thanks a bunch, Heneghan, Tegnell, Gupta, Sunak, and the Lockdown Sceptics. And by paying the price of those thousands upon thousands of bereaved families... they ended up fucking up the economy with an even longer and deeper lockdown, anyway. Thanks to the moronic denialists. [2/2]
Sorry if I missed it in your posts, but on what date were HMG still giving Tegnell, Gupta and Heneghan a hearing?
Mid-September. It was thanks to them that the "circuit breaker" lockdown for early October got canned. Leading to the full-on second wave, letting it get out of control, and needing drastic measures to bring it back under control.
They and the Lockdown Sceptics pressure (via the Covid Recovery Group of Tory MPs) against any restrictions (so it always got worse and needed more and more restrictions) are why we've had such a hell of a winter, and why we've been in lockdown so long.
In an alternate timeline, where they weren't listened to, we locked down in October, saw off the rise, went with tougher Tiers, and kept it all under control without kids missing one day of school or the need for any full-on lockdown.
This is the Sunak/Gupta/Heneghan lockdown - needed thanks to their idiocy.
Except circuit breakers don't work.
Wales tried the circuit break, it was a miserable failure.
Other nations around the globe have tried circuit breaks. Not one of them has succeeded.
So other than that, good point, well done.
They do work. It's coming out of them that doesn't work as well. The four week circuit break in November brought it down. The nine weeks since early January has worked as well.
Call it what you like; we're talking about applying lockdown rules for a given period to bring down infection rates. And every time we've done this, infection rates have dropped.
Lockdowns work, circuit breaks don't. That's the point.
The second you lift the "circuit break" cases instantly start rising again. And if its only 2 weeks that achieves squat since people party "last night of freedom" before the 2 weeks, then party "wahay free again" afterwards counteracting the whole point of just 2 weeks which isn't long enough to do much.
So you can't point to today's lockdown and act as if it would have all been avoidable had we just wished it away with a 2 week circuit break. 2 weeks doesn't work.
If you want a lockdown, fair enough, but then don't complain about having a lockdown. The idea a lockdown could be avoided if we'd just done one for 2 weeks then got back to normal is farcical wishful thinking.
If the 4 weeks in November worked then you can't blame today's lockdown on not having a 2 week one in October.
A circuit breaker is slang for a short lockdown. Can a lockdown be so short as to not work because the "last night party" effect outweighs the gains? Yes. But can a lockdown be long enough to work but still short enough to be called a circuit breaker? Also yes.
Ergo "lockdowns work, circuit breaks don't" = tilt.
How short is short enough to still be called a circuit breaker? Especially when the circuit breaker has been defined as 2 weeks.
If you say that a circuit break works, so long as you don't come out of it, then that is a lockdown not a circuit break. A circuit break only works if you can come out of it in the time stated.
Can you name any country, anywhere, which has had significant case numbers and rising cases which has seen a 2 week circuit break work?
I'm wasn't aware we had an accepted definition of it as being of duration 2 weeks.
Link?
The proposed SAGE circuit break was explicitly for 2 weeks. As Wales tried and it didn't work.
See the Times article Andy linked to that started this discussion.
Yes, I get it now. I was fooled by the way you put it - Lockdowns Work. Circuit breakers Don't.
Like that was a law of science or something. But it was just you being you. It's fine.
It is. SAGE defined a "circuit break" as a 2 week lockdown and it didn't work in Wales, it hasn't worked anywhere in the world as far as I know.
If you don't wish to define a "circuit break" as a 2 week lockdown as SAGE defined it, then how do you define it? Do you consider it to be a lockdown of indeterminate length?
If so what is the difference between a lockdown and a circuit break to you @kinabalu ?
I'd imagine a matter of time. For example, 2 weeks could be the dividing line if that's what you're saying SAGE have handed down as an official definition.
Bit odd though. A 3 week lockdown isn't a circuit breaker? Sounds like it ought to be. Or at least there's a case.
That's utter nonsense. He just wants the (culture) 'war' to continue for clicks, as do some on here. I've just read the statement - in case anybody hasn't, here it is:
"The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan. "The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. Whilst some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately. "Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members."
I just don't get how anybody could interpret that as a "fuck you" statement unless they were positively malign.
PS. I'm really not at all interested in this, but felt provoked enough to comment.
I'm a lockdown sceptic, and I didn't really find much to complain about in what Chris Whitty said. It was pretty factual - 'the modelling shows another surge' etc. Now we might disbelieve the modelling, but he wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't report what it was saying.
And I wouldn't expect deaths to go down to zero. The point is to see deaths in the right context.
Exactly. It joins the flu. There's a touch of paranoia around imo. Perhaps understandably given the strange experience we're living through. It's affecting us all in different ways. Certainly is me. I've forgotten many of the social niceties. Feeling a bit "wild".
I fully expect the timetable to be stuck to. My point earlier was that everyone has their red lines and one person's "Surely they will open up earlier given the stats" is another's "Best to wait a few more months to be sure". Both scenarios should be in anyone's analysis.
I give extension as no more than a 15-1 shot and I'll have a fiver with you on it as you kindly offered.
Hang on. That's ripping yourself off. I only offered you 5s.
Your £5 my £25 - you sure?
I will have a fiver at the 15s you are offering that the lockdown will be extended beyond the current June deadline. If it is extended that's £75 you owe me. If not the fiver's yours.
My post to you at 5:06. I offered you 5/1. Put your monocle in!
15/1 sounds right. I'm up for it. Don't tell me you think it's only a five to one shot that the lockdown will be extended.
Edit: and I like the put your monocle in bit. You can take the boy out of...
Silly ITV. A day after GMB’s best ever ratings. In fact I don’t mind saying that yesterday’s mornings show was the first ITV produced content I have watched in 9 years. Piers was terrifically entertaining and played the part very well. His co-host, I forget her name, was fairly irritating. Hopefully he rocks up somewhere else, maybe on Andy Neil’s new channel I suppose
The thing is by the standards of what Piers Morgan has said and done in the past, claiming Megan Markle is telling porkies seems very low down the list of severity.
That's utter nonsense. He just wants the (culture) 'war' to continue for clicks, as do some on here. I've just read the statement - in case anybody hasn't, here it is:
"The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan. "The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. Whilst some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately. "Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members."
I just don't get how anybody could interpret that as a "fuck you" statement unless they were positively malign.
PS. I'm really not at all interested in this, but felt provoked enough to comment.
Looks like you have just become interested in this
The fecker's going to wind up on News GB isn't he?
Well he is like a massive shit, no matter how many times you flush, it keeps popping back up.
I recently found out what a massive shit Andrew Neil is.
During Neil's time as editor, The Sunday Times backed a campaign to prove that HIV was not a cause of AIDS. In 1990, The Sunday Times serialised a book by an American conservative who rejected the scientific consensus on the causes of AIDS and argued that AIDS could not spread to heterosexuals.
Articles and editorials in The Sunday Times cast doubt on the scientific consensus, described HIV as a "politically correct virus" about which there was a "conspiracy of silence," disputed that AIDS was spreading in Africa, claimed that tests for HIV were invalid, described the HIV/AIDS treatment drug azidothymidine (AZT) as harmful, and characterised the World Health Organization (WHO) as an "Empire-building AIDS [organisation]."
The pseudoscientific coverage of HIV/AIDS in The Sunday Times led the scientific journal Nature to monitor the newspaper's coverage and to publish letters rebutting The Sunday Times' articles.[98] In response to this, The Sunday Times published an article headlined "AIDS – why we won't be silenced", which claimed that Nature engaged in censorship and "sinister intent".[98] In his 1996 book, Full Disclosure, Neil wrote that the HIV/AIDS denialism "deserved publication to encourage debate."
That same year, he wrote that The Sunday Times had been vindicated in its coverage, "The Sunday Times was one of a handful of newspapers, perhaps the most prominent, which argued that heterosexual Aids was a myth. The figures are now in and this newspaper stands totally vindicated... The history of Aids is one of the great scandals of our time. I do not blame doctors and the Aids lobby for warning that everybody might be at risk in the early days, when ignorance was rife and reliable evidence scant." He criticised the "AIDS establishment" and said "Aids had become an industry, a job-creation scheme for the caring classes."
Johnson’s decision [not to lock down] flew in the face of all the advice over the summer from the World Bank, the cross-party group of politicians and leading international public health experts. Some of his advisers were incandescent. “I don’t have sympathy for the government making the same mistake twice,” said a senior source on the Sage committee. “We told them quite clearly what they need to do for it to work. They don’t do that . . . It’s been wishful thinking all the way through. I think that probably characterises Boris Johnson, frankly.” "
...
"Vallance gave an example of what might happen if the current levels of infections were allowed to carry on doubling every week — as they appeared to be doing. This, he said, would lead to around 200-plus deaths per day by the middle of November. It was a shocking prediction that drew scathing criticism — one newspaper quoted an unnamed Tory MP describing them as Messrs “Witless and Unbalanced” for exaggerating the figures. In fact, Vallance had hugely downplayed the predicted November death figures, which would be nearer the 500 daily fatalities upper estimate he had given Johnson a few days earlier. "
...
"On October 30, the operation committee met again in Downing Street. Johnson, Sunak, Gove and Hancock were all present to listen to a presentation from Sir Simon Stevens, head of the NHS, who delivered an unequivocal message: hospitals would be overrun in every part of England within weeks if nothing was done.
The prime minister had no choice. He had to finally give in — despite everything he and his chancellor had said about their determination to avoid locking down. A decision was taken to announce a lockdown after the weekend. But fearing that Johnson might wobble again, someone in the prime minister’s close circle leaked the news to the The Times. The prime minister was forced to call a press conference the next day."
------------
Jesus. The thing is, we all saw this coming at the time. (The other two academics at that meeting other than Tegnell were Gupta and Heneghan. Such a surprise.)
It's only looking back that we can recall just how forecasts of 200 deaths a day were so thoroughly mocked by the lockdown sceptics. We went above that on the 21st of October and we are JUST about to drop below a 200-a-day seven day average now for the first time since then. We were past 350 a day on the 1st of November and past 400 a day by the end of the first week in November.
Thanks a bunch, Heneghan, Tegnell, Gupta, Sunak, and the Lockdown Sceptics. And by paying the price of those thousands upon thousands of bereaved families... they ended up fucking up the economy with an even longer and deeper lockdown, anyway. Thanks to the moronic denialists. [2/2]
Sorry if I missed it in your posts, but on what date were HMG still giving Tegnell, Gupta and Heneghan a hearing?
Mid-September. It was thanks to them that the "circuit breaker" lockdown for early October got canned. Leading to the full-on second wave, letting it get out of control, and needing drastic measures to bring it back under control.
They and the Lockdown Sceptics pressure (via the Covid Recovery Group of Tory MPs) against any restrictions (so it always got worse and needed more and more restrictions) are why we've had such a hell of a winter, and why we've been in lockdown so long.
In an alternate timeline, where they weren't listened to, we locked down in October, saw off the rise, went with tougher Tiers, and kept it all under control without kids missing one day of school or the need for any full-on lockdown.
This is the Sunak/Gupta/Heneghan lockdown - needed thanks to their idiocy.
Except circuit breakers don't work.
Wales tried the circuit break, it was a miserable failure.
Other nations around the globe have tried circuit breaks. Not one of them has succeeded.
So other than that, good point, well done.
They do work. It's coming out of them that doesn't work as well. The four week circuit break in November brought it down. The nine weeks since early January has worked as well.
Call it what you like; we're talking about applying lockdown rules for a given period to bring down infection rates. And every time we've done this, infection rates have dropped.
Lockdowns work, circuit breaks don't. That's the point.
The second you lift the "circuit break" cases instantly start rising again. And if its only 2 weeks that achieves squat since people party "last night of freedom" before the 2 weeks, then party "wahay free again" afterwards counteracting the whole point of just 2 weeks which isn't long enough to do much.
So you can't point to today's lockdown and act as if it would have all been avoidable had we just wished it away with a 2 week circuit break. 2 weeks doesn't work.
If you want a lockdown, fair enough, but then don't complain about having a lockdown. The idea a lockdown could be avoided if we'd just done one for 2 weeks then got back to normal is farcical wishful thinking.
If the 4 weeks in November worked then you can't blame today's lockdown on not having a 2 week one in October.
A circuit breaker is slang for a short lockdown. Can a lockdown be so short as to not work because the "last night party" effect outweighs the gains? Yes. But can a lockdown be long enough to work but still short enough to be called a circuit breaker? Also yes.
Ergo "lockdowns work, circuit breaks don't" = tilt.
How short is short enough to still be called a circuit breaker? Especially when the circuit breaker has been defined as 2 weeks.
If you say that a circuit break works, so long as you don't come out of it, then that is a lockdown not a circuit break. A circuit break only works if you can come out of it in the time stated.
Can you name any country, anywhere, which has had significant case numbers and rising cases which has seen a 2 week circuit break work?
I'm wasn't aware we had an accepted definition of it as being of duration 2 weeks.
Link?
The proposed SAGE circuit break was explicitly for 2 weeks. As Wales tried and it didn't work.
See the Times article Andy linked to that started this discussion.
Yes, I get it now. I was fooled by the way you put it - Lockdowns Work. Circuit breakers Don't.
Like that was a law of science or something. But it was just you being you. It's fine.
It is. SAGE defined a "circuit break" as a 2 week lockdown and it didn't work in Wales, it hasn't worked anywhere in the world as far as I know.
If you don't wish to define a "circuit break" as a 2 week lockdown as SAGE defined it, then how do you define it? Do you consider it to be a lockdown of indeterminate length?
If so what is the difference between a lockdown and a circuit break to you @kinabalu ?
I'd imagine a matter of time. For example, 2 weeks could be the dividing line if that's what you're saying SAGE have handed down as an official definition.
Bit odd though. A 3 week lockdown isn't a circuit breaker? Sounds like it ought to be. Or at least there's a case.
What do the WHO say?
Coming next to pb - how many angels can dance on the head of a pin...
In all seriousness I suspect there is no definition of circuit breaker in the context of disease spread. After all it was an analogy that was introduced at the time. I think the issue is that the length suggested, be it two weeks or three would never be long enough to really suppress the virus. We have seen that it takes eight or more weeks both times we have done this seriously. Two or three would not suppress cases enough to prevent a strong rebound, fairly soon after the release.
The thing is by the standards of what Piers Morgan has said and done in the past, claiming Megan Markle is telling porkies seems very low down the list of severity.
That's utter nonsense. He just wants the (culture) 'war' to continue for clicks, as do some on here. I've just read the statement - in case anybody hasn't, here it is:
"The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan. "The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. Whilst some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately. "Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members."
I just don't get how anybody could interpret that as a "fuck you" statement unless they were positively malign.
PS. I'm really not at all interested in this, but felt provoked enough to comment.
"Full extent" = you didn't tell us at the time "Recollections may vary" = we can't call you a liar Harry, but we think you are "Addressed privately by the family" = fuck you for airing the dirty laundry
That's utter nonsense. He just wants the (culture) 'war' to continue for clicks, as do some on here. I've just read the statement - in case anybody hasn't, here it is:
"The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan. "The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. Whilst some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately. "Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members."
I just don't get how anybody could interpret that as a "fuck you" statement unless they were positively malign.
PS. I'm really not at all interested in this, but felt provoked enough to comment.
I am not malign. It’s clearly a f*** you. It’s a rebuttal but with the caveat that we don’t intend to air the dirty laundry in public.
1) Your story is news to us. 2) your allegations are serious and are not true 3) we’ll be having words with you in private 4) you are plain old Harry and Meg, don’t get too attached to your titles
The fecker's going to wind up on News GB isn't he?
Well he is like a massive shit, no matter how many times you flush, it keeps popping back up.
I recently found out what a massive shit Andrew Neil is.
During Neil's time as editor, The Sunday Times backed a campaign to prove that HIV was not a cause of AIDS. In 1990, The Sunday Times serialised a book by an American conservative who rejected the scientific consensus on the causes of AIDS and argued that AIDS could not spread to heterosexuals.
Articles and editorials in The Sunday Times cast doubt on the scientific consensus, described HIV as a "politically correct virus" about which there was a "conspiracy of silence," disputed that AIDS was spreading in Africa, claimed that tests for HIV were invalid, described the HIV/AIDS treatment drug azidothymidine (AZT) as harmful, and characterised the World Health Organization (WHO) as an "Empire-building AIDS [organisation]."
The pseudoscientific coverage of HIV/AIDS in The Sunday Times led the scientific journal Nature to monitor the newspaper's coverage and to publish letters rebutting The Sunday Times' articles.[98] In response to this, The Sunday Times published an article headlined "AIDS – why we won't be silenced", which claimed that Nature engaged in censorship and "sinister intent".[98] In his 1996 book, Full Disclosure, Neil wrote that the HIV/AIDS denialism "deserved publication to encourage debate."
That same year, he wrote that The Sunday Times had been vindicated in its coverage, "The Sunday Times was one of a handful of newspapers, perhaps the most prominent, which argued that heterosexual Aids was a myth. The figures are now in and this newspaper stands totally vindicated... The history of Aids is one of the great scandals of our time. I do not blame doctors and the Aids lobby for warning that everybody might be at risk in the early days, when ignorance was rife and reliable evidence scant." He criticised the "AIDS establishment" and said "Aids had become an industry, a job-creation scheme for the caring classes."
Post a link to that to him on Twitter and you get an insta block (accompanied by a public announcement of such for the approbation and likes of his adoring fanclub).
Silly ITV. A day after GMB’s best ever ratings. In fact I don’t mind saying that yesterday’s mornings show was the first ITV produced content I have watched in 9 years. Piers was terrifically entertaining and played the part very well. His co-host, I forget her name, was fairly irritating. Hopefully he rocks up somewhere else, maybe on Andy Neil’s new channel I suppose
That's utter nonsense. He just wants the (culture) 'war' to continue for clicks, as do some on here. I've just read the statement - in case anybody hasn't, here it is:
"The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan. "The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. Whilst some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately. "Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members."
I just don't get how anybody could interpret that as a "fuck you" statement unless they were positively malign.
PS. I'm really not at all interested in this, but felt provoked enough to comment.
"Full extent" = you didn't tell us at the time "Recollections may vary" = we can't call you a liar Harry, but we think you are "Addressed privately by the family" = fuck you for airing the dirty laundry
Is my reading of it.
Or more simply - "we dispute their version of events and that's all we're saying on the matter publicly". Which is fine.
That's utter nonsense. He just wants the (culture) 'war' to continue for clicks, as do some on here. I've just read the statement - in case anybody hasn't, here it is:
"The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan. "The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. Whilst some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately. "Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members."
I just don't get how anybody could interpret that as a "fuck you" statement unless they were positively malign.
PS. I'm really not at all interested in this, but felt provoked enough to comment.
I'll translate:
"The family does not understand what Meghan and Harry have to complain about. "The racism card is over-played and the comment made was not as reported. "We have already looked into this to the extent we intend to and will say nothing further. "Meghan and Harry are acting like little shits"
That's utter nonsense. He just wants the (culture) 'war' to continue for clicks, as do some on here. I've just read the statement - in case anybody hasn't, here it is:
"The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan. "The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. Whilst some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately. "Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members."
I just don't get how anybody could interpret that as a "fuck you" statement unless they were positively malign.
PS. I'm really not at all interested in this, but felt provoked enough to comment.
"Full extent" = you didn't tell us at the time "Recollections may vary" = we can't call you a liar Harry, but we think you are "Addressed privately by the family" = fuck you for airing the dirty laundry
Is my reading of it.
The periodic ambiguities and careful qualifications, while still sounding like the Queen's natural voice, are part of what makes it such a good statement ; that doesn't remotely make it the "fuck you" parts of the press desperately want it to be, though. Key things are conceded, simply with qualifications.
I've been pondering Bitcoin and the other crypto-currencies. I'm entirely sure they are worth nothing. Some many months ago I contemplated shorting them on that basis, and I'm pleased that I didn't clearly. Doesn't change my view though. I can't imagine I'll ever buy or sell these things.
So I'd like to ask a question. If Bitcoin and the rest of the house of cards falls what else does?
The thing is by the standards of what Piers Morgan has said and done in the past, claiming Megan Markle is telling porkies seems very low down the list of severity.
That's utter nonsense. He just wants the (culture) 'war' to continue for clicks, as do some on here. I've just read the statement - in case anybody hasn't, here it is:
"The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan. "The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. Whilst some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately. "Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members."
I just don't get how anybody could interpret that as a "fuck you" statement unless they were positively malign.
PS. I'm really not at all interested in this, but felt provoked enough to comment.
"Full extent" = you didn't tell us at the time "Recollections may vary" = we can't call you a liar Harry, but we think you are "Addressed privately by the family" = fuck you for airing the dirty laundry
Is my reading of it.
Yes - it's as close as the RF come to swearing in public.
The thing is by the standards of what Piers Morgan has said and done in the past, claiming Megan Markle is telling porkies seems very low down the list of severity.
There is a delicious irony in Piers Morgan, the most offensive, stupid and dishonest journalist* alive, finally being sacked for a rare moment of sensible commentary.
*Autocorrect made that ‘joy racist’ for some unknown reason.
The thing is by the standards of what Piers Morgan has said and done in the past, claiming Megan Markle is telling porkies seems very low down the list of severity.
I'm not familiar with the full litany of his remarks historically. It doesn't seem like a sackable offence to say you disbelieve another person, though I suppose it might depend on how he did it (presumably in as arseholish a way as possible).
The fecker's going to wind up on News GB isn't he?
Well he is like a massive shit, no matter how many times you flush, it keeps popping back up.
I recently found out what a massive shit Andrew Neil is.
During Neil's time as editor, The Sunday Times backed a campaign to prove that HIV was not a cause of AIDS. In 1990, The Sunday Times serialised a book by an American conservative who rejected the scientific consensus on the causes of AIDS and argued that AIDS could not spread to heterosexuals.
Articles and editorials in The Sunday Times cast doubt on the scientific consensus, described HIV as a "politically correct virus" about which there was a "conspiracy of silence," disputed that AIDS was spreading in Africa, claimed that tests for HIV were invalid, described the HIV/AIDS treatment drug azidothymidine (AZT) as harmful, and characterised the World Health Organization (WHO) as an "Empire-building AIDS [organisation]."
The pseudoscientific coverage of HIV/AIDS in The Sunday Times led the scientific journal Nature to monitor the newspaper's coverage and to publish letters rebutting The Sunday Times' articles.[98] In response to this, The Sunday Times published an article headlined "AIDS – why we won't be silenced", which claimed that Nature engaged in censorship and "sinister intent".[98] In his 1996 book, Full Disclosure, Neil wrote that the HIV/AIDS denialism "deserved publication to encourage debate."
That same year, he wrote that The Sunday Times had been vindicated in its coverage, "The Sunday Times was one of a handful of newspapers, perhaps the most prominent, which argued that heterosexual Aids was a myth. The figures are now in and this newspaper stands totally vindicated... The history of Aids is one of the great scandals of our time. I do not blame doctors and the Aids lobby for warning that everybody might be at risk in the early days, when ignorance was rife and reliable evidence scant." He criticised the "AIDS establishment" and said "Aids had become an industry, a job-creation scheme for the caring classes."
Post a link to that to him on Twitter and you get an insta block (accompanied by a public announcement of such for the approbation and likes of his adoring fanclub).
I've been pondering Bitcoin and the other crypto-currencies. I'm entirely sure they are worth nothing. Some many months ago I contemplated shorting them on that basis, and I'm pleased that I didn't clearly. Doesn't change my view though. I can't imagine I'll ever buy or sell these things.
So I'd like to ask a question. If Bitcoin and the rest of the house of cards falls what else does?
I mean, aren't they worth what people think they're worth? A bit like fiat currency in some ways.
Silly ITV. A day after GMB’s best ever ratings. In fact I don’t mind saying that yesterday’s mornings show was the first ITV produced content I have watched in 9 years. Piers was terrifically entertaining and played the part very well. His co-host, I forget her name, was fairly irritating. Hopefully he rocks up somewhere else, maybe on Andy Neil’s new channel I suppose
Susannah Reid.
Susannah. That’s it. I felt a bit sorry for her, she never seemed to get a word in and had her part written as the dull restraining force on the Piers Morgan whirlwind. If the show’s going to work, they need to get someone like Larry Fox in to keep the conflict and chaos going. Otherwise it’s going to just be a dull magazine that serves as morning wall paper for the lobotomised.
I've been pondering Bitcoin and the other crypto-currencies. I'm entirely sure they are worth nothing. Some many months ago I contemplated shorting them on that basis, and I'm pleased that I didn't clearly. Doesn't change my view though. I can't imagine I'll ever buy or sell these things.
So I'd like to ask a question. If Bitcoin and the rest of the house of cards falls what else does?
The thing is by the standards of what Piers Morgan has said and done in the past, claiming Megan Markle is telling porkies seems very low down the list of severity.
ITV are partners with the charity MIND who were rightly scathing about Piers Morgan's remarks. Its not just that he accused her of telling porkies, he crossed the line in attacking mental health, which ITV are running a campaign about.
Johnson’s decision [not to lock down] flew in the face of all the advice over the summer from the World Bank, the cross-party group of politicians and leading international public health experts. Some of his advisers were incandescent. “I don’t have sympathy for the government making the same mistake twice,” said a senior source on the Sage committee. “We told them quite clearly what they need to do for it to work. They don’t do that . . . It’s been wishful thinking all the way through. I think that probably characterises Boris Johnson, frankly.” "
...
"Vallance gave an example of what might happen if the current levels of infections were allowed to carry on doubling every week — as they appeared to be doing. This, he said, would lead to around 200-plus deaths per day by the middle of November. It was a shocking prediction that drew scathing criticism — one newspaper quoted an unnamed Tory MP describing them as Messrs “Witless and Unbalanced” for exaggerating the figures. In fact, Vallance had hugely downplayed the predicted November death figures, which would be nearer the 500 daily fatalities upper estimate he had given Johnson a few days earlier. "
...
"On October 30, the operation committee met again in Downing Street. Johnson, Sunak, Gove and Hancock were all present to listen to a presentation from Sir Simon Stevens, head of the NHS, who delivered an unequivocal message: hospitals would be overrun in every part of England within weeks if nothing was done.
The prime minister had no choice. He had to finally give in — despite everything he and his chancellor had said about their determination to avoid locking down. A decision was taken to announce a lockdown after the weekend. But fearing that Johnson might wobble again, someone in the prime minister’s close circle leaked the news to the The Times. The prime minister was forced to call a press conference the next day."
------------
Jesus. The thing is, we all saw this coming at the time. (The other two academics at that meeting other than Tegnell were Gupta and Heneghan. Such a surprise.)
It's only looking back that we can recall just how forecasts of 200 deaths a day were so thoroughly mocked by the lockdown sceptics. We went above that on the 21st of October and we are JUST about to drop below a 200-a-day seven day average now for the first time since then. We were past 350 a day on the 1st of November and past 400 a day by the end of the first week in November.
Thanks a bunch, Heneghan, Tegnell, Gupta, Sunak, and the Lockdown Sceptics. And by paying the price of those thousands upon thousands of bereaved families... they ended up fucking up the economy with an even longer and deeper lockdown, anyway. Thanks to the moronic denialists. [2/2]
Sorry if I missed it in your posts, but on what date were HMG still giving Tegnell, Gupta and Heneghan a hearing?
Mid-September. It was thanks to them that the "circuit breaker" lockdown for early October got canned. Leading to the full-on second wave, letting it get out of control, and needing drastic measures to bring it back under control.
They and the Lockdown Sceptics pressure (via the Covid Recovery Group of Tory MPs) against any restrictions (so it always got worse and needed more and more restrictions) are why we've had such a hell of a winter, and why we've been in lockdown so long.
In an alternate timeline, where they weren't listened to, we locked down in October, saw off the rise, went with tougher Tiers, and kept it all under control without kids missing one day of school or the need for any full-on lockdown.
This is the Sunak/Gupta/Heneghan lockdown - needed thanks to their idiocy.
Except circuit breakers don't work.
Wales tried the circuit break, it was a miserable failure.
Other nations around the globe have tried circuit breaks. Not one of them has succeeded.
So other than that, good point, well done.
They do work. It's coming out of them that doesn't work as well. The four week circuit break in November brought it down. The nine weeks since early January has worked as well.
Call it what you like; we're talking about applying lockdown rules for a given period to bring down infection rates. And every time we've done this, infection rates have dropped.
Lockdowns work, circuit breaks don't. That's the point.
The second you lift the "circuit break" cases instantly start rising again. And if its only 2 weeks that achieves squat since people party "last night of freedom" before the 2 weeks, then party "wahay free again" afterwards counteracting the whole point of just 2 weeks which isn't long enough to do much.
So you can't point to today's lockdown and act as if it would have all been avoidable had we just wished it away with a 2 week circuit break. 2 weeks doesn't work.
If you want a lockdown, fair enough, but then don't complain about having a lockdown. The idea a lockdown could be avoided if we'd just done one for 2 weeks then got back to normal is farcical wishful thinking.
If the 4 weeks in November worked then you can't blame today's lockdown on not having a 2 week one in October.
A circuit breaker is slang for a short lockdown. Can a lockdown be so short as to not work because the "last night party" effect outweighs the gains? Yes. But can a lockdown be long enough to work but still short enough to be called a circuit breaker? Also yes.
Ergo "lockdowns work, circuit breaks don't" = tilt.
How short is short enough to still be called a circuit breaker? Especially when the circuit breaker has been defined as 2 weeks.
If you say that a circuit break works, so long as you don't come out of it, then that is a lockdown not a circuit break. A circuit break only works if you can come out of it in the time stated.
Can you name any country, anywhere, which has had significant case numbers and rising cases which has seen a 2 week circuit break work?
I'm wasn't aware we had an accepted definition of it as being of duration 2 weeks.
Link?
The proposed SAGE circuit break was explicitly for 2 weeks. As Wales tried and it didn't work.
See the Times article Andy linked to that started this discussion.
Yes, I get it now. I was fooled by the way you put it - Lockdowns Work. Circuit breakers Don't.
Like that was a law of science or something. But it was just you being you. It's fine.
It is. SAGE defined a "circuit break" as a 2 week lockdown and it didn't work in Wales, it hasn't worked anywhere in the world as far as I know.
If you don't wish to define a "circuit break" as a 2 week lockdown as SAGE defined it, then how do you define it? Do you consider it to be a lockdown of indeterminate length?
If so what is the difference between a lockdown and a circuit break to you @kinabalu ?
I'd imagine a matter of time. For example, 2 weeks could be the dividing line if that's what you're saying SAGE have handed down as an official definition.
Bit odd though. A 3 week lockdown isn't a circuit breaker? Sounds like it ought to be. Or at least there's a case.
What do the WHO say?
Coming next to pb - how many angels can dance on the head of a pin...
In all seriousness I suspect there is no definition of circuit breaker in the context of disease spread. After all it was an analogy that was introduced at the time. I think the issue is that the length suggested, be it two weeks or three would never be long enough to really suppress the virus. We have seen that it takes eight or more weeks both times we have done this seriously. Two or three would not suppress cases enough to prevent a strong rebound, fairly soon after the release.
The SAGE objective was not to suppress the virus but slow its growth so that we would go into winter from a lower base, and thereby protect the NHS from overload. In the black and white world of arguments today, this was ignored and forgotten and circuit breakers are judged on whether they could magically stop the virus in two or three weeks. Of course they cant. Any level of reduced interaction would have reduced the spread. Whether it would have reduced the spread enough to make it worthwhile we shall never know, you would need to run hundreds of trials or more to get a good idea.
I've been pondering Bitcoin and the other crypto-currencies. I'm entirely sure they are worth nothing. Some many months ago I contemplated shorting them on that basis, and I'm pleased that I didn't clearly. Doesn't change my view though. I can't imagine I'll ever buy or sell these things.
So I'd like to ask a question. If Bitcoin and the rest of the house of cards falls what else does?
I mean, aren't they worth what people think they're worth? A bit like fiat currency in some ways.
What is your opinion on NFTs?
It's funny, I've spent all of today reading and starting to compile a report about NFTs and cryptocurrencies in relation to unexplained wealth orders (and AMLs).
In short, you're fecked if you become wealthy on the basis of an NFT and/or cryptocurrency.
The fecker's going to wind up on News GB isn't he?
Well he is like a massive shit, no matter how many times you flush, it keeps popping back up.
I recently found out what a massive shit Andrew Neil is.
During Neil's time as editor, The Sunday Times backed a campaign to prove that HIV was not a cause of AIDS. In 1990, The Sunday Times serialised a book by an American conservative who rejected the scientific consensus on the causes of AIDS and argued that AIDS could not spread to heterosexuals.
Articles and editorials in The Sunday Times cast doubt on the scientific consensus, described HIV as a "politically correct virus" about which there was a "conspiracy of silence," disputed that AIDS was spreading in Africa, claimed that tests for HIV were invalid, described the HIV/AIDS treatment drug azidothymidine (AZT) as harmful, and characterised the World Health Organization (WHO) as an "Empire-building AIDS [organisation]."
The pseudoscientific coverage of HIV/AIDS in The Sunday Times led the scientific journal Nature to monitor the newspaper's coverage and to publish letters rebutting The Sunday Times' articles.[98] In response to this, The Sunday Times published an article headlined "AIDS – why we won't be silenced", which claimed that Nature engaged in censorship and "sinister intent".[98] In his 1996 book, Full Disclosure, Neil wrote that the HIV/AIDS denialism "deserved publication to encourage debate."
That same year, he wrote that The Sunday Times had been vindicated in its coverage, "The Sunday Times was one of a handful of newspapers, perhaps the most prominent, which argued that heterosexual Aids was a myth. The figures are now in and this newspaper stands totally vindicated... The history of Aids is one of the great scandals of our time. I do not blame doctors and the Aids lobby for warning that everybody might be at risk in the early days, when ignorance was rife and reliable evidence scant." He criticised the "AIDS establishment" and said "Aids had become an industry, a job-creation scheme for the caring classes."
Silly ITV. A day after GMB’s best ever ratings. In fact I don’t mind saying that yesterday’s mornings show was the first ITV produced content I have watched in 9 years. Piers was terrifically entertaining and played the part very well. His co-host, I forget her name, was fairly irritating. Hopefully he rocks up somewhere else, maybe on Andy Neil’s new channel I suppose
That's utter nonsense. He just wants the (culture) 'war' to continue for clicks, as do some on here. I've just read the statement - in case anybody hasn't, here it is:
"The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan. "The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. Whilst some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately. "Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members."
I just don't get how anybody could interpret that as a "fuck you" statement unless they were positively malign.
PS. I'm really not at all interested in this, but felt provoked enough to comment.
I'll translate:
"The family does not understand what Meghan and Harry have to complain about. "The racism card is over-played and the comment made was not as reported. "We have already looked into this to the extent we intend to and will say nothing further. "Meghan and Harry are acting like little shits"
The statement is saying that they are 'much loved', not that they are angry with them ( I doubt this is universally true of the royal family's response ) , and that "issues", the modern way of saying a major or divisive social concern, are "concerning". The fact that there are also enough qualifications in there, to satisfy conservatives that royal dignity is subtly being protected, is part of the high quality of the statement, but that doesn't remotely make it "a massive fuck you".
Comments
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1369346477529706508?s=19
Your £5 my £25 - you sure?
https://twitter.com/LarsJohanL/status/1369335752191008776
I believe the J&J vaccine represents a large chunk of their contracted supply.
Oh you mean that type of cruise....
https://twitter.com/TheRegister/status/1369348021268459526
That said, even knowing a certain amount now, I still find dressage hard to watch unless it is my daughter riding.
She, on the other had, claims it is THE most intellectual sport. I guess she's called us dressage-doubters out.
If you're in the Netherlands you may well see little vaccination now and a bill for the vaccination effort elsewhere later.
The EU is very good at weathering these sorts of things, but they have an enormously challenging few years ahead.
If you don't wish to define a "circuit break" as a 2 week lockdown as SAGE defined it, then how do you define it? Do you consider it to be a lockdown of indeterminate length?
If so what is the difference between a lockdown and a circuit break to you @kinabalu ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_cruising_in_England_and_Wales
Not for me. I get it but I can't abide it which I appreciate is probably my failing. Not sure there are many horses in the wild, or anywhere for that matter, happily doing flying changes or piaffes.
https://twitter.com/DavidJ_Farrell/status/1369352625955741699
Bit odd though. A 3 week lockdown isn't a circuit breaker? Sounds like it ought to be. Or at least there's a case.
What do the WHO say?
Surely we can all now agree some good has come out of the Harry and Meghan interview?
"The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan.
"The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. Whilst some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately.
"Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members."
I just don't get how anybody could interpret that as a "fuck you" statement unless they were positively malign.
PS. I'm really not at all interested in this, but felt provoked enough to comment.
Edit: and I like the put your monocle in bit. You can take the boy out of...
"Yeah? Whatchyer gonna do about it, Brussels?"
Isn't that what he accused H+M of doing?
Arsehole.
And by ignoring News GB we'll never see either of them again - a double win.
Maybe this time one of them will actually demonstrate they live up to the title....
During Neil's time as editor, The Sunday Times backed a campaign to prove that HIV was not a cause of AIDS. In 1990, The Sunday Times serialised a book by an American conservative who rejected the scientific consensus on the causes of AIDS and argued that AIDS could not spread to heterosexuals.
Articles and editorials in The Sunday Times cast doubt on the scientific consensus, described HIV as a "politically correct virus" about which there was a "conspiracy of silence," disputed that AIDS was spreading in Africa, claimed that tests for HIV were invalid, described the HIV/AIDS treatment drug azidothymidine (AZT) as harmful, and characterised the World Health Organization (WHO) as an "Empire-building AIDS [organisation]."
The pseudoscientific coverage of HIV/AIDS in The Sunday Times led the scientific journal Nature to monitor the newspaper's coverage and to publish letters rebutting The Sunday Times' articles.[98] In response to this, The Sunday Times published an article headlined "AIDS – why we won't be silenced", which claimed that Nature engaged in censorship and "sinister intent".[98] In his 1996 book, Full Disclosure, Neil wrote that the HIV/AIDS denialism "deserved publication to encourage debate."
That same year, he wrote that The Sunday Times had been vindicated in its coverage, "The Sunday Times was one of a handful of newspapers, perhaps the most prominent, which argued that heterosexual Aids was a myth. The figures are now in and this newspaper stands totally vindicated... The history of Aids is one of the great scandals of our time. I do not blame doctors and the Aids lobby for warning that everybody might be at risk in the early days, when ignorance was rife and reliable evidence scant." He criticised the "AIDS establishment" and said "Aids had become an industry, a job-creation scheme for the caring classes."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Neil#HIV/AIDS
In all seriousness I suspect there is no definition of circuit breaker in the context of disease spread. After all it was an analogy that was introduced at the time. I think the issue is that the length suggested, be it two weeks or three would never be long enough to really suppress the virus. We have seen that it takes eight or more weeks both times we have done this seriously. Two or three would not suppress cases enough to prevent a strong rebound, fairly soon after the release.
"Recollections may vary" = we can't call you a liar Harry, but we think you are
"Addressed privately by the family" = fuck you for airing the dirty laundry
Is my reading of it.
1) Your story is news to us. 2) your allegations are serious and are not true 3) we’ll be having words with you in private 4) you are plain old Harry and Meg, don’t get too attached to your titles
One night stands became legal again as of yesterday, provided you do it outside.
"The family does not understand what Meghan and Harry have to complain about.
"The racism card is over-played and the comment made was not as reported.
"We have already looked into this to the extent we intend to and will say nothing further.
"Meghan and Harry are acting like little shits"
I've been pondering Bitcoin and the other crypto-currencies. I'm entirely sure they are worth nothing. Some many months ago I contemplated shorting them on that basis, and I'm pleased that I didn't clearly. Doesn't change my view though. I can't imagine I'll ever buy or sell these things.
So I'd like to ask a question. If Bitcoin and the rest of the house of cards falls what else does?
*Autocorrect made that ‘joy racist’ for some unknown reason.
What is your opinion on NFTs?
This thread has just been sacked by ITV!
https://metro.co.uk/2021/03/08/mind-hits-out-piers-morgan-for-questioning-meghan-markle-mental-health-14210838/
https://twitter.com/MindCharity/status/1369003597103529985
In short, you're fecked if you become wealthy on the basis of an NFT and/or cryptocurrency.